Climate Change

Scott Pruitt Refuted on 'Leveling Off' of Global Temperature Trends?

It depends on what the meaning of the word "hiatus" is.

|

GlobalWarmingQuestionsAlexParfenovDreamstimes
Alex Parfenov/Dreamstime

A new study purports to refute new Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt's claim that "over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming, which some scientists refer to as the 'hiatus'." According to the paper, which was published last week in Nature Scientific Reports, "Satellite temperature measurements do not support the recent claim of a 'leveling off of warming' over the past two decades."

The researchers, led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate modeler Benjamin Santer, draws on the global temperature trends of three different satellite datasets for the mid-troposphere—the troposphere being the lowest, densest part of Earth's atmosphere, where most weather changes occur—from 1979 (when the records begin) to December 2016. One dataset, from the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), shows temperatures rising 0.09 degree C per decade; adjusting for measurements that are distorted by falling lower stratospheric temperatures, Santer and his colleagues calculate that the figure should actually be 0.142. The second dataset, from Remote Sensing Systems, seems to show a hike of 0.094 degrees C per decade; with the paper's adjustments, that becomes 0.199. And the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration appears to indicate an increase of 0.128 degree C per decade; the paper adjusts that to 0.202.

UAH climatologist John Christy argues in an email response that Santer's adjustment process "actually exaggerates the tropospheric warming rate (which is why we do not use it)." But his biggest problem with the study involves how those numbers are used, not how they're generated.

In their paper, Santer and his colleagues compare those real (although adjusted) temperature data with 36 climate model outputs that are supposed to show how global temperatures would have evolved during the past 38 years in the absence of accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Such a comparison only works if the models are right about how much the climate would naturally vary in the absence of extra greenhouse gases. In Christy's words, it "depends on climate model natural variability being correct."

That could be a problem: "Model-generated natural variability is known to be less than real variability—this makes it easier for small trends in the observations to appear to be significant when in fact Mother Nature can produce large trends on her own. It's a real apples and oranges comparison—real data being tested against model-generated variability."

Earlier this month, another study in Nature recognized that the global warming hiatus that purportedly occurred from 1998 to 2015 has been defined differently in different sections of the scientific literature: It has been variously described as (1) no discernible increase in global average temperature, (2) a dramatic slowdown in the increase in warming, or (3) a slower increase than projected by climate computer models. If the Santer team's conclusions are correct, they have actually confirmed the second definition. Take a look at this chart from their paper:

SanterFigure1B
Santer et al.

As Christy points out, the Santer team's tropospheric "trends ending in 2004 were two to four times the value for trends ending in 2015—i.e. supporting Pruitt's statement that trends were 'leveling off' compared with earlier periods." The upturn in temperatures at the end is the result of the natural boost in global average temperatures following a big El Niño in 2015 and 2016.

What about that third definition—the idea that global average temperature increases are lower than the climate models project? Oddly, another team of researchers led by Santer published a study in the January Journal of Climate that reached exactly that conclusion. That paper found that once temperature data are adjusted, the climate models are on average 1.7 times warmer than observed global temperature trends.

Christy stands by his March 2017 testimony at a hearing of the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, which focused on trends in the tropics, where all models project significant man-made warming in the troposphere. Since 1979, he explained, averaging the global observational data gives you a warming trend of 0.117 degree C per decade; the projected global trend for 102 climate models was 0.216 degree C per decade. In other words, the models have been running about two times hotter than the data:

ChristyHouse2017
Christy

So if Pruitt meant that there has been no discernible increase global average temperatures for the past 20 years, he would be wrong. Still, as Christy notes, it seems odd to make "a politician's ambiguous statement" the focus of a formal paper. "If this was appropriate," he observes acerbically, "Al Gore would have been destroyed in the scientific literature 25 years ago."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

112 responses to “Scott Pruitt Refuted on 'Leveling Off' of Global Temperature Trends?

  1. Its just a theory. Let’s no go nuts misallocating anymore capital towards any more white elephants.

    I think enough tax payer money has subsidized windmills and solar to prove that renewable energy still will only work with yet more taxpayer money.

    Ron,
    would it be wise to stop all of this spending for a while since it is just a theory?

