Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[DocTim420]

Weather Channel founder denies climate change, so ‘put me to death’

Weather Channel founder denies climate change, so ‘put me to death’

John Coleman says Al Gore started it — the “global warming silliness.” But now the retired weatherman and founder of The Weather Channel is “horrified” to see San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer channeling the ex-veep with a Climate Action Plan. It “just turns my stomach.”

“I think he saw money and power, and I don’t know what else he thought of it,” Coleman says of the Republican mayor. “I can’t believe he really [felt he] was going to save the city from some terrible fate.”

Coleman, 82, laughs during a lively phone chat from his home near Las Vegas.

“San Diego’s not going to go underwater. Period,” he says. “Not in my lifetime or yours or our kids’ lifetime. When the Earth ends in 4 1/2 billion years, it probably still won’t have flooded.”

He also mocks “the damn tsunami warning route signs that they put up all over the city,” which he calls “about as silly as anything I’ve ever saw in my life. The chance of a significant tsunami hitting Southern California is about as great as a flying saucer landing tonight at Lindbergh Field. It’s just sheer nonsense.”

Coleman also knows how many people regard his decade-old public arguments. As sheer nonsense.

He’s unapologetic.

“I’m just a dumb old skeptic — a denier as they call me — who ought to be jailed or put to death,” he says. “I understand how they feel. But you know something? I know I’m right. So I don’t care.”

Cracks in the wall of "settled science" argument...not everyone agrees.

ww.mynewsla.com/hollywood/2017/08/17/weather-channel-founder-denies-climate-change-so-put-me-to-death/

(add third w to make the link read "www.")

 

[DocTim420]

Most of the Recent Warming Could be Natural

Most of the Recent Warming Could be Natural

OH NO...how can this be? Before the days of the industrial revolution and before the days of burning fossil fuels, there was a warming period during the Medieval Period...that was NOT "man made".

Source: ww.jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/

(add 3rd w to make the link read "www.")

AFTER deconstructing 2,000-year old proxy-temperature series back to their most basic components, and then rebuilding them using the latest big data techniques, John Abbot and I show what global temperatures might have done in the absence of an industrial revolution. The results from this novel technique, just published in GeoResJ [1], accord with climate sensitivity estimates from experimental spectroscopy but are at odds with output from General Circulation Models.

According to mainstream climate science, most of the recent global warming is our fault – caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide. The rational for this is a speculative theory about the absorption and emission of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide that dates back to 1896. It’s not disputed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, what is uncertain is the sensitivity of the climate to increasing atmospheric concentrations.

This sensitivity may have been grossly overestimated by Svante Arrhenius more than 120 years ago, with these overestimations persisting in the computer-simulation models that underpin modern climate science [2]. We just don’t know; in part because the key experiments have never been undertaken [2].

What I do have are whizz-bang gaming computers that can run artificial neural networks (ANN), which are a form of machine learning: think big data and artificial intelligence.

My colleague, Dr John Abbot, has been using this technology for over a decade to forecast the likely direction of particular stock on the share market – for tomorrow.

Since 2011, I’ve been working with him to use this same technology for rainfall forecasting – for the next month and season [4,5,6]. And we now have a bunch of papers in international climate science journals on the application of this technique showing its more skilful than the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s General Circulation Models for forecasting monthly rainfall.

During the past year, we’ve extended this work to build models to forecast what temperatures would have been in the absence of human-emission of carbon dioxide – for the last hundred years.

We figured that if we could apply the latest data mining techniques to mimic natural cycles of warming and cooling – specifically to forecast twentieth century temperatures in the absence of an industrial revolution – then the difference between the temperature profile forecast by the models, and actual temperatures would give an estimation of the human-contribution from industrialisation.

Firstly, we deconstruct a few of the longer temperature records: proxy records that had already been published in the mainstream climate science literature.

These records are based on things like tree rings and coral cores which can provide an indirect measure of past temperatures. Most of these records show cycles of warming and cooling that fluctuated within a band of approximately 2°C.

For example, there are multiple lines of evidence indicating it was about a degree warmer across western Europe during a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). Indeed, there are oodles of published technical papers based on proxy records that provide a relatively warm temperature profile for this period [7], corresponding with the building of cathedrals across England, and before the Little Ice Age when it was too cold for the inhabitation of Greenland.

I date the MWP from AD 986 when the Vikings settled southern Greenland, until 1234 when a particularly harsh winter took out the last of the olive trees growing in Germany. I date the end of the Little Ice Age as 1826, when Upernavik in northwest Greenland was again inhabitable – after a period of 592 years.

