Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

What do you call "shorter range"? Predictions more than 48 hours ahead *is* still not very good, let alone ten days out.

 

Except for livestock it's not based on skin color.

 

When they are tested against past data that is just as bad as current data then hindcasts are useless.

 

You seem to be under the impression that the way science should be done is how it's actually being done. Specifically, there is a conflation of peer review with reproducibility. We hear so much about "peer review", but a peer saying "that sounds about right" is not the same thing as actually reproducing the results of studies and experiments. Now, when laymen doubt "scientific findings", we generally get an argument like you gave here, often along with being called a "science denier". But it is not science we doubt, it is the rigor with which science is being applied. And we have good reason for those doubts.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

What the above quote means is that unless you know that the specific findings being referring to in any given situation have been successfully reproduced, the chances are more than two to one that they cannot be reproduced, and hence ARE NOT SCIENCE. The smart money says not to believe studies and experiments otherwise. That is the state of science today. Now, you can point to the successes, as you did, but that is cherry picking when the big picture is taken into account.

 

So you're saying all of our atmospheric data, both past and present, is so bad that they are essentially useless? Ya know...pretty much the entire meteorology and climate research community disagrees with you about that.

 

For forecasts of exact conditions at exact times at exact locations our useful skill is about 10 days using ensemble techniques. It can be longer or shorter depending on the current state of the atmosphere. Some states are easier/harder to project forward than others. 48 hour forecasts are considered to be exceptionally good with anomaly correlation scores for most variables (including geopotential heights, temperatures, and wind vectors) are generally about 0.98 where 1.0 is a perfect forecast. 0.6 is considered the lower bound for a skillful forecast where skillful is defined as being better than a forecast based solely on a 30yr climatological average. Note that even a climatological forecast has skill since it is better than guessing.

In some ways climate scale forecasting is easier. We are not interested in precise weather conditions at precise times at precise locations. We are interested in average conditions over larger areas spanning weeks at a minimum and more likely monthly or tri-monthly spans. Though, admittedly, in some ways they are harder especially because they run out so far in time. But, they do still exhibit skill based on ex post facto testing. I realize you'll never believe that though because you think all of our atmospheric data is bad cannot be used for any purpose really, but especially not for climate research.

 

The land/sea data keeps diverging from the RSS data and the weather balloon data, the two data sets that match each other closely and are considered to be far more accurate because less "infilling" and manipulation needs to be done.

The data matched up until 1998. Why did they start diverging then? Why do the climate scientists keep moving the goalpost? First it was wait five years and the data will converge again. Then it was ten years. Then it was twenty years. Now we are being told to wait 50 years or even a century and the data will converge again. We've been over this before and I never got a satisfactory answer.

When will the climate model scientists start trying to match the RSS data instead of the land/sea data?

 

There is no doubt that 48 hour forecasting is better than it has ever been. I'm not sure it is better than my grandfather was, though! Once you get past that it's a crapshoot. You can generally see fronts moving but timing and precipitation accuracy can vary all over the place. And a .6 is just barely above a coin flip, right?

The ex post facto testing is meaningless unless the test data is accurate. If the data is bad then you are just fooling yourself.

It's why the divergence between the land/sea data versus the RSS/weather balloon data is so disturbing. The excuse of "just wait, they will converge again in _ years" just sounds so much like pure stubbornness. It looks like an unwillingness to let go of an accepted meme even in the face of real world evidence.

And I do not think *all* of our atmospheric data is bad. Just the data that seems to be diverging from reality.

 

Being that it's exactly the same situation, it's exactly "reflective" of it.

As the world warms, new warm records and new cold records will continue to be set. That's what the science says. The science also says that new warm records will outnumber new cold records more and more, and that's what's observed. The fact that a new cold record was set somewhere in no way refutes anything about global warming theory.

Now, when new cold records started outnumbering new warm records, that would mean something. Let us know when that happens.

I get it. You're upset because your bad logic had been was ripped apart a year before you tried to use it.

What study?

Being that I'm skeptical (unlike all deniers), I'd say you're just making stories up, unless you can show evidence of your crazy claims.

That's a 2006 study which has nothing to do with adjustments to the temperature record (which have made the warming look smaller).

The sun has already cooled, and temperature has continued to rise. Hence, we know the answer. Temperature will continue to rise.

You and your cult have been predicting this new ice age for over 40 years now. It never arrives. Instead, the world just keeps warming strongly.

Does that shake your faith? No. You're still positive the HolyIceAge will get here RealSoonNow. When your doomsday predictions fail, you just push doomsday off a little more. That's why those outside of your doomsday cult aren't paying any attention to your latest doomsday prediction.

 

Why are you babbling about Paraguay? What brought that on? Does it have something to do with the Paraguay fraud that WUWT tried to push?

 

But it's not diverging. The surface temperature data agrees very well with balloon data and with RSS TLT 4.0.

Now, the balloon data does diverge a great deal from UAH satellite data. The balloon data reads much warmer That demonstrates how the UAH data has a large erroneous cold bias.

Curious then, how deniers now only use data with a large error in it, and declare that the accurate data is all a conspiracy.

 

It has everything with you denigrating single samples when it is to your advantage and praising single samples when it is to your advantage.

It's called hypocrisy!

 

Your own reference graph shows differently. It shows the difference between the land/sea and the RSS *INCREASING* every year since 1998. How big is the divergence going to have to get before you commit the final heresy and actually admit it?

 

Why do deniers exist here in America?

