Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

More Global Warming Lies; 2014 Almost Certainly Not the Warmest Year on Record

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

How do you know when global warming alarmists are lying? Well, there is no hard and fast rule here, but a good rule of thumb is “when their lips are moving.”

On January 16 NASA issued a much heralded press release claiming that 2014 was the warmest year since temperature records have been maintained. Given the 17-year long pause in global warming, when I saw that headline my immediate response: “That’s probably not true; in a few days investigative journalists will sort the lies out.” I was right.

Britain’s Daily Mail reports:

the NASA press release failed to mention…that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree—or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C—several times as much.

Summary: margin of error one tenth of a degree; alleged difference two hundreds of a degree. The change is five times smaller than the margin of error of the measurement.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted NASA thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.

Global warming: The only area of science where researchers report as absolute fact claims that are almost certainly not true. And why is this? Because for many environmentalists, their work is thinly veiled religious worship. Just like for many Darwinists. And that similarity is why a site devoted to origins reports on the former so often.

Comments
zac says “Current rates of extinction are about 1000 times the background rate of extinction.” I say, So is the increased extinction rate due to future warming? You say, Where do those millions of people go when their farmland is flooded? I say So according to science predicted local flooding equals agricultural "disruption"? What about increased rainfall and prolonged growing seasons for large parts of the globe? you say. Most economists have found that a mixed economy, one with robust markets and a strong public sector, is more likely to experience stable growth in the long run. I say, Is there something in that statement about aggressive regulation? peace PS I'm not going to get into yet another merry go round with you zac. My point has been made, feel free to have the last wordfifthmonarchyman
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
Zachriel @ 42 In regard to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/science/earth/23virginia.html?_r=0 the best you could come up with was two non sequiturs? "Cuccinelli lost the lawsuit." That was awfully convenient, wasn't it? Nevertheless it's irrelevant to the lack of transparency. "Rough drafts are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as published research." So let's see the data behind what was published. Real scientists are not afraid to expose their data and their methodologies to scrutiny.RalphDavidWestfall
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: Is this claim based on science or preconceptions? A simple example of agricultural disruption leading to social disruption. http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/images5/350px-Bangladesh_Sea_Level_Risks.png Where do those millions of people go when their farmland is flooded? To your neighborhood? Pimm et al., The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection, Science 2014: "Current rates of extinction are about 1000 times the background rate of extinction." fifthmonarchyman: Is this claim based on science or preconceptions? Humans are inventive. We know this because we observe that they keep inventing things. It's one of the distinguishing and most endearing of their characteristics. fifthmonarchyman: According to science is economic growth and technological innovation more likely in an environment that is highly regulated or one that is less so? Most economists have found that a mixed economy, one with robust markets and a strong public sector, is more likely to experience stable growth in the long run.Zachriel
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
drc466 @ 63 Excellent summary. Here's the main question I keep asking myself. If the science is so overwhelming, why does it appear that they believe they need to resort to deceptive tactics such as the NASA press release (and by "deceptive tactics" I mean the moral equivalent of a "damned lie") to get people to believe them? Can you imagine Newton or Einstein trying to trick people into believing their theories?Barry Arrington
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Zac says, Changes in climate will almost certainly disrupt agriculture, cause social friction, and destroy much of humanity’s natural inheritance. I say Is this claim based on science or preconceptions? please support your answer scientifically While we are at it could you please define "disrupt" and "natural inheritance" in a scientific way zac says, That is incorrect. Humans are quite inventive people, and certainly have the ability to solve the problem they created. I say, Is this claim based on science or preconceptions? please support your answer especially the "certainly" part Zac says Solving the problem will require continued economic growth and technological innovation. I say, According to science is economic growth and technological innovation more likely in an environment that is highly regulated or one that is less so? peacefifthmonarchyman
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
