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
DATCG: From BBC article in 2007… Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013? From the content of the BBC article in 2007:
In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040.
These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.
Brent: So, Al G. et all get it wrong again, and again, and again, and you say they should be let off the hook because they used the qualifier “could”. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-essays/fig4.2-perovich.gif RalphDavidWestfall: See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/science/earth/23virginia.html Cuccinelli lost the lawsuit. Rough drafts are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as published research. DATCG: Is weather cyclical over larger time frames? Yes, if you mean is climate cyclical. DATCG: 125,000 years ago, did humans create global warming that caused 4-5 meter higher sea level? No. 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.Zachriel
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
When this came up a few weeks ago hrun0815 wrote this:
I think that a lot of skeptics could take a look at Richard Muller. A highly trained physicist, Muller was doubtful about many global warming claims, and said so in no uncertain terms in a series of public lectures. Ultimately Muller decided to show all those alarmists wrong. He secured funding from Gates, the Koch brothers and others, surrounded himself with Scirntists that did not have a stake in global warming (yet were highly skilled in math, stats, and other relevant disciplines) and recreated the climate data from scratch. My guess is that many of you know or can guess the results, but it’s still worth listening to him now: http://climatecrocks.com/2015/.....l-warming/
Also Aurelio Smith linked to an article by Muller in the NYT. To quote: CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. As far as I can see none of the sceptical side responded to this. I applaud scepticism but this not a simple subject and somewhere along the line we have to begin to accept the judgement of experts. If you are an expert and you conclude this really is an important and urgent problem and a sceptic insists on revisiting all the data and work you did and ends up agreeing with you - well then you might be forgiven for thinking it is time to move on.Mark Frank
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
Mapou writes
My bad, I meant Vinland.
Pleased you acknowledged the error. Always good to see. But the most likely candidate for Viking Vinland is New England where wild grapes grew and still grow and where wine production is carried on today (Niagara and Finger Lakes for example). I don't think Barry's claim about grape growing holds water.Alicia Renard
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT
All you really need to know about global warming is that the scientists most involved with promoting the concept don't make all their data and methods available for scrutiny by other scientists. See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/science/earth/23virginia.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 which reports that up front and then devotes the rest of the article trying to obfuscate the implications.RalphDavidWestfall
January 20, 2015
January
01
Jan
20
20
2015
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
The other thing to note is that Gore discusses two different projections, and includes the qualifier “could”.
Awesome! So, Al G. et all get it wrong again, and again, and again, and you say they should be let off the hook because they used the qualifier "could". Well, the sun "could" come crashing down to earth in the next 8 minutes. "Could" you, please, explain to me the significance of any statement that anyone makes with the qualifier "could" if they don't mean to imply it was a very real and genuine possibility? Thanks. Just how is it that these charlatans get away with this utter nonsense? We are expected to jump and panic and change our lifestyles at their prophesies, and yet every single prediction and expected result of an increasing global temperature is not only simply disconfirmed, but very often disconfirmed grandly, by the 100% opposite result being observed. The only prediction that is supposedly confirmed is that the measured temperature is increasing. Well, excuse me for having my doubts, since those who are doing the measuring happen to be the same ones who are doing the prophesying. And on top of that, they even feel the distinct need to present an overblown sense of the magnitude of their findings. All I hear, therefore, is that they cannot even justify cooking the books enough to not feel the need to overstate the significance of their findings, which says that they really have no evidence at all. Their lips are moving? (I heard this originally about lawyers, Barry :) ) What can be worse than talking, talking, talking when you don't even know what you're talking about? I'll tell you. Not even caring that you don't know what you're talking about. And THAT is the global warming scientist in a nutshell.Brent
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
Is weather cyclical over larger time frames? Global Temperatures - 350,000 years and CO2 DATCG
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
“Obviously, a single year, even if it is a record, cannot tell us much about climate trends,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, head of earth system analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “However, the fact that the warmest years on record are 2014, 2010 and 2005 clearly indicates that global warming has not ‘stopped in 1998,’ as some like to falsely claim.” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html?_r=0 Does it bother you that your two-faced politicians tell the lie that there is no climate change to the public, then fund the planning of US military base movements from low-lying areas? Look it up....REC
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
"During the last interglacial period 125.000 years ago, temperatures in Greenland were 5 degrees higher and global sea level was 4-5 meters higher than it is today." Zachriel, 125,000 years ago, did humans create global warming that caused 4-5 meter higher sea level?DATCG
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
From BBC article in 2007... Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'DATCG
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Vikings grew barley in Greenland
“Now we can see that the Vikings could grow corn, and this was very important for their nourishment and survival,” he says.
Little Ice Age stopped corn cultivation The Greenland climate was a bit warmer than it is today, and the southernmost tip of the great island was luscious and green and no doubt tempted Eric the Red and his followers. This encouraged them to cultivate some of the seed corn they brought with them from Iceland. The Vikings also tried to grow other agricultural crops. Their attempts to grow these crops and barley did not last long, however, as the climate cooled over the next couple of centuries until the Little Ice Age started in the 13th century.
DATCG
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
DATCG: During the last interglacial period 125.000 years ago, temperatures in Greenland were 5 degrees higher and global sea level was 4-5 meters higher than it is today 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.pngZachriel
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
Mapou: Here’s an example of the kind of lies we can expect from the warmist doomsayers and professional liars. “Arctic ice could be gone in as little as seven years.” When making accusations of lying, it's best to avoid putting words into quotes unless it's an actual quote.