1. We are critical thinkers, we question why, we question authority, we didn't invent thousands of products for nothing.

2. Most of us have been following this story since the 1970s and witnessed the continue name change by the bumbling AGW cult .

3. We all studied ice age and stuff in the 2nd grade

4. We understand the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old not around 140 years old when official temperature records were kept, even then places like Alaska didn't start till the 1950s ...so we don't believe the hype of warmest or coldest day ever.

5. We understand stand technology and human behaviors when it came to temperature equipment and record keeping...how in the world could anyone think they could splice together proxies with thermometers, analog and new age digital equipment and think they could say for a fact the earth warmed up a 0.8 C since 1880 is beyond us.

Oceans accurate temperature's it's even worse.. we have a little GB ship that set sailed around the world in the late 1800s to compare our data with, then 1940s submarine temperatures and the like untill we got presice with ARGO bouys starting In the early 2000s

6. We understand the politics of it, with the likes of the Naomi Kliens of the world and her saying climate change is about "social economic change" (remember she was/is an advisor to the pope)

Or:

Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”


Or former Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department
A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

a 1996 publication “The Holocene”, by T.P. Barnett, B.D. Santer, P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley and K.R. Briffa, says this: “Estimates of…natural variability are critical to the problem of detecting an anthropogenic [human] signal…We have estimated the spectrum…from paleo-temperature proxies and compared it with…general [climate] circulation models…none of the three estimates of the natural variability spectrum agree with each other…Until…resolved, it will be hard to say, with confidence, that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected


7. We understand from testimonies from the likes of Judith Curry vs. Michael Mann to Congress on how much the climate science really does not know how much is man made and how much is it natural variation

8. We understand about government funding and how grants work like with Harvard's climate department sharing it grant monies with it's liberal arts department


https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/climate-change-research-grants

We understand how the fossil fuels also fund the univerties

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/20...-fossil-fuel-giants-despite-divestment-drive/


I could go on and on but most importantly what is more preferable a warming planet or an ICE age?




.

 

Gosh, the seeming "authority" with which you delivered....LOL. Here's the thing. Cold records, like hot records, are certainly transient things, and of course these are expectable. What isn't expectable, and thus makes this unique, is that it sets an absolute record. As in the "COLDEST TEMP EVER", not for a single location, but for the ENTIRE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE for this time of year, not just a day. So, of course the faithful are going to try to dismiss the significance of this, because, clearly it contradicts the dogma. And well, you as well.

NOAA/NASA have already published this data. As in far more "lowest high temps" and "lowest temps" globally, for several years now. I cited it earlier. Perhaps you simply didn't understand the data... And the rest of your post was just one continuous ad hominem.

If you, as you say, are skeptic, then be a skeptic. You seem, at least from your writing, to not be a skeptic. You seem to truly believe. So which is it? The contradiction between what you say you are vs the evidence of what you write seems certainly conflicted.

 

Deniers keep saying "Oh the earth has been warmer in the past"...yea well before man was walking around to FEEL that.

And we have only been dumping added CO2 (in the quantities we are now) into the atmosphere for a little over 200 years...so yea....warming records for that period matter.

And the longer we dither...the more expensive dealing with it will become...if we can deal with it at all at that point

 

Gosh, Man wasn't able to "feel" during the Medieval warming period? And by "feel" you mean what? Be "in touch with themselves"? So, if "warming records matter" then cooling records also matter. You don't just get to have it one way here. I would also suggest that your fear of "cost" ie the "more expensive dealing with it" is simply an assumption. Frankly, it's a bad assumption. Why take such a dim view of this? Do you feel that finding the need to be adaptable to be too much? And if it is, for whom?

 

How warm did the MWP get over what period and what were the effects of that?

 

Despite uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 for which data are scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century in the Northern Hemisphere very likely occurred between 950 and 1100. Proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, indicating that the Medieval Warm Period was not a time of globally uniform change.[7] Temperatures in some regions matched or exceeded recent temperatures in these regions, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures.[4]

Any other stupid shyt you want to parrot?

 

Read a book. On the internet, ostensibly, this is free....

 

Sigh.... Evidently, you failed mud slinging as well... You realize that you've just quoted Michael Mann, right? The crazy guy who created the "hockey stick"? That guy?

So here's the thing. When Mann published that, he still had some credibility. The fact that now, most of his work has had to be either "restated" or is otherwise ignored simply erodes his credibility into nothingness. The guy and his published work fail both the test of time and science. But hey. Glad you fell for it.

 

Read the post above your last.
If you have evidence that the MWP was more than a local event...please post it

 

Regarding Mann

University of Arizona analyzed paleoclimatic data sets such as those from tree rings, ice cores and coral, joining historical data with thermometer readings from the recent past. In 1998 they obtained a "reconstruction" of Northern Hemisphere temperatures going back 600 years; by the next year they had extended their analysis to the past 1,000 years. In 2003 Mann and Philip D. Jones of the University of East Anglia in England used a different method to extend results back 2,000 years.

In each case, the outcome was clear: global mean temperature began to rise dramatically in the early 20th century. That rise coincided with the unprecedented release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the earth's atmosphere, leading to the conclusion that industrial activity was boosting the world's mean temperature. Other researchers subsequently confirmed the plot.

 

Movement. Trading one poor citation for now another (and not actually cited) is a poor tactic. For so many reasons, not the least of which is that you seem then desperate to attempt to now need to demonstrate the veracity of your claim. Think of this as an inflection point, where perhaps you even learn something.

 

I'm sorry...did you cite ANYTHING?

No?