drc466: Elevations in ocean level are the one reasonably certain harmful impact, and would occur so slowly that the cost of adapting is significantly less than the costs required to prevent. Here’s Florida with a 5 meter rise in sea levels. http://teachingboxes.org/seaLevel/lessons/lesson4_reefs/florida_shore_5m.jpg Any idea how many millions live in the red zone of Bangladesh? http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/images5/350px-Bangladesh_Sea_Level_Risks.png drc466: 5) There is little evidence that man COULD significantly reduce our impact, short of returning to pre-Industrial Revolution technology. That is incorrect. Humans are quite inventive people, and certainly have the ability to solve the problem they created. Returning to pre-Industrial technology will not solve the problem. Solving the problem will require continued economic growth and technological innovation. fifthmonarchyman: Is your position more scientific than the one drc466 expressed in 63? As it is based on science, not preconceptions, yes.Zachriel
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
drc466: 1) Global warming is almost certainly real. After all, it would be ridiculous to expect the earth to maintain a constant temperature, wouldn’t it? The Earth has alternated between warm and cold periods. The last few decades have exhibited anomalous warming. drc466: 2) Man’s use of fossil fuels is most likely a contributor. If you release stored energy, you convert it to heat. Plus you have the apparent impact of increased CO2 contributing to increased climate temperatures. Burning of fossil fuels is almost certainly a contributor to the current warming, but not because of the released energy, but due to changes in the atmosphere. drc466: 3) Man-made warming may be a significant contributor to global warming. The last 15-20 years would seem to provide evidence that other factors (e.g. solar activity) have greater impact than man-made warming. The current warming trend is almost certainly anthropogenic. Solar activity is not the cause. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif drc466: 4) The claim that warmer = worse is controversial and un-proven. Changes in climate will almost certainly disrupt agriculture, cause social friction, and destroy much of humanity's natural inheritance.Zachriel
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
I have a question for the other side. Is your position more scientific than the one drc466 expressed in 63? If so how? Be specific please. while we are at it is Quest's comment at 64 more or less scientific than drc466? Thanks in advancefifthmonarchyman
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
3/4 of northern Canada's ice has disappeared... I have been there; the Eskimos can't get across many destinations coz there is no ice... Many trucking companies are loosing business coz they can't deliver goods over what used to be icy roads over the frozen water... There may be no global warming per say, but something is up...up north of the globe...Quest
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
1) Global warming is almost certainly real. After all, it would be ridiculous to expect the earth to maintain a constant temperature, wouldn't it? 2) Man's use of fossil fuels is most likely a contributor. If you release stored energy, you convert it to heat. Plus you have the apparent impact of increased CO2 contributing to increased climate temperatures. 3) Man-made warming may be a significant contributor to global warming. The last 15-20 years would seem to provide evidence that other factors (e.g. solar activity) have greater impact than man-made warming. 4) The claim that warmer = worse is controversial and un-proven. Elevations in ocean level are the one reasonably certain harmful impact, and would occur so slowly that the cost of adapting is significantly less than the costs required to prevent. 5) There is little evidence that man COULD significantly reduce our impact, short of returning to pre-Industrial Revolution technology. Alternative sources of energy have proven themselves unable to meet modern energy demand (see Solar/Wind, ref. Germany, U.S., Australia, etc.). Nuclear remains the sole effective alternative, but is extremely unpopular with most warmist types. Having said that, I tend to take blogger Glenn Reynold (Instapundit)'s view: I'll believe it's a "Crisis" when the people saying it's a crisis, ACT like it's a crisis. Every last one of these doomsayers burns more carbon in a single plane flight than my car does all year. Not to mention all the energy-hog McMansions they purchase on the (supposedly-rising) ocean fronts. And if you took all the money spent on political climate change junkets and spent it on planting trees, you could reforest the Amazon. Besides - the same group is telling us that fossil fuels are being depleted more rapidly than they are being replenished, so in a hundred years or so, the problem solves itself, right? Want to know where the bias lies? Follow the money, fame, and power. Climate change alarmism is being used for all three - money grab, fame-seeking, and increased government control over businesses and individuals. And there is no way I can support any of that. So for now, I'll just sit back and enjoy the increased crop yields, and tell the warmist alarmists to "sod off, swampy".drc466
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Mapou: I got better things to do. You asked some questions, and you were provided answers to those questions, along with supporting scientific citations. That you don't wish to consider those answers is completely up to you.Zachriel
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
Barry, Other people can read my comments and see well enough what I am and am not saying. Why don't you answer some of the questions put to you? Does this "plateau" you refer to represent a statistically significant change in the rate or warming? Do you stand by the claim made here that a probability 62% is "almost certain" and "overwhelmingly" probable? Or did you perhaps misunderstand the original post, there would be no shame in withdrawing a statement made in confusion, after all.wd400