Al Gore: Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html
The other thing to note is that Gore discusses two different projections, and includes the qualifier "could". "Time series of Arctic sea ice extent anomalies in March (the month of maximum ice extent, black symbols) and September (the month of minimum ice extent, red symbols)." http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-essays/fig4.2-perovich.gifZachriel
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable
Climate theories over-turned "The research results are the first direct proof that there was forest in southern Greenland. Furthermore Willerslev found genetic traces of insects such as butterflies, moths, flies and beetles."
During the last interglacial period 125.000 years ago, temperatures in Greenland were 5 degrees higher and global sea level was 4-5 meters higher than it is today
DATCG
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
I don't even know what "overwhelmingly false" means, something is true or it a'int. Evidence might overwhelming support a hypothesis, but are you really trying to say a probability o 62% is "overwhelming" in addition to "almost certain"?wd400
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
Chicago's coldest winter thru 2014 Chicago, where Al Gore's UK company Generation Investment Management invested in Chicago Climate Exchange(CCX). Obama prior to becoming President helped fund CCX through the Joyce Foundation as a Board Member. Politicians and investors like Al Gore pushed Global Warming hysteria, apocalypse and doom, not science. Many like Gore made millions in profit off Global Warming. Like Gore, many might have made billions off of CCX carbon credits through investments. Is this political corruption and greed by Al Gore and others? By some of those involved in CCX investments?DATCG
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
wd400 @ 12: So you admit that it is overwhelmingly false; just not certainly false. And that makes you feel better? Well, whatever gets you through the night.Barry Arrington
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
Alicia Renard @24, My bad, I meant Vinland.Mapou
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Rock beats scissors.
Here's an example of the kind of lies we can expect from the warmist doomsayers and professional liars.
In his 2007 Nobel Prize acceptance speech, former Vice President Al Gore warned that the “Arctic ice could be gone in as little as seven years.” Last week, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution reported:
“The North and South Poles are not melting.” In that report, oceanographer Ted Maksym noted that polar ice “is much more stable than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought.”
That Woods Hole study was confirmed by today’s NOAA Arctic radar map which shows the Arctic Ice Cap at more than 4,000,000 square miles, larger than on any December 28 in the past five years. Reaching the North Pole requires either a dog sled or a nuclear sub; Al Gore’s cruise ship will stay in the tropics. At the South Pole, Antarctic ice coverage is at the highest extent since radar measurement began 35 years ago.
Mapou
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
Mapou asserts:
The vikings used to have vineyards in Greenland.
I can't find any evidence to support this claim. Are you confusing Greenland with Vinland, perhaps?Alicia Renard
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
Mapou: And as we all know, they all have a lame pony in this race. Rock beats scissors. Scissors beat paper. Evidence beats aspersions.Zachriel
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Multiple lines of evidence gathered by independent researchers tell the same story.
And as we all know, they all have a lame pony in this race.Mapou
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Mapou: Not if the evidence is a bunch of made up lies. Multiple lines of evidence gathered by independent researchers tell the same story. National Research Council, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000 Years, The National Academies Press 2006. 2k Consortium, Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia, Nature Geoscience 2013.Zachriel
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
In any case, it’s not the current temperature that’s the problem, but the projected increases over the next century that will cause substantial economic and social disruption, along with permanent losses of humanity’s nature heritage.
All cults have their doom and gloom prophecies and very little science.Mapou
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Mapou: Why should anybody believe anything he says? It’s the evidence that counts, not the messenger.
Not if the evidence is a bunch of made up lies.Mapou
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
The wine-growing business has really taken off in England.
Big deal. The vikings used to have vineyards in Greenland.Mapou
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Mapou: Mann is known liar (hockey stick) and global warming alarmist. Rock beats scissors. Scissors beat paper. Evidence beats aspersions. Mapou: Why should anybody believe anything he says? It's the evidence that counts, not the messenger.Zachriel
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
V @ 2: The data state that there have been no statistically significant increases (or decreases) in global temps for nearly 20 years. We plateaued in about 1998. So, to answer your question, 2010 was about the same. The pause requires a start date of 1998, if you like I can provide a link. If you start the trend in say in 2000 then if you are correct we should see no significant warming, correct? After all it should not matter where on the plateau you start.velikovskys
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
See Mann et al.
Mann is known liar (hockey stick) and global warming alarmist. Why should anybody believe anything he says?Mapou
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
Alicia Renard: the Romans were also keen asparagus growers That would explain Augustus' pet saying, 'Quicker than boiled asparagus.'Zachriel
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Happy New Year to Barry and all fellow commenters. I see there are so many developments in Intelligent Design it will take a while to catch up. The wine-growing business has really taken off in England. I wonder why that could be? :) They even have vineyards in Lancashire and Yorkshire. That's a little further north than Northamptonshire, I think, which is where Roman vineyards were confirmed from pollen analysis. I can't find any references to pollen finds with regard to a Roman vineyard in Lincolnshire. The Romans were also keen asparagus growers and the archaeology is apparently similar.Alicia Renard
January 19, 2015
January
01
Jan
19
19
2015
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply