Moscow buried in the snows that were meant to vanish February 23, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Lie, Misrepresentation.
Bolt’s Post 24 February, 2010
I haven’t yet encountered an AGW post where Bolt actually provides a headline that is an outright lie – until now. Bolt claims to have “studied” the climate science. Accepting that he has done so to even a small degree therefore means that this is undoubtedly a purposely made lie.
Has a climate scientist somewhere…anywhere said Moscow’s snow or snow in general would “vanish”.
Let’s remind ourselves – yes, even those that have “studied” the climate science – what the IPCC has said in relation to snowfall (amount and coverage):
In general, snow amount and snow coverage decreases in the NH (Supplementary Material, Figure S10.1). However, in a few regions (e.g., Siberia), snow amount is projected to increase. This is attributed to the increase in precipitation (snowfall) from autumn to winter (Meleshko et al., 2004; Hosaka et al., 2005).
So, not only does it not say snow will vanish – as Bolt well knows – but it does say that there are areas where snowfall can actually increase.
And then, via Watts:
At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists, representatives of Britain’s weather office quietly proposed that the world’s climatologists start all over again to produce a new trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and “rigorous” peer review.
Follow the link and we see how Watts frames this story (my emphasis):
In other words, conduct investigations into modern global warming in a way that the Met Office bureaucrats hope will end the mammoth controversy over world temperature data they collected that has been stirred up by their secretive and erratic ways.
The “mammoth controversy” that Watts is talking about relates to Watts’ dismally failing efforts to try to discredit the climate surface temperature record that he claims is due to poorly sited or exposed weather stations.
Unfortunately, as is often the case when one creates conspiracy theories to explain one’s own irrational beliefs, Watts’ attempts and claims are already being shown to be completely unfounded:
In relation to Watts’ “work” in particular see SkepticalScience here.
In relation to the surface temperature data and its validity see SkepticalScience here.
Arctic ice was pushed out, rather than melted February 21, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Abuse, Deception, Misrepresentation, Smear.
Bolt’s Post 21 February, 2010
Here Bolt criticises “Serial Alarmist” Marian Wilkinson for the fact she:
hailed the big Arctic melt of 2007 as evidence the world was heating disastrously and man was to blame:
If you want to see climate change happening before your eyes, scientists will tell you: “Go to the end of the earth”, and that’s why we’re here, in the Arctic Circle.
But Bolt reckons, the Antarctic is the place to go to see sea ice increasing:
Wilkinson never explained why the end of the earth we had to go to for evidence was the top, and not the bottom, where sea ice was actually increasing:
He then links to a site providing data for the Arctic. But the graph he provides is for the Antarctic – not sure where it was sourced from.
No trend and no test for the significance of the increase.
But Bolt doesn’t explain that scientists know that sea ice in the Antarctic is increasing whilst land ice is decreasing. The data and the explanation is provided at SkepticalScience:
While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.
Then Bolt does yet another cherry-pick in which he claims that:
… the Arctic has since increased its ice cover.
What Bolt means is, if one considers just the Arctic sea ice extent since 2007 it will show an increasing trend. True. But why would you do that when you can look at a historical trend for the summer melt over a much longer period (as you would surely want to do when talking about climate) where we find this:
Once again, Bolt is unable to see the wood (long-term trend) for the trees (cherry-picked short-term).
And what of the apparent thrust of the story? That:
…part of that big melt of 2007 was caused not so much by a warmer world melting that ice where it lay, but, NASA now concedes, but by currents pushing the ice down to warmer seas…
No one has ever claimed that the whole of the Arctic summer melt is due to AGW – that is and would be patently foolish as the summer melt in the Arctic has always occurred – even before AGW.
And would the fact that part of the record melt of 2007 may or may not have been due to global warming change that long-term trend we see above? No.
Once again Bolt attempts to lead us up a well-worn garden path to deception and misrepresentation.
Broke Flannery just can’t resist another bet February 20, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Doesnt Understand, Misrepresentation, Smear.