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
Zachriel, give it a rest, man. You are both a mental midget and mentally ill. I will not argue with someone who insists that he is more than one person and refers to himself as a "we". LOL. I got better things to do.Mapou
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
wd400, you are correct. Your contributions, for instance, have been precious. You're OK with the distribution of false climate alarmism, so long as in your view the false information is not "certainly false" or "overwhelming likely to be false." And a 63% chance that the data is false, in your view, qualifies as neither. Therefore, you believe that touting as undeniable fact an assertion that has a 63% chance of being false is perfectly acceptable. Thank you for illustrating the credulity and bad faith of those pushing the climate alarmist agenda.Barry Arrington
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Mapou: You guys are milking a barren heifer. Handwaving. Do you disagree that there is such as thing as a greenhouse effect? Do you disagree that the oceans are warming? In what way is Meehl et al. wrong?Zachriel
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
Mapou: If CO2 is causing global warming, why is it that, even though humans are generating CO2 at unprecedented rates, the rise in global temperatures has not kept pace with CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the last 20 years or so? If one doesn't cherry pick 1998 as a start point the temperatures show a temperatures following an upward trend, if you have a statistically bent try https://tamino.wordpress.com.velikovskys
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
@54 and 55, You guys are milking a barren heifer. Your replies are just stupid. It pains me to even think about them. :-DMapou
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Mapou: 1. If CO2 is causing global warming, why is it that, even though humans are generating CO2 at unprecedented rates, the rise in global temperatures has not kept pace with CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the last 20 years or so? Because even though the overall heat contained in the Earth's surface (atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere) is increasing, the distribution of that heat is chaotic. Oceans absorb most of the heat. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png Mapou: 2. Assuming that CO2 levels in the atmosphere is the chief cause of the modern rise in global temperatures, why is it that archaeologists are finding thousands of human artifacts under melting glaciers in places like Canada and Norway? As climatologists have discovered, there are many drivers of climate change, including solar irradiance, volcanism, orbital variations, composition of the atmosphere, continental drift, mountain building, albedo, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts. Mapou: How does one distinguish between the global warming that happened back then and our modern global warming? While the distribution of heat through the Earth's surface (atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere) is chaotic, the basic heat equation due to greenhouse warming is fairly direct. If you add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the surface will warm while the upper atmosphere will cool. The open question is the amount of amplification due to water vapor, but various methods have found a climate sensitivity of about 2-4°C. Another way is by looking at all the various forcings, and determining their relative contributions. See Meehl et al., Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate, Journal of Climate 2004. Only CO2 forcing explains the data. http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/Meehl-with-labels-44587810031.jpegZachriel
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Re @53: Oh my gosh, with just a couple of questions Mapou has demolished hundreds or even thousands of dedicated scientist who have been pushing this global warming racket down our throats. How could these numbnuts possibly think they'd get away with ignoring such simple questions? Or it could also be that Mapou's google is broken.hrun0815
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Here are a few questions. I'm sure they've been debated over and over but it's always a good thing to keep them at the forefront of global warming discussions. 1. If CO2 is causing global warming, why is it that, even though humans are generating CO2 at unprecedented rates, the rise in global temperatures has not kept pace with CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the last 20 years or so? 2. Assuming that CO2 levels in the atmosphere is the chief cause of the modern rise in global temperatures, why is it that archaeologists are finding thousands of human artifacts under melting glaciers in places like Canada and Norway? How does one distinguish between the global warming that happened back then and our modern global warming? Does the evidence not show that global warming is a normal occurrence of the earth's climate? Inquiring minds and all that.Mapou
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
This thread is great -- it's as if the IDer/skeptic cohort set out to demonstrate what confirmation bias is. It starts with Barry discounting news, waiting for that great pillar of responsible journalism the Daily Mail to provide a comforting angle, goes on to PaV googling up any link he can find and, as per usual, not being "skeptical" enough to understand the first word of it. Now we have Brent writing cheques the evidence can't cash, so instead of withdrawing the point going of in search of skeptic sites to undermine the evidence in a different way!wd400