    Is there any definitive proof that the earth is not just being the earth?

    1. t: I do think that the balance of the scientific evidence indicates that man-made global warming could likely pose a significant problem for humanity by the end of this century. Others disagree with me.

        1. Replace retiring coal plants with nuclear and forget about renewables which have their own problems. Use more natural gas for surface transportation.

          Modern, modular nuclear can often be incrementally sited at existing conventional generation sites. Nuclear produces large amounts of electricity on a small footprint.

          Solar panels only on building tops, quit destroying natural habitat with panels.

          1. Solar panels allow the ground around it to have minimal impact.

      1. please name one problem, we could all use a laugh.

        1. That’s what I thought.

  2. I don’t believe it. And even if I did believe it, I don’t care.

    1. All right, so fuck you and your tax cuts for other, richer people that are for some reason all-important, then.

      1. Yeah, you damn hypocrite libertarian wanting to cut taxes and cut government spending… Fuck you.

      2. You’re so jealous of ‘the rich’ that I’m surprised you haven’t become a Doctor or Engineer Tony. I guess it’s a lot easier to demand that those people give you money for huffing gasoline though, at the end of the day.

      3. These god damn rich people are stealing all your money right tony?

        How can a person get rich by stealing from the poor, exploited waifs? I thought they didn’t have any money.

        Once again dumbass, you are proving your intellect.

  3. “Santer and his colleagues compare those real (although adjusted) temperature data with 36 climate model outputs that are supposed to show how global temperatures would have evolved during the past 38 years in the absence of accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

    36 climate model outputs, 2 million hippies, 193 countries in the UN, and Matt Damon can’t all be wrong!

    “Model-generated natural variability is known to be less than real variability – this makes it easier for small trends in the observations to appear to be significant when in fact Mother Nature can produce large trends on her own. It’s a real apples and oranges comparison – real data being tested against model-generated variability.”

    Oh, for goodness’ sake, well, as a fallback position, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

    1. 36 climate model outputs, 2 million hippies, 193 countries in the UN, and Matt Damon can’t all be wrong!

      Oh yes, they can.

  4. record highs are just around the corner. pay no attention to all of the record highs not occurring in the last 20 years and many being 100 years old.

  5. Two thoughts;
    For the religious; God made the earth, He can take care of it.
    For the ‘scientific’; however it happened, the earth is here, and the theory of evolution says we should leave it alone to continue developing the more efficient organisms for what is to come.

    Either way, not one extorted tax dime can be justified on study, or attempts to manipulate the earth.

    My own thought is that man cannot destroy the earth, and man cannot ‘save’ it. The actions of man are also part of nature; man’s emissions are no more wrong than a cow fart.

  6. so some government scientist are saying yes to leveling off and others are saying no. why should we believe either. especially after reading

    ” adjusting for measurements that are distorted by falling lower stratospheric temperatures,” note the word falling even when trying to claim rising

    measurements are not distorted they are what they are, not what they want them to be thats like saying 2+2= 4 but that number is distorted by the single ones that make up the two twos therefore the answer is five or maybe three

  7. My two cents…hey it’s free!

    1) Ron hit on it in the comments : man-made? That’s the question. Is man doing it or is it just an stellar cycle? I’m more that it has to do with the sun and solar cycles. I think man made is ‘wishcasting’. People have guilt for everything. We’ve always been told we are destroying the Earth. This is just a way for people feel they have control.

    2) When our ruling class acts like it’s an issue that maybe some of us would reconsider. Obama complains about global warming but has a what 14 car motorcade. We have to have global warming summits but no-one calls in. Prophet Goracle and his right hand man apostate Leo , who fly everywhere and don’t care about their energy use. Tony from here, who’s comments are definitely full of hot air.

    1. The thing about those motorcades and lavish jet rides all over the planet is that ‘our betters’ are the only one’s with a ‘right’ to live in the 21st century. The rest of us are expected to farm mud.

      Mankind almost certainly has an effect upon the environment, but as far as CO2 who honestly gives a shit when we’re closer to mass extinction through a lack of CO2 than we are to any theoretical problems with too much. 300-500 PPM of CO2 in our atmosphere isn’t a big deal, it’s been into the thousands of parts per million in
      the past and the Earth kept churning out life.