The modern inhabitation of Upernavik also corresponds with the beginning of the industrial age. For example, it was on 15 September 1830 that the first coal-fired train arrived in Liverpool from Manchester: which some claim as the beginning of the modern era of fast, long-distant, fossil-fuelled fired transport for the masses.

So, the end of the Little Ice Age corresponds with the beginning of industrialisation. But did industrialisation cause the global warming?

In our just published paper in GeoResJ, we make the assumption that an artificial neural network (ANN) trained on proxy temperature data up until 1830, would be able to forecast the combined effect of natural climate cycles through the twentieth century.

We deconstructed six proxy series from different regions, with the Northern Hemisphere composite discussed here. This temperature series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes. Typical of most such proxy temperature series, when charted this series zigzags up and down within a band of perhaps 0.4°C on a short time scale of perhaps 60-years. Over the longer nearly 2,000-year period of the record, it shows a rising trend which peaks in 1200AD before trending down to 1650AD, and then rising to about 1980 – then dipping to the year 2000: as shown in Figure 12 of our new paper in GeoResJ.

Proxy temperature record (blue) and ANN projection (orange) based on input from spectral analysis for this Northern Hemisphere multiproxy. The ANN was trained for the period 50 to 1830; test period was 1830 to 2000.

The decline at the end of the record is typical of many such proxy-temperature reconstructions and is known within the technical literature as “the divergence problem”. To be clear, while the thermometer and satellite-based temperature records generally show a temperature increase through the twentieth century, the proxy record, which is used to describe temperature change over the last 2,000 years – a period that predates thermometers and satellites – generally dips from 1980, at least for Northern Hemisphere locations, as shown in Figure 12. This is particularly the case with tree ring records. Rather than address this issue, key climate scientists, have been known to graft instrumental temperature series onto the proxy record from 1980 to literally ‘hide the decline’[8].

Using the proxy record from the Northern Hemisphere composite, decomposing this through signal analysis and then using the resulting component sine waves as input into an ANN, we generated a forecast for the period from 1830 to 2000.

Figure 13 from our new paper in GeoResJ shows the extent of the match between the proxy-temperature record (blue line) and our ANN forecast (orange dashed line) from 1880 to 2000. Both the proxy record and also our ANN forecast (trained on data the predates the Industrial Revolution) show a general increase in temperatures to 1980, and then a decline.

Proxy temperature record (blue) and ANN projection (orange) for a component of the test period, 1880 to 2000.

The average divergence between the proxy temperature record from this Northern Hemisphere composite, and the ANN projection for this period 1880 to 2000, is just 0.09 degree Celsius. This suggests that even if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been some warming through the twentieth century – to at least 1980.

Considering the results from all six geographic regions as reported in our new paper, output from the ANN models suggests that warming from natural climate cycles over the twentieth century would be in the order of 0.6 to 1 °C, depending on the geographical location. The difference between output from the ANN models and the proxy records is at most 0.2 °C; this was the situation for the studies from Switzerland and New Zealand. So, we suggest that at most, the contribution of industrialisation to warming over the twentieth century would be in the order of 0.2°C.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates warming of approximately 1°C, but attributes this all to industrialization.

The IPCC comes up with a very different assessment because they essentially remodel the proxy temperature series, before comparing them with output from General Circulation Models. For example, the last IPCC Assessment report concluded that,

“In the northern hemisphere, 1983-2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1,400 years.”

If we go back 1,400 years, we have a period in Europe immediately following the fall of the Roman empire, and predating the MWP. So, clearly the IPCC denies that the MWP was as warm as current temperatures.

This is the official consensus science: that temperatures were flat for 1,300 years and then suddenly kick-up from sometime after 1830 and certainly after 1880 – with no decline at 1980.

To be clear, while mainstream climate science is replete with published proxy temperature studies showing that temperatures have cycled up and down over the last 2,000 years – spiking during the Medieval Warm Period and then again recently to about 1980 as shown in Figure 12 – the official IPCC reconstructions (which underpin the Paris Accord) deny such cycles. Through this denial, leaders from within this much-revered community can claim that there is something unusual about current temperatures: that we have catastrophic global warming from industrialisation.

In our new paper in GeoResJ, we not only use the latest techniques in big data to show that there would very likely have been significant warming to at least 1980 in the absence of industrialisation, we also calculate an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of 0.6°C. This is the temperature increase expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. This is an order of magnitude less than estimates from General Circulation Models, but in accordance from values generated from experimental spectroscopic studies, and other approaches reported in the scientific literature [9,10,11,12,13,14].