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Re @50: And with this the goalposts are successfully shifted: now the charge is not incomplete data release or not publishing the miethids, but the question is now was this guy a TRUE skeptic and are there some bloggers that can sling some mud. And so we backpedal from previous announcements that Mueller is a TRUE sceptic and denial it's like Watts will accept his finding to the standard denial. And maybe along will come an even TRUER sceptic and the dance will begin again. EDIT: It's worth noting how accurately I predicted exactly how Brent will react to the correction of his massive misconceptions about Mueller's BEST study:
Yet, even after clarifying your misconceptions about this for you, I doubt that in your mind this will actually change anything. You and other deniers will likely find another reason to dismiss these findings and wait for a TRUE skeptic scientist who will REALLY delve into the data and CONCLUSIVELY show that that it’s all nonsense made up by alarmists.
hrun0815
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
And before I came back to see your reply, I indeed found what I was looking for. I wrongly assumed that my cursory (twice admitted . . .) review would have quickly turned up the fact of being published in a peer reviewed manner, but it didn't. And I see that his data and methods are also available. And with that . . . I see that his data and methods are subject to the same criticisms as are the long prominent criers'. Not that it is surprising, seeing as there is some question as to whether Mr. Muller was really the skeptic that he was painted as being. Still cursory, mind you, but interesting. http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5946 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4530 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5949 http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5700.htmBrent
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
hrun0815: You are charging Mueller with publishing in the NYT when in fact they published five papers in 2013 on the BEST results. Berkeley Earth: Summary of findings http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findingsZachriel
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
hrun0815: You are charging Mueller with publishing in the NYT when in fact they published five papers in 2013 on the BEST results. Berkeley Earth: Summary of findings http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findingsZachriel
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
hrun0815, You know what I mean. He published in the NYT rather than subjecting his work to peer review. And as far as I understand he did not release his data and methods for scrutiny (but I may be wrong on this — I haven’t checked specifically).
Brent, I know exactly what you MEAN. The question is, do you actually know what is true? And from your post I would conclude: 'No, you do not actually know the truth.' --> You are charging Mueller with publishing in the NYT when in fact they published five papers in 2013 on the BEST results. --> You are saying the did not release the data when in fact BEST has a whole website that releases their collected data along with about 50 source files of the data neatly labeled and collected for other's convenience. --> You are saying that they did not release their methods for scrutiny when in fact both on their website and in their papers they are explicit about the methods. So, yes, we all know what you mean. You had a conclusion about Mueller in mind that actually does not match reality. Yet, even after clarifying your misconceptions about this for you, I doubt that in your mind this will actually change anything. You and other deniers will likely find another reason to dismiss these findings and wait for a TRUE skeptic scientist who will REALLY delve into the data and CONCLUSIVELY show that that it's all nonsense made up by alarmists. EDIT: data: http://berkeleyearth.org/data publications: http://berkeleyearth.org/papers sources of the data: http://berkeleyearth.org/source-files code: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/downloads/Berkeley_Earth_nightly.tar.gzhrun0815
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
hrun0815, You know what I mean. He published in the NYT rather than subjecting his work to peer review. And as far as I understand he did not release his data and methods for scrutiny (but I may be wrong on this --- I haven't checked specifically).Brent
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
Brent, how do you think he should have published instead to actually make a dent? And how was he not open and up front with his data?hrun0815
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Mark, From my very cursory review, I was surprised that this was a couple years ago regarding Richard Muller's article and "conversion". It seems to me that his views have had no noticeable impact on the controversy at all. I would guess that is largely due to how he published his findings, i.e. in the very same vein that he actually decries, not being open and up front with data and grabbing, quite literally, the headlines. It seems to me he can be likened to the latest storm that the alarmist community clasps with herculean tenacity as the latest indisputable evidence of global warming. He was a flash in the pan.Brent
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Re @41: Buffoon alert, buffoon alert. Do not read and do not click on the links. However, if you are interested after all, here is the full link: http://climatecrocks.com/2015/01/09/richard-muller-i-was-wrong-on-global-warming/hrun0815
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply