We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Donations:
Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469


All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Tuesday, 28 July 2015

Sea level rise is decelerating: another SS "Myth" Debunked.

Cartoons by Josh
Another debunking of one of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #25.

"Sea level rise is exaggerated"A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.

Anthony Cox answers:

Sea level rise is exaggerated.  

Plenty of papers show this is the case. 

Houston and Dean is as good as any.

ABSTRACT (bold added) 
HOUSTON, J.R. and DEAN, R.G., 2011. Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(3), 409–417. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.


Ablain et al 2009 and Cazenave et al 2008 confirm the slowdown in rate of sea level rise, consistent with the pause in temperature. 

The 2008 Cazenave paper looks at the period from 2003-2008 and finds a decomposed (into the steric or heat and eustatic or volume components) sea level rate of increase of ~2.3mm pa. 

The 2009 Ablain paper looks at the period from 2005-2008 and finds a rate of increase of ~1.3mm pa. 

During the 20thC the rate of sea level increase was ~ 1.8mm pa. But there were periods when the rate was more and when it was less, even negative, arguably in correlation with PDO phase shifts. This is exactly what we are seeing since 1992. From 1992-2003 we saw a rate of increase greater than average; from 2003 we have seen a rapidly decreasing rate of increase, again arguably in correlation with PDO phase shift.

Saturday, 25 July 2015

Crook Cook's Identity Fraud

Michael Spencer Graphic

Cartoonist and professional scrawler UNSkeptical UNScience - SS's John Cook has been fraudulently using Luboš Motl's identity.

Luboš Motl is a Czech theoretical physicist by training who was an assistant Professor at Harvard University from 2004 to 2007. His scientific publications are focused on string theory.
Luboš writes a blog called The Reference Frame (TRF).

On TRF, Luboš writes of John Cook:
John Cook is the founder of one of the world's most famous "Sky Is Falling" websites about global warming, SkepticalScience.COM. The name of the web wants to express the point that the climate skeptics shouldn't even be allowed to use the term "skeptics". They only deserve expletives while the "true skeptics" are the champions of panic such as Cook himself. He is a typical example of the alarmist "grassroots movement" who has no relevant education (his top academic achievement is to have been a "former student" – in other words, a dropout) and no significant intelligence but whose persistent activism – in combination with the pathologically corrupt atmosphere in many institutions that favor "a certain kind of views" – has allowed him to become something like an "honorary scientist" and to have earned a huge amount of money, too.

Anthony Watts writes:
If it wasn’t enough that John Cook dresses himself up as a Nazi in his SkS uniform on his forum, now we have him caught in what looks to be identity theft of a well known scientist.  
This isn’t a brush away issue that he can ignore, as Dr. Lubos Motl found out yesterday, John Cook has been using the name of Dr. Lubos Motl to post comments that Dr. Motl has NOT written.
Here is Crook Cook on a forum admitting that he uses the identity of Scientist Luboš:  (click on image to enlarge)


Even some of his partners in crime object to his use of Luboš' identity:  (click on image to enlarge)



Tim Curtis: would you please stop posting as Lubos Motl. There is reason to doubt his sanity, so I don’t like seeing his name. Further, it is his name, and therefore one you are not entitled to use.

Rob Honeycutt: John… You freak me out every time Lubos Motl’s name pops up!

John Cook: Sorry about the Lubos thing. Was posting some Lubos comments for the UWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook.
Cook admits that he has used another scientist's identity commenting on the University of Western Australia. (UWA)

Anthony Watts continues:
What sort of “experiment” was John Cook running by stealing the identity of Dr. Lubos Motl, and writing comments under his name? 
Cook is a man who has co-authored two papers about how climate skeptics are not to be trusted because in essence, “they are crazy conspiracy theorists”. Yet, John Cook, now of the University of Queensland after leaving his connections at UWA, has so little moral integrity that he’ll post comments on his own website (the SkS forum, see below) as a skeptical scientist, such as Dr. Lubos Motl? 
Who else has John Cook impersonated? Has he encouraged his team to do this? These are valid questions that need answers.
How long can the University of Queensland (UQ) continue to employ this sham scientist?

