MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen on ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?’
Dueling Datasets: Satellite
temperatures show no warming for over 18 years, while heavily adjusted
ground based data shows alleged 'hottest year'
NASA and NOAA today proclaimed that 2015 was the ‘hottest year’ on record. See: Warmist Joe Romm: ‘We Just Lived In The Hottest Year On Record’ & Claim: ‘With 2015, Earth Has Back-to-Back Hottest Years Ever Recorded’
Meanwhile, satellite data shows an 18 plus year standstill in global temperatures.
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen balked at claims of the ‘hottest year’ based on ground based temperature data.
“Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend. Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?” Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, told Climate Depot shortly after the announcements.
“All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations. Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity,” Lindzen continued.
“But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen wrote.
Lindzen has previously mocked ‘warmest’ or ‘hottest’ year proclamations.
“When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said in November 2015.
Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”
“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he added.
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks ‘Hottest Year’ Claim: ‘Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing’ – “70% of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”
Climatologist Dr. John Christy said it best: “If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees? The government is not the final word on the truth.”
Update: Heartland Institute’s Joe Bast commented on media coveage of ‘warmest year’:
Bast: “The “news’ story makes no mention of the Congressional investigation of NOAA underway, finding evidence that NOAA falsified its temperature data. No mention that the surface station data aren’t actually global and are known to exaggerate warming trends. And are contradicted by the truly global satellite data, which are in turn validated by weather balloon data. Or that saying “reliable global record-keeping began in 1880” conveniently puts the beginning of the data series at the end of the Little Ice Age. Heartland’s James Taylor tried to inoculate the press from NOAA’s virus with a piece last week at Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/sites/
Related Links:
There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since 1997.
Analysis: NASA ‘has doubled global warming by altering data over past 15 years’ – ‘No Pause In NASA Climate Science Corruption’ – NASA ‘also ignores satellite data which shows that its temperature data is complete garbage, and that temperatures have not risen this century.’
It’s
Official – There are now 66 excuses for Temp ‘pause’ – Updated list of
66 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming
Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’ – April 1990 – The Canberra Times: ‘A report Issued by the U.S. space agency NASA…’ ‘The [NASA] report’s authors said that their satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.’
Real Science website analysis: ‘Twenty-four years later, NASA and NOAA ignore the more accurate satellite data – and report only useless, tampered surface temperatures.’
NASA also said the satellite’s were ‘more accurate.’ Flashback:
1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more
accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp
change.’ – April 1990 – The Canberra Times: ‘A report Issued by the U.S. space agency NASA…’
But in 2016, NASA ignores satellites showing a ‘pause’ of over 18 years. See: James Hansen omits satellite data from 2015 temperature analysis
Flashback 1974: ’60 theories have been advanced to explain the global cooling’ – In
the 1970’s scientists were predicting a new ice age, and had 60
theories to explain it.: – Ukiah Daily Journal 0 November 20, 1974
– “The cooling trend heralds the start of another ice age, of a duration
that could last form 200 years to several milenia…Sixty theories have
been advanced, he said, to explain the global cooling period.”
Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’ – April 1990 – The Canberra Times: ‘A report Issued by the U.S. space agency NASA…’ ‘The [NASA] report’s authors said that their satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.’
Real Science website analysis: ‘Twenty-four years later, NASA and NOAA ignore the more accurate satellite data – and report only useless, tampered surface temperatures.’
But in 2016, NASA ignores satellites showing a ‘pause’ of over 18 years. See: James Hansen omits satellite data from 2015 temperature analysis
How accurate are those estimates of ocean warming? ‘Margin of error’ may be larger than temperature change – ‘If
the margin of error is just the same magnitude as that given below for
NINO3.4 SST, then it is a magnitude larger than the ocean temperature
change of 1955-2010 for the upper 2,000 m.’
How accurate are those estimates of ocean warming? ‘Margin of error’ may be larger than temperature change – ‘If
the margin of error is just the same magnitude as that given below for
NINO3.4 SST, then it is a magnitude larger than the ocean temperature
change of 1955-2010 for the upper 2,000 m.’
No comments:
Post a Comment