      The thing people are freaking out about is that they think they might lose out on some beachfront property in a few hundred years. Instead of spending money to, for example, move New York City away from the coast they give it away to the 3rd world at the behest of the United Nations. Seems legit, right? Even if you assume they’re correct, their actions have no bearing on the theories whatsoever. That’s usually a clue that it’s a con.

      1. “it’s been into the thousands of parts per million in the past and the Earth kept churning out life.”

        But not human life, and certainly not industrial societies.

          1. Here’s ur quote:

            “300-500 PPM of CO2 in our atmosphere isn’t a big deal, it’s been into the thousands of parts per million in the past and the Earth kept churning out life.”

            It’s not a big deal now because it was much higher in past times, when there was no human life on the planet. You might persuade a 5 year old with that, but you’re gonna have trouble with a nobel committee.

            1. So your argument is that because human’s had not evolved yet, they therefore could not have survived then. Interesting claim, very rooted in science. Consider 40,000 PPM is the ‘lethal’ level for a human, but we’re talking about 3,000 PPM according to most ‘Climate Scientists’ that you would be likely to quote. ^_^

              1. Your theory is that human society could have thrived back then. How do you propose to test this?

                1. Well, since the tests were already done we already have an answer. At that point, it’s a theory. Before the testing it was in the same boat as climate science, in that it was a hypothesis.

                  Lack of concrete data is a real problem for AGW, although it’s less of a problem for those who believe that while the climate changes mankind is not a primary driver of it (which is so obvious it could easily be considered a fact, in that Earth’s climate has clearly changed over the last few billion years).

                  Of course, those in the latter group were counted among the ‘consensus’ of climatologists, which shows that metric for what it is. A useful tool coopted for control, much like eugenics was before true genetics emerged as it’s own field of study.

                  1. “Lack of concrete data is a real problem for AGW”

                    CO2, a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, is a heat-trapping gas. How much more concrete to you want it?

                    “A useful tool coopted for control, much like eugenics was before true genetics emerged as it’s own field of study.”

                    You simply haven’t thought this through. The centralized grid and petrochemical supply networks are perfect to maintain social control. Unmetered, localized power generation, would be a step backward and make control over millions at the flip of a switch impossible.

            2. Nobel committee! LOL

    2. “Is man doing it or is it just an stellar cycle? I’m more that it has to do with the sun and solar cycles. ”

      What solar cycle? Answer that question and you may have a nobel prize coming your way.

      “2) When our ruling class acts like it’s an issue that maybe some of us would reconsider.”

      You mean the science is not enough? You need a carbon tax to convince you?

      1. The Solar Cycle

        Where’s my prize?

        1. If you can prove that solar flares are heat rays, you deserve it.

          1. So you don’t understand what the sun radiates, or how, at the very least. You also refuse to read links, which does tend to point to a certain conclusion here.

            1. I know that attributing global warming, increased CO2 etc to an 11 year cycle of solar flares is crackpottery on the same level as your “”300-500 PPM of CO2 in our atmosphere isn’t a big deal.”

              1. So you don’t deny that at ~170 parts per million of CO2 ends life on Earth, and that CO2 levels have been far, far higher than that (into the thousands) in the last 500 million years of proven breathable atmosphere on Earth? It’s good that you don’t, as they are empirical fact.

                Is it also so unbelivable that solar cycles play their part, RE: Maunder minimum? I guess I forgot to spoon feed you the information that the solar cycle isn’t limited to 11 years, or it’s because Wikipedia sucks. We don’t, in fact, understand what time frame the sun cycle follows and most scientists will tell you that.

                And to answer your questions about the Little Ice Age, and no doubt the follow up regarding the Maunder Minimum as they could very well be related, yes it was measured in Europe but that’s hardly surprising considering they invented temperature measurement at the time. We still use some of their metrics, in fact.

                So it remains unknown, but plausible, that it was world-wide. If you debate that it was not world-wide, than it belies the global average temperature as the useless metric that it is in that an ice age could be localized at all.

                1. “proven breathable atmosphere on Earth”

                  Beijing’s atmosphere is proven breathable. You’re gonna have try harder than that if you want to impress that committee.