The science is far from settled. In reality, some of the data is ‘problematic’, the underlying physical mechanisms are complex and poorly understood, the literature voluminous, and new alternative techniques (such as our method using ANNs) can give very different answers to those derived from General Circulation Models and remodelled proxy-temperature series.

Key References

Scientific publishers Elsevier are making our new paper in GeoResJ available free of charge until 30 September 2017, at this link:

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1VXfK7tTUKabVA

 

[DocTim420]

Al Gore Outsold On Kindle By An E-Book Debunking ‘An Inconvenient Sequel’

Al Gore Outsold On Kindle By An E-Book Debunking ‘An Inconvenient Sequel’

Poor Al Gore-- ww.dailycaller.com/2017/09/04/al-gore-outsold-on-kindle-by-an-e-book-debunking-an-inconvenient-sequel/

(add 3rd w to make link read "www.")

Former Vice President Al Gore’s new book is lagging in sales, and, in fact, is being outsold on Amazon Kindle by an e-book debunking many of the claims made in “An Inconvenient Sequel.”

Climatologist Roy Spencer authored an e-book, “An Inconvenient Deception,” to critique the “bad science, bad policy and some outright falsehoods” in Gore’s latest movie and book, which were released in August. Now, it’s ranked higher in Amazon’s Kindle store.

“There are three big weaknesses in Gore’s new movie: science, economics and energy policy,” Spencer, a noted skeptic of catastrophic global warming, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Gore released the sequel to his widely popular 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth” in August, embarking on a media tour to promote the book and film. But so far, ticket sales have lagged, and even left-wing reviewers have harshly criticized the film.

The e-book published to accompany Gore’s film is ranked #51,031 for purchases in the Kindle Store, according to Amazon.com. Spencer’s book is ranked #1,201 for Kindle Store purchases.

On the media circuit, Gore repeatedly said “every night on the network news is like a nature hike through the Book of Revelations.” His movie points to extreme weather events as evidence of man-made global warming, including the drought in Syria.

“It’s wrong because everything Gore shows in the new movie happens naturally,” said Spencer, who’s been studying Earth’s climate for decades.

Spencer even appeared before Congress for the first time in 1990 before a committee chaired by Gore. He currently compiles satellite-derived global temperature data with Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Gore also points to regular flooding in Miami as evidence that human activities are currently driving more destructive natural disasters. One scene in the film shows Gore and Miami Mayor Philip Levine wading through flooded streets, which is tied to melting glaciers.

“It’s kind of hard to pump the ocean,” Gore says in the film.

“Sea level has been rising steadily at about 1 inch per decade for over 150 years, long before CO2 emissions could be blamed,” Spencer said, noting one of Gore’s most egregious deceptions in the film.

“In Miami Beach, the rise is double because the buildings were built on reclaimed swamp, which is now sinking,” Spencer said. “Video of glaciers calving and Greenland melting is another example, it happens every year, just as it has for thousands of years, and 2017 was a huge snow accumulation year with little melting.”

Probably one of the most notorious scenes in “An Inconvenient Sequel” depicts the 9/11 memorial site flooded during Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

In his 2006 film, Gore predicted the 9/11 memorial site would flood due to glacial melt, which he said would raise sea levels 20 feet. Gore used the one-time flooding event as proof that his global warming predictions came to pass.

“The movie mentions one prediction he thinks he got right, the flooding of the 9/11 memorial,” Spencer said. “But that was due to storm surge, not sea level rise. So in the new move he lied about the storm surge explanation being mentioned in the first movie.”

Gore also claims in the movie that corn and wheat yields in China have been declining because of rising global average temperature.

“Agricultural yields around the world have continued to increase, with no sign of negative effects from global warming,” Spencer said. “His claim that corn and wheat yields in China have decreased in recent decades is, quite simply, false.”

 

[Floridian]

Aww poor Algore lol.It still amazes me that anyone,even those on the far far left would spend a dime reading the BS this guy spews.Here I stand in Tampa with dry feet although we were supposed to be flooded out by 2015.Using a storm surge as proof of his wildly innacurate predictions lol..it's actually quite pitiful almost as pitiful as the people that bought his second book!!

 

[GMT]

In the face of the largest hurricane in record, are the deniers still so sure?

 

[Dog Star]

Good that Floridian is not living on Florida...


blown with a wind but in real time simulation.. Al Gore sucks big time.. dont buy his books and belive to Donald The Mighty Weapon Seller who says "Its only a weather bro..."