Read More:



http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html?m=1

Malcolm Roberts has been corresponding with UQ and his most recent can be found here - 
http://bit.ly/1Lp9VZu

A couple of extracts from Malcolm's fine correspondence:
John Cook makes and/or implies false climate claims, contradicts empirical evidence and relies on an unscientifically fabricated and false consensus that you support. 
 I hope that you do not support UQ staff making statements contradicting empirical science. Please clarify: is it acceptable for UQ staff to make statements contradicting empirical evidence?



Friday, 24 July 2015

SS Myth: Models can Hindcast. NO - they cannot - Massive Fail!

Another in our series debunking UNSkeptical UNScience's so-called Myths of Global Warming. This post debunks their "Myth" No 6.

"Models are unreliable"Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

And their explanation:
Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.
Donald C. Morton on Dr Judith Curry's site writes:
The Validation of Climate Models 
How do we know that the models representing global or regional climate are sufficiently reliable for predictions of future conditions? First they must reproduce existing observations, a test current models are failing as the global temperatures remain nearly constant. Initiatives such as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) can be useful but do not test basic assumptions such as linearity and feedback common to most models. Matching available past and present observations is a necessary condition, but never can validate a model because incorrect assumptions also could fit past data, particularly when there are many adjustable parameters. One incorrect parameter could compensate for another incorrect one. 
Again, from the SS explanation:
So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. 
Actually SS was correct but they left out two keystrokes from their explanation - added here:
So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can't accurately map past climate changes. 

An Extract from paper by S-I. Akasofu, reported by Science Heresy:
If 14 GCMs cannot reproduce prominent warming in the continental Arctic even qualitatively, perhaps much of this particular warming is not caused by the greenhouse effect of CO2 at all. That is to say, if it is not caused by the greenhouse effect, the warming of the continental Arctic cannot be reproduced even qualitatively by the GCMs. This would be because 14 GCMs do not contain the processes that caused the continental Arctic warming/cooling. 

More information about Dr Akasofu can be found here. 
The complete paper can be downloaded here (warning - it's 52 MB!).

Tinghai Ou
Tinghai Ou from the University of Gothenburg’s Department of Earth Sciences: 
Tinghai has analysed the model simulated extreme precipitation in China over the last 50 years.
“The results show that climate models give a poor reflection of the actual changes in extreme precipitation events that took place in China between 1961 and 2000,” he says. “Only half of the 21 analysed climate models analysed were able to reproduce the changes in some regions of China. Few models can well reproduce the nationwide change.”  (Abstract here)
Anthony Cox, agrees with the clowns at UNSkeptical UNScience (SS) in their myth mode:
Models are unreliable. Completely and utterly. Even Gavin Schmidt thinks so.
Another Shrill Climate Clown


Thursday, 23 July 2015

John Cook and his UQ Delusions


Self-confessed cartoonist and professional scrawler John Cook has come up with more tripe. One can only hope that he doesn't use any of this in his course at Uni of Qld's Denial 101X.

The course is titled "Making sense of climate denial." Does anyone deny climate?

The 5 telltale techniques of climate change denial

Climate has always changed. Would anyone deny climate change?

An examination of his 5 "Telltale Techniques.

1. Fake experts

This is Headed Fake Experts but is really about the fake 97% consensus. Of course, Scientific Consensus is an oxymoron.

Cook leaps into fiction right from the start mentioning Doran's Examining the Scientific Consensuson Climate Change (The Mythical 97% consensus)

Barry Woods writes that participants wrote, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:
“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”
“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..” 
“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)  
“..and I do not think that a consensus has anything to do with whether a hypothesis is correct. Check out the history of science…you will find that scientific discovery is generally made by ignoring the ‘consensus..’” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback 
..Science is not based on votes or consensus. Irrelevant question. Besides, which scientists do you regard as relevant?..” (Zimmerman feedback)
Read more HERE - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/ 

Cook's next link:  Andregg et al's Expert Credibility in Climate Change.  Even the title of this paper is flawed and after reading the abstract it should be titled Expert Credibility in Anthropogenic Climate Change.