                  I noticed that wikipedia sucked. They made no mention of your earthshattering discovery.

                  You know what proxy measurements are? I guess you reject these out of hand. How can you not but admire the ingenuity of using tree rings, for example, for getting an idea of temperature before there were any thermometers around? You’re more of a conservative than a libertarian, I take it.

                  1. “You know what proxy measurements are? I guess you reject these out of hand. How can you not but admire the ingenuity of using tree rings, for example, for getting an idea of temperature before there were any thermometers around?”

                    I happen to know what proxy measurements are. I also know that they have inherent weaknesses — that being, a ring’s size isn’t solely based on what the temperature was, but could be affected by other factors, drought conditions being a major one.

                    Additionally, proxy measures are only good where trees live, and where they live for a long time. You’re not going to get good proxy measures of temperature in the arctic and antarctic, for example, or the tundra, or the grasslands where any trees that attempt to grow are killed by fire on a regular basis, or deserts where there isn’t any water to support trees, or oceans, where there isn’t any dirt to support trees…

  8. I can’t think of any form of science where actual measurements are ignored as being “Wrong” and the use of models replaces them.

    Do they not realize how badly this hurts their “science”?

    “Sure, our models suck. But the raw temperatures are also wrong. GIVE US MONEY!!!”

    1. Could you imagine if you were a real estate agent and a house measured 1000 square feet but your scientist decided the measuring tape was wrong and therefore the house was 1028 square feet and sold it based on that number. they would be sued so fast for falsification. I know contractors who have been sued for just that and its especially important in the commercial real estate market where even a few inches can cost thousands

      1. What’s the temperature of the planet at this moment? Such a thing is hard to define, let alone measure. And a tape measure is not going to do the trick.

        1. Where I live it is 91 degrees. That’s all I care about.

          1. But you’re only a child. Adults have broader concerns.

        2. the temperature reported is the temperature, however they always mathmaticly modify the temperature to say something other than what it says, that is bad science. H2O freezes at 32?F at sea level not at any other temperature. measurements matter in science otherwise nothing would be predictive

          1. Even the unmodified numbers show an increase, don’t they? How would you propose to measure the average global temperature without modifying the numbers, assuming you’re given a budget not exceeding that of your typical climatologist grant?

            1. FOIA requests don’t tend to get the unmodified numbers released, so no, we do not see them. And sn average is a basic mathematical concept. Modifying isn’t required.

              1. Try a less paranoid, more open government.

  9. Science: actual measurements.
    Bullshit: adjustments.
    After a theory has been disproven by actual history, it should go away. How long have the liars been lying? Going on four decades.
    This is from so long ago I lost the citation:
    Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.
    There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
    “This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. “This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
    Wrong then (1969), wrong now (2017). “Widespread” agreement does not constitute truth; see flat earth.

    I was taught that carbon dioxide was necessary for plant life; has that changed?

    1. The stupid literally burns.

      1. Try some imodium for the diarrhea.


    2. “I was taught that carbon dioxide was necessary for plant life; has that changed?”

      No, it’s ignored that ~170 PPM is the bare minimum for most of Earth’s plant life to survive and therefore continue producing the oxygen that the vast majority of life on Earth needs to continue living. We’re at ~350 or so, and it’s been as high as ~3000 in the ‘believers’ own records.

      For a ‘science’ that claims to take all of the millions of variables into consideration, I’m not sure how they answer that particular question. If someone knows, feel free to answer but fair warning; if your answer is ‘that was a long time ago’ you can pound sand. That’s not an answer.

  10. The climate of the Earth is never supposed to change. It needs to remain exactly what it is today or we must freak out and allocate massive resources to fix it.

    Oh wait, the Earth’s climate has changed inconsistently for billions of years.

    1. We’re talking about a specific problem here.

      1. Name one real life problem that has occurred as of 2017 (not a fantasy model problem). If you’re talking about some future (fantasy model) problem 50 years from now, prove it.

        1. The continued unchecked heating of the oceans and atmosphere.

          1. “unchecked” eh? retard.

            So, I’ll ask again. What problem are we experiencing right now? Name some way you or anyone has experienced a single problem, even if I grant you temperatures have changed in the last century. Name the fucking problem!