You laughed to me when Europe was burn under a 40 C for days and a heat wave with a name of Lucifer burns me and mine fellows Europeans hard..,like its normal,its a weather bro...


Song for you deniers... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld6fAO4idaI


But for real people... mine thoughts are that weather have some extremes and this
Summer was hell for me,too bloody hot and it persist over night you cant sleep properly..
in a morning you wake up drained from sweat and lack of energy as you didnt sleep
hole night,sweating like a frog in a swamp.. i feel this extremes on self and i dont like them at all.

Big changes are already here and i have feel we will not gladly accept them,
nor with a joy,nor with a smile..

 

[DocTim420]

In the face of the largest hurricane in record, are the deniers still so sure?

Hmmm, I thought climate change and "weather" are not the same. To me--climate change, weather, four seasons...all the same.

IMO, the last thing Earth requires is "constant" weather". As in static temps that never vary, no winter, no summer, no rainy season, no clouds....nothing but warm sunny days.

So, can we now use examples of weather to debate "climate change"? Cool! (pun intended).

 

[GMT]

As the climate gets warmer, weather becomes more extreme and the one offs get worse. Didn't know that was in debate.

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get.

Climate is the averaged line on the graph. Weather is the scatter of dots.

But when the weather events consistently break records, we're in new territory. Looks like another big storm is developing behind Hurricane Jose. Time will tell.

 

[alpo]

anyone have pictures of the North Pole from space?

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

anyone have pictures of the North Pole from space?

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/detect/ice-seaice.shtml

 

[DocTim420]

anyone have pictures of the North Pole from space?

Wanna laugh, try viewing pics of the South Pole...specifically, the exact South Pole location. Then ask yourself, "why?".

 

[St. Phatty]

In the face of the largest hurricane in record, are the deniers still so sure?

Hillsborough County - where Tampa is located - is one of the most conservative counties in Florida.

Rush Limbaugh country.

They can deny climate change all they want. It's about to get very wet.

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

Wanna laugh, try viewing pics of the South Pole...specifically, the exact South Pole location. Then ask yourself, "why?".

If you're looking at Google Earth, it's because the images pieced together aren't from polar orbiting satellites. It's like looking straight into a mirror and expecting to see the top of your head.

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[coldcanna]

I love it when folks use extreme weather events to justify this idea. Accurate weather instrumentation wasn't around until the late 1700s and wasn't officially tracked until 1870. Atlantic hurricanes have only been reported for the past 166 years. Even in this period, imagine how many events went unnoticed due to the lack of communication with remote locations around the globe. So at best your data set is 150-200 years old but in all practicality, the advent of air planes, weather balloons, and wide spread radio and telephone use puts us into the early-mid 1900s for when we might have had a broader picture.

So you folks are using a century of weather events to back up your climate ideas of a 4.5 billion-year-old planet. That's the statistical equivalent of studying 200 people and saying your research covers the entire human population. Common folks....

 

[DocTim420]

If you're looking at Google Earth, it's because the images pieced together aren't from polar orbiting satellites. It's like looking straight into a mirror and expecting to see the top of your head.

Hmmm...same problem with all sources (even NOAA)? Funny how the North Pole does not have this problem. Could it be because of the various top secret, multi national, military/science installations there? Hmmm, and why is their concentration greater at the South Pole...than say the North? Pole is a pole, right?

Sorry--IMO, it has nothing to do with the images being pieced together--because technically--all of Google Earth's representations are 100% "images pieced together". And since the earth is basically a ball shaped (actually more elliptical than spherical) the image at any location would be "like looking straight into a mirror and expecting to see the top of your head". Breaking news--earth is not flat, lol.

 

[therevverend]

Well, they do have decent climate data going back a few hundred thousand years. They know when ice ages began, when they ended. The little ice ages, last one a few hundred years ago.
Pollen samples, ice cores, tree rings, seeds tucked away by little varmints. Saying climate is a mystery before 150 years ago is not true.
If they can put a man on the moon, have a good idea of what life was like 200 million years ago in the Triassic, all the other wonders of modern science, they can piece together climate 1000 years ago.
We can pick and choose what part of science we choose to believe. The danger, we use all the genetic engineering, rocket engines, nuclear energy, etc. that science produces without thinking about the consequences. But when science tells us something we don't like we ignore it...
I should add science data isn't left or right. But the people who interpret it can be. And spin it how they want to spin it. Dangerous that the politicians making the decisions are more concerned about winning the next election then what's best for humanity 100 years from now. Big big money has stakes on both sides of the debate.