The paper has been debunked several time; eg Science Bits:
I recently stumbled upon one of the most meaningless papers I have ever seen, it is called "Expert credibility in climate change" by Anderegg, Prall, Harold and Schneider. The paper "proves" that the scientists advocating an anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) are statistically more credible than the "unconvinced". Their main goal is to convince people that they should join the AGW bandwagon simply because it is allegedly more credible.  
In essence, the authors show that the AGW protagonists have more published papers in climate journals and more citations. The authors then carry on with an elaborate statistical analysis showing how statistically significant the results are. The first thing that popped into my mind is the story about a statistician who proved that 87.54% of all statistical research is meaningless... 
See more debunking by Doug L Hoffman, Anthony Watts.

Next Cook links to....surprise!!!  his own much derided paper. Another peer reviewed paper by Legates et al found that Cook's sloppy work created 97.1% but the actual per centage was found, from his own material, reduced that 97.1% to a very tiny 0.3%. Why does Mr Cook invite derision?

2. Logical fallacies

First sentence:
The reason why there's a 97% consensus is because....
Cookie, there is no consensus.
The most common fallacious argument is that current climate change must be natural because climate has changed naturally in the past.
But, the Shrill's most common fallacious argument is that man's emissions of vital-to-life CO2 is causing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The three legged chair falls over if one of the legs is broken.

Source


CO2 Three legged chair:

  1. Rise in Global Temperature always precedes rise in atmospheric CO2;
  2. This century CO2  continues to rise while temperature has plateaued and is falling;
  3. IPCC reports do not examine natural changes to climate

3. Impossible expectations

While many lines of evidence inform our understanding of climate change, another source of understanding are climate models. These are computer simulations built from the fundamental laws of physics, and they have made many accurate predictions since the 1970s. Climate models have successfully predicted the loss of Arctic sea ice, sea level rise and the geographic pattern of global warming.

Please, there has been a 20 year plateau in global warming. The models didn't pick that.

Anthony Cox, in full sarc mode,  wrote in answer to Cook's SS "Myths:"

6 Models are unreliable. Completely and utterly. Even Gavin Schmidt thinks so.

Look at how the models have been betrayed  by real world data:

4. Cherry-picking

Signs of global warming have been observed all over our planet. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice every year. Global sea level is rising.  Global sea level is rising. 

Mr Cook, if YOU want to cherry pick, why not pick factual cherries instead of creating fictional comic world cherries.

Ice sheets in Greenland losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice every year. 


I hope, before you start your Uni of Qld course, you will correct this whopper.


Greenland's current ice sheet growth is above average according to the Danish Meteorological Institute
Antarctica losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice every year

NSIDC
reports 

 Antarctic ice hits a new high

We know that the West Antarctic Peninsula, which juts northward from Antarctica - Hope Bay, at 63°23′S 057°00′W, is near the northern extremity of the peninsula, Prime Head, at 63º13'S, outside the Antarctic Circle.

The Antarctic Peninsula – a mountainous region extending northwards towards South America – is warming much faster than the rest of Antarctica. Temperatures have risen by up to 3ºC since the 1950s however a paper by Professor Don Easterbrook - Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University  explains why there is no need to worry:

‘UNSTOPPABLE COLLAPSE’ OF THE WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET IS NOT HAPPENING


CONCLUSIONS
The evidence above shows that:  The West Antarctic ice sheet is NOT collapsing, the retreat of these small glaciers is NOT caused by global warming, and sea level is NOT going to rise 10 feet.
Even the Arctic Ice is returning to pre 1980 levels. 

AND Now - Cookster's Last Stand:

5. Conspiracy theory

The global surface temperature record is constructed by teams across the world, each compiling their own independent record. These different efforts, each using their own methods, paint a consistent picture of global warming. Climate science deniers reject this coherent evidence with conspiracy theories.

DR Jennifer: Homogenised - no Wind, No Rain.

Yep!  And if the data doesn't fit the theory,  "homogenise the data."   See from Jo Nova: here and here; Dr Jennifer Marohasy - here, here, here and I could add Real Science, NotalotofPeople etc etc...or put the Weather Stations where they shouldn't be, or just cheat!


The University of Queensland should have a critical look at the cartoonist Cook- now called 
Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University
This blog doesn't like to spend much time on ad hominems, preferring to rebut BS ( bad science ) with real science. However, why does the University of Queensland continue to support this self-confessed professional scrawler, with his much derided "97.1% consensus" paper and his debunked "SS Climate Myths"

Surely it also drags down the reputation of the University.