            1. Depends on if you think species going extinct or more extreme weather events or hotter summers in the tropics and associated issues are problems. In the end we’re all dead.

              Which makes your ignorance-based shilling for dinosaur corporate interests all the more pathetic.

              1. So, no, you really can’t point at a harm. Also, FYI, did you know that when a species changes from one into another it’s considered ‘extinct’? The more you know…

                Odd that such a staunch scientist as Tony doesn’t believe in evolution, or punctuated evolution though. Tell me, Tony, which theory of evolution are you a proponent of anyway? I would honestly wager you thought it was all one big honkin’ theory, rather than discreet mechanical theories.

              2. “Depends on if you think species going extinct or more extreme weather events or hotter summers in the tropics and associated issues are problems. In the end we’re all dead.”

                Congratulations. You are batting 1000 in bullshit examples. Amazing even for you.

                Not one person has died, or even stubbed his toe due to the ENTIRE GLOBE’S average temperature may or may not have warmed or cooled 1/100 of a degree over the course of the last year. From the bottom of the deepest ocean to the upper edges of our atmosphere, that entire mass has been accurately measured by thousands of infallible humans with their infallible instruments and their infallible procedures and methodologies, every minute of every day. And those measurements have been picked and massaged and adjusted with just the most perfectly subtle perfection, and we’re all on board that this miniscule warming/cooling is human caused and pants-shittingly serious.

                Is that your argument?

  11. The Iron Law of Science Advertisig is that one side of K-Street is paid to misrepresent curves while the other paid to misrepresent their first derivatives . Science journalists, Senators and Representatives are among the road kill in the middle.


  12. Such a comparison only works if the models are right about how much the climate would naturally vary in the absence of extra greenhouse gases.

    I’ve said it for a long time, in that these people make up shit to measure against and then doom and gloom all over national media. You see, they are immaculate in guessing what the environment should be doing. I mean, how could they be wrong with all their models are so correct?


    In other words, the models have been running about two times hotter than the data:

    Hmm…you sound like a holocaust denier…I mean science denier! There should be laws to put people like you in jail, Ron!

    /sarc ^_-

    1. I want to see evidence of history’s largest and most complex conspiracy to defraud humanity for purposes that remain murky, because that is the positive claim you’re making, implicating nearly every university and scientific body and government on earth. It’s not the fucking default position.

      1. I can’t control what you infer. Odd that you think a global conspiracy is required for a lot of powerful people to do whatever they want with very little hard data. Where do Universities and Scientists get most of their money, one wonders?

        I suppose you don’t recall Climategate, it was after all more than five minutes ago (remember the hockey stick graphs of doom? Never happened.) So claiming that they’re all saints is just as untrue as calling them all members of a vast conspiracy. It’s not like they all agree on the extent, methods, or cause but it is factual to say their models are literally wrong as pointed out in the article itself. What does that mean, to you?

        Oh, and while we’re at it I want to see evidence of a climate model that is accurate. Care to point us to one? That’s really all climate science needs to be proven ball-park correct, odd that with so many scientists in agreement they can’t produce one.

        1. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and it makes me feel embarrassed for you.

          Just google it for Christ’s sake. Google global warming. Then read the first link. Just do it and stop being a deliberate moron.

          1. Shorter Tony: I READ IT ON THE INTERNET SO IT’S TRUE!

            Thanks for the laugh.

            1. All of the climate-change-denying morons here are actually placing some random asshole’s blog ahead of the world’s scientific community.

              1. Oh, and while you’re consulting the Oracle (Google) go ahead and look up ‘Global Cooling’ just for, you know, comparison.

                Idjit.

              2. Uhh, oh, by the way Tony you might want to RTFA. I don’t think it says what you think it says.

              3. “world’s scientific community”

                You don’t tire of checking off all the boxes do you?

              4. Does the world scientific community work for a profit or do they work fro some government funded university?

                Think about which one should hold more credence.

                I know exactly what you think.

                1. Both. You apparently subscribe to the idea that scientists are only supporting AGW because they need research money from the government. I’m sure there are plenty of energy companies that would be more than happy to fund a study which disproves AGW, and yet there aren’t many scientists who reject AGW. Perhaps scientists aren’t whores after all but say they accept the idea of AGW because, well, they actually do.