Bolt’s Post 20 February, 2010
Bolt has another go at Flannery claiming that:
Iconic Australian beaches such as Bondi in Sydney and Bells Beach in Victoria are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, environmental scientist Tim Flannery says…
“It’s hardly surprising that beaches are going to disappear with climate change,” he told reporters outside the National Climate Change Forum in Adelaide.
Bolt at least doesn’t try to refute the claim based on current or past cherry-picked information as he has done previously. Which is not to say that he won’t do so in the future of course…
But Bolt posts a series of updates that require scrutinising.
Meanwhile, a real climate expert – Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – says climate models of the kind that Flannery and other alarmists rely on are just not working:
…at this point, the models seem to be failing.
Wow, what a definitive proof from the expert. “Seem to be failing”. Bolt turns this into “just not working”.
Are they failing? No. From Skeptical Science:
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
Then, via Watts, via Steve Goddard, Bolt claims:
Bolt reproduces Goddard’s plot of data from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab purportedly attempting to show that “winter” snowfall over the northern hemisphere has significantly increased.
But look: Tamino has clearly demonstrated that:
Goddard purposely truncated the snowfall data before 1988 back to1967 (ignoring 21 years of data) and used only January & February (claiming this represents winter – what happened to December?) data, to produce a classic cherry-picked trend. Use the whole data series, i.e. all months and all years and:
If we look at monthly snow cover anomaly for all months of the year covered by the Rutgers data we see a long-term decline of 37,000 km^2/year, which is statistically significant.
But what happens when data from all years for just the winter months are used:
If we fit a line to all the winter-season data, we get a t-value of 0.211 — nowhere near significant.
I think Bolt needs to get himself some better sources.
Flannery flunks again February 19, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Abuse, Deception, Doesnt Understand, Misrepresentation, Smear.
Bolt’s Post 19 February, 2010
Here Bolt thinks he’s countered some of Flannery’s
[By the way, follow the link and the headline is actually: Ten predictions made by climate scientists that have come true (or are becoming true) – a small oversight on Bolt’s part, I’m sure.]
The ten biggest changes to the weather wrought by climate change
- Shorter winters
- Less runoff into dams and reservoirs in many regions of the world
- More violent and longer hurricanes
- Less chilly nights
- Less predictable seasonal conditions
- Less snow
- More heat waves
- Less rain in many regions at various seasons
- More severe storms in the North Sea and parts of the southern Ocean
- Generally warmer conditions
So what has Andrew got to counter Flannery with:
Rains now flood parts of Australia
Now, which of the 10 does that counter? Presumably Bolt is claiming 2 and 8?
I follow the link via Tim Blair to get at the story that “proves” the point and I find a link to the Sunshine Coast Daily that reports:
THERE is so much water in Sunshine Coast dams this morning that if another 100,000 people arrived tomorrow, and it did not rain for another three years, no one would go thirsty.
Rain during the past two weeks and heavy catchment downpours in the past 48 hours have filled most Coast dams to capacity and would guarantee four years’ supply for the present population of 300,000.
There has been flooding rainfall on the Sunshine Coast. So, you’d have to assume this would at least be an area of Australia that is predicted to be affected by lower rainfall. What does the IPCC say?
Precipitation is likely to decrease in southern Australia in winter and spring. Precipitation is very likely to decrease in south-western Australia in winter….Changes in rainfall in northern and central Australia are uncertain. Extremes of daily precipitation are very likely to increase. The effect may be offset or reversed in areas of significant decrease in mean rainfall (southern Australian in winter and spring). An increase in potential evaporation is likely. Increased risk of drought in southern areas of Australia is likely.
Sunshine Coast part of south-east or south-west Australia? And even over-looking that mistake, the decrease over south-east Australia specifically refers to winter and spring.
Strike 1 against Bolt.
Bolt goes on:
…and the snow has rarely been deeper:
According to Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, last week’s Northern Hemisphere winter snow extent was the second highest on record, at 52,166,840 km2.
Bolt is talking about a single winter but climate is about longer term so let’s check longer term snow coverage for the norther hemisphere via Tamino:
The decline is much stronger for summer months than for winter months. The January numbers don’t really show any significant trend.