                  The lame argument that scientists are just slaves to research money from the government was (and still is) used by people who claim HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. Only they had a better version of it, because in their scenario scientists couldn’t get research money from the private sector due to the fact the drug companies want HIV to be the cause of AIDS so they can sell a lot of expensive drugs. Most scientists believe HIV causes AIDS, and it’s not because they need research money. The same goes for climate change. This doesn’t mean they aren’t wrong, only that they aren’t shills who say what someone pays them to say.

          2. I love how you demand proof, and when it’s pointed out that you don’t have any proof either you refer us to Google or tell us how you feel, or at best cite a ‘consensus’ that you have never read.

            In other words, you literally take it as fact without one single iota of scientific knowledge and have no idea what is required for a thing to be considered ‘science’ in the first place, or what it can and cannot do empirically.

            I could not possibly care less if you feel sorry for me, but I would suggest that your feels could be put to better use by actually reading the studies for once. At the very least, it might enable you to speak with some authority on the matter instead of making it clear to everyone that you have no recollection of high school or college science.

            1. I don’t see anything unscientific about scientists trying to get a measure of the global temperature. What do you remember from your high school science classes that leads you to reject this effort?

              1. Well, for one they aren’t trying to get a measure of the global temperature considering they already have one in the satellite record, which most people agree is reasonable and about as good as it’s going to get until something better comes along. Of course, you reading me as being against trying to get a ‘measure of the global temperature’ is telling in and of itself.

                One thing I learned in high school (and then again in college) was the Little Ice Age, which is apparently not applicable to rising temperatures somehow. Not to mention they don’t even know what to attribute that mini ice age to. Was it solar? Volcanic? No one can say with any certainty. One of many, many ‘inconvenient’ facts that get in the way of the narrative. That’s before you even get into the fact that 70% of Earth’s surface consists of another greenhouse gas called water; and that’s just the surface.

                It’s .0004% CO2, compared to ~.4% water on average. You can ‘science’ a whole lot on why CO2 is more dangerous, and some of it is very true, but it’s also very theoretical and doesn’t actually match observations. Right now, the entire science is devoted to figuring out excuses about why none of their models are at all predictive, which as it turns out is personally profitable for individual scientists.

                1. “they already have one in the satellite record, which most people agree is reasonable and about as good as it’s going to get until something better comes along.”

                  I doubt a satellite will tell you the temperature in the depths of the ocean, which must be taken into account when bandying about the phrase ‘average global temperature.’ As for reading you as being against measuring, that’s just a rhetorical provocation, meant to draw you out. If you prefer more straight forward abuse, just let me know.

                  The Little Ice Age was a fairly local phenomenon, wasn’t it? It wasn’t globally manifested as I recall.

                  “It’s .0004% CO2”

                  You are just playing with numbers here, again compelling to 5 year old.

                  1. I was unaware 5 year olds do math at all, but overall your arguments are in bad faith or, as you admit, rhetorical tricks at least. One can not ‘prove’ a null hypothesis, it’s the assumption that it is true until disproven. That has not occurred yet, since no theories have proven a causal relationship RE: non-predictive models.

                    QED.

                    1. “RE: non-predictive models.”

                      Don’t obsess over the models, they are just models after all, and I don’t expect them to accurately predict something as horrendously complex as the climate. Computer chess and go took decades to master, and they are just games. Computers have been used to predict tomorrow’s weather for longer than that and they are still innaccurate a good deal of the time.

                      Obsess over the science. For 200 years man has been ramping up his CO2 emissions. That’s gonna have an effect according to the green house theory. And lo and behold, the increased temperatures which were predicted are indeed observed. What more do you want ?

                    2. What you refer to is not empirical science, so you’ll have to make peace with that somehow. If a model doesn’t predict, than it’s apparently news to you that they don’t actually know what they’re talking about even if it sounds pretty good to a layman.

                      It amounts to Star Trek technobabble, and if you’re decent at writing grants you too can profit from it.

                    3. “What you refer to is not empirical science”

                      I’m not sure what you mean by that, but it doesn’t matter. It’s a political matter in the end. We’ve made peace with the fact that we can no longer go out and hunt whales and sell their oil in the market place, even though the warm glow of a whale oil lamp in better than any lamp burning fossil fuels.

                      ” If a model doesn’t predict”

                      More heat trapping CO2 gases emitted, more heat. You want more accurate predictions? You sound like the idiot who rejected Newton’s gravitational constant because Newton couldn’t define it to 10 decimal places. Note there was no such idiot back then. But don’t let that stop you.

              2. This is disingenuous. I’m sure BYODB and most of us here have no problem with the collection of data. We bemoan the manipulation of said data and collective pants-shitting that is demanded because of it.

                1. Oh, and for the record SoT I still love your name.

          3. The first link is a paid advertisement Tony.

            Doesn’t really help your point that there’s no organized effort to defraud humanity when your source for facts is paid for by those who share your viewpoint.

      2. ” to defraud humanity for purposes that remain murky,”

        Gravy trains are often murky.

        1. You’d think you guys would applaud Al Gore for his ingenuity.

          1. You know who else was ingenious?

            1. Tony’s mom?

      3. its not a conspiracy Tony but it is a like minded ideal and to say it can’t happen it can and has happened in the past a prime example was Eugenics and that theory was enforced in many nations not only in NAZI Germany but here in the U.S. as well.

        1. Global warming is Eugenics, as in, the only way to decrease man made warming, is to decrease man.

          1. Why don’t you try handing over control of all human activity, to a committee of highly educated experts who if they don’t screw us over, will actually CONTROL THE WEATHER?

            If it doesn’t work as promised, it’s because you did not give them sufficient support.

  13. Important note you left out: ALL satellite temperatures are adjusted in some way. Satellites don’t measure temperature: they measure radiance and if you don’t adjust them for changes in orbit, etc., they are pure garbage (as Christy found out when he did the adjustments wrong. Twice). So all the “OMG! They’re adjusting the temperatures!” comments are just ignorant. Every satellite temperature in existence in adjusted. If you want pure data without adjustments you need to use … the ground-based temperatures, which don’t show any kind of a pause.

    1. Nor are the ground-based temperatures…unadjusted. So…what?

    2. Even the famous Hockey Puck graph comes from adjusted data. The Moana Loa carbon dioxide measurements have to be adjusted to eliminate changes caused by natural emissions of carbon dioxide from the volcano they sit on, as well as winds that blow air up from populated areas below the mountain. In other words, they fudge it to make it look like what they expect.

  14. OMG, the world is going to continue getting warmer, until the next Ice Age strikes.
    Ho-hum!

  15. So how valid are their upward adjustments? I suspect this is just more fudging the data by climate alarmists.

  16. “…adjusting for measurements that are distorted by falling lower stratospheric temperatures,…”

    Translation: shit-canning the data that did not support our preconceived notions…

  17. In other words, a temperature change of 0.202 C, or 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit over a decade is supposed to concern me? Perhaps that number needs to be put in the context of the natural variation of temperature over decadal periods. Ooops. Published work (Muller et al ) reports that average ENSO events cause as much as 1.25 degrees C in change. We have had two ENSO events over the past two decades. So convince me first that 0.202 is actually accompanied by error bars that do not exceed its precision by one or more orders of magnitude, and then convince me that this is anything but bullshit. While you are at it, explain to me how they get 3 significant digits. Or are they just victims of calculators who forgot the lessons of a slide rule? This is not a story. Pruitt knows more about science than the media gives him credit for and his statement is basically correct.

    PS I spend my days looking at climate changes that caused hundreds of feet of sea level change, and caused full digits (not tiny fractions) of temperature change, and I know that none of them were anthropogenic because man had not yet evolved. I am just waiting for the day the Global Warmers begin blaming the Cretaceous and Permian climate on early humans whose footprints have been “found” next to dinosaur tracks – obviously if the Creationists believe it the Global Warmers are going to be next. I tend to lump the Creationists and the Global Warmers together. They all believe in religion more than science.

    1. “a temperature change of 0.202 C, or 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit over a decade is supposed to concern me?”