Cherry-picking leads to strike 2.
Bolt up to the plate again:
Follow the link and we get to Watts. No surprise there but what does Watts actually report in relation to the NH hurricane season for 2009?
2009 was the quietest year since 1997 (ACE= 41) and the 16th slowest since 1940. Interestingly, 2009 saw 1/5th of the activity of 2005, the most active ACE season on record.
So, Bolt claims “the quietest year since 1997” equates to “at a low”. Strange.
And yet still we know that even a sceptic’s analysis that Bolt linked to has shown that:
Hatton’s data analysis does actually corroborate the IPCC and concludes that:
…there is strong evidence that the Atlantic is becoming more active in both number of hurricanes and number of major hurricanes (≥ 3 on the Saffir-Simpson scale)…
Ordinarily, in the spirit of the sporting analogy, we could stop there but, let’s give Bolt some clearly much-needed additional batting practice:
He goes on to cherry-pick again via Watts:
…and record low temperatures are being set at many places in the US.
Now, you’d think that record low temperatures, if significant in the context of countering global warming, would translate to some form of signal in the global temperature series. Well, let’s even use Bolt’s global temperature analysis of choice to check on global temperature via Roy Spencer which actually indicates:
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.
Strike 4 and Bolt is back in the dugout.
Warmist predictions washed out February 19, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Doesnt Understand, Misrepresentation.
Bolt’s Post 19 February, 2010
Here Bolt references Tim Blair
From Tim Blair, who has the links and more:
The Guardian, February, 2009:
The world’s pre-eminent climate scientists produced a blunt assessment of the impact of global warming on the US yesterday, warning of droughts that could reduce the American south-west to a wasteland and heatwaves that could make life impossible even in northern cities.
In an update on the latest science on climate change, the US Congress was told that melting snow pack could lead to severe drought from California to Oklahoma. In the midwest, diminishing rains and shrinking rivers were lowering water levels in the Great Lakes, even to the extent where it could affect shipping.
“With severe drought from California to Oklahoma, a broad swath of the south-west is basically robbed of having a sustainable lifestyle,” said Christopher Field, of the Carnegie Institution for Science…
ABC News (US), February, 2010:
In the span of just a couple years, the U.S. has gone from very high drought conditions to the lowest amount of drought in the last 10 years, [Doug LeCompte of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association] says. “It’s only a few times, really, in the last century that we’ve had this little of the country in drought. That is unusual.”
What is it you notice about the first quotes from the Guardian in 2009? The quotes extracted from the Guardian do not contain a timeframe and neither Bolt nor Blair talk about the timeframe?
This is a really cheap and completely deceptive “trick” by the Dynamic Denier Duo and shows complete lack of understanding or willingness to misrepresent the science:
- Take long-term predictions and pretend that they are immediately relevant;
- Cherry pick a short-term change in a particular area and claim it as evidence against the long-term prediction
Hence the use of the 2010 article.
Bolt has used this “trick” against Flannery and others. Which is not to say that Flannery has not at times been loose with his interpretations and predictions – he has.
Let’s explain it slowly so that Bolt and Blair can grapple with their apparent lack of understanding of a very basic aspect of climate change:
- Predictions and modelling related to climate change put forward by the IPCC are about changes that will be most evident and possibly come to fruition over the coming century;
- We currently have seen global warming of the order of less than 1C, which is likely well less than half what can be expected over the IPCC prediction time frame.
Thus, taking current events and short-term cherry-picked evidence does not disprove or contradict AGW climate science.
IPCC revealed as blowhards February 16, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Doesnt Understand, Misrepresentation, Smear.
Bolt’s Post 16 February, 2010
As is typical of the way Bolt works, here a reader alert him to someone else’s work (usually a blogger running a site that is running a “sceptical” agenda). As this blog demonstrates, Bolt does not appear to do what one would expect of a good journalist – to thoroughly check the reference and for the claims made. It has an anti-AGW bent, so Bolt puts it on his blog. Is that real scepticism at work?
To the post referenced by Bolt.