      How much are you willing to sacrifice in order that your grandchildren or great grandchildren enjoy some semblance of the comforts you enjoy now? You don’t have to answer that, but I think it comes down to that.

      1. How much of your grandchildren’s and great grandchildren’s wealth and freedom are you willing to sacrifice in order to give them a modestly cooler world?

        Proposed actions have costs, and virtually all proposed actions have costs which are far greater than the net cost of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas problem they are trying to correct.

        1. “Proposed actions have costs”

          News for you MikeP, unproposed actions also have costs. Law of the universe: action, reaction.

          1. Okay, I’ll make it clearer.

            Compliance with the Paris Accord has costs. California’s recent green energy legislation has costs. The Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s carbon fee and dividend proposal has enormous costs.

            Proposed government actions have costs.

            1. “Proposed government actions have costs.”

              Are they greater than the costs of inaction, government or otherwise? I don’t think anyone can truthfully answer that. Doesn’t that call for a little pants shitting?

              1. No. It calls for a hell of a lot of restraint, doing more research, and waiting for certainty as expressed in actual nature and human experience rather than in models.

                Nordhaus, for example, generally includes waiting 50 years and then setting a carbon tax equal to the social cost of carbon as one of the options. It is always a very small net cost in the long run to wait even five decades to act.

                Our far wealthier grandchildren will have far more knowledge and far more resources to throw at whatever the most important problem of their day is — be it atmospheric CO2 or, almost certainly, something else. They would consider us extremely bad stewards of their inheritance if we impoverished ourselves and our legacy — or imposed further impoverishment on the developing world — to satisfy our first-world parochial desire for a less warmed planet.

                1. “No. It calls for a hell of a lot of restraint, doing more research, and waiting for certainty as expressed in actual nature and human experience rather than in models.”

                  You want certainty in science? Like building a replica of the planet that we can use as a lab for controlled experiments? You don’t think that’s gonna end up on the expensive side? Makes your concerns over Paris seem like pocket change.

                  “Our far wealthier grandchildren will have far more knowledge and far more resources”

                  If you have a time machine, you should lend it to BYOD, whose planning to go back in time to prove that human society can be sustained in a really high CO2 world.


                  1. You want certainty in science?

                    Yes, it’s literally what keeps your aircraft aloft. Even then, they don’t always work in ways we understand, even if we understand how to make them. Confusing, I know.

                    If your aircraft doesn’t stay aloft, then you don’t really know you believe, whereas if it flies you can at least say you know something. Shocking how some people don’t get that, but perhaps it’s a matter of philosophy.

                    1. “Yes, it’s (science) literally what keeps your aircraft aloft.”

                      Don’t tell that to an aerospace engineer. Or the Wright brothers. They weren’t scientists either, but illiterate bicycle repairmen.

                      Ok, I made that bit up about the illiteracy.

    2. Good points, and arguments I’ve heard before too.

      There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    3. “So convince me first that 0.202 is actually accompanied by error bars that do not exceed its precision by one or more orders of magnitude, and then convince me that this is anything but bullshit. ”

      How much is all this gonna cost? You have a budget in mind? Or maybe you think that statistical precision can simply be summoned on demand without tremendous increases in cost.

      If you’re gonna keep up, you need to add eugenics to the end of your idiotic spiel. The science=religion schtick is getting old.

  18. Several studies have shown that rising temperatures cause more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere.
    How do we know which is the cause and which is the effect in this relationship?

  19. I enjoyed this article. It’s as clear as it can be given the complexity of the subject & data. Thanks.

  20. I enjoyed this article. It’s as clear as it can be given the complexity of the subject & data. Thanks.

  21. Mr. Pruitt isn’t interested in facts or data. He wants to justify the minority president’s decision to withdraw from the Paris global warming agreement. Even if his analysis was on point, which it isn’t, the erratic weather with the melting ice sheets at both poles is cause for concern. The Hurricanes are getting more violent, the polar bears are losing their habitat and the droughts are longer and more severe. Is it worth ignoring all these signs to keep the fossil fuel business thriving?

  22. Once you “correct” the bad numbers, everything comes out the way you predict…

  23. The article states that Christy stands by his testimony. It’s worth reading.

    http://tinyurl.com/y82k7tys

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.