Now the IPCC is accused of telling untruths in its fourth assessment report about hurricanes, too.
If Bolt had stopped there, he might have been able to claim it was only an accusation but Bolt is clearly convinced:
Every IPCC error revealed so far exaggerates fears of global warming. That alone says plenty.
I have no problems with the actual data analysis carried out in Hatton’s paper. Hatton claims the paper is “unpublishable” – the inference being that the paper is controversial in some way or uncovers some wrong-doing on the part of “the establishment”.
In his conclusions, Hatton makes the claim that:
Over the periods 1999-2007 or 1999-2009, it can be concluded that is no evidence to support that the average number of tropical storms, hurricanes, major hurricanes or proportion of hurricanes which mature into major hurricanes has changed in the last 60 years.
But, Hatton’s data analysis does actually corroborate the IPCC and concludes that:
…there is strong evidence that the Atlantic is becoming more active in both number of hurricanes and number of major hurricanes (≥ 3 on the Saffir-Simpson scale)…
Why does Hatton make the first statement, when his own paper does indeed contain exactly the same evidence that the IPCC used to make one of its statements? The Atlantic is evidence and Hatton’s paper confirms it.
Hatton’s paper does not carry out an analysis with all the data for the various hurricane areas combined. I suspect and hope the reason he does this is that, as the IPCC says:
…there are concerns about the quality of data in these other regions…
And yet, Hatton himself is quoted by The Register as saying:
“When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances.” This isn’t indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.”
But Hatton’s paper does not provide the results of such an analysis and, more importantly, the data cannot be relied upon in any area other than the Atlantic. Hatton and The Register have therefore misrepresented Hatton’s own work and make a conclusive statement which, if it is based on data, is based on data of poor quality.
The Register paraphrases this to say:
He found that North Atlantic hurricane activity increased significantly, but the increase was counterbalanced by diminished activity in the East Pacific, where hurricane-strength storms are 50 per cent more prevalent. The West Pacific showed no significant change. Overall, the declines balance the increases.
Hatton’s paper does not show that the declines balance the increase between the Atlantic data and the other areas. Not at all. Not only that – if he did, he is using poor quality data to make such a claim.
So, what statements of the IPPC is Hatton left with to dispute?
Here are the statements with Hatton’s comments, based on his paper (IPCC claims first, followed by Hatton’s claims in parentheses):
1. There has been an increase in hurricane intensity in the North Atlantic since the 1970s (that the increase correlates with increases in sea surface temperature, (corroborated here and highly significant), and not tested).
2. The observed increase in hurricane intensity is larger than climate models predict for the sea surface temperature changes we have experienced, (climate models are corrupted by unquantifiable errors, not tested).
3. There is no clear trend in the number of hurricanes, (corroborated).
4. Other regions appear to have experienced increased hurricane intensity as well, but there are concerns about the quality of data in these other regions, (Only the Atlantic has experienced statistically significant increased hurricane intensity in this period. All other datasets show no significant change. This is a worryingly incorrect statement.)
5. It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity, (Since there hasn’t been any significant increase in hurricane intensity, its hard to see what human contribution has got to do with it. Statements like this do not enhance confidence in the quality of the IPCC report).
6. It is likely (> 66%) that we will see increases in hurricane intensity during the 21st century, (Pure speculation based presumably on the same model used for the previous inaccurate statement).
And here we can see why Hatton’s paper really is “unpublishable”. 1 to 3 either corroborate the IPCC or are irrelevant to Hatton’s analysis. In relation to 4, Hatton claims to contradict the IPCC through his own data analysis which is carried out on poor quality data. He cannot therefore make the claim at all. The paper does not say on what basis the IPCC makes the claim but the IPCC does make the clarifying statement relating to the data quality. In relation to 5, Hatton indulges in speculation. In relation to 6, Hatton speculates that the IPCC bases this claim on speculation but provides no evidence and then admits to making a presumption about a statement that he has not proven to be inaccurate.
So, Bolt has referred to an article which in turn references a paper that:
- Misrepresents the scope of the data analysis made;
- Uses poor quality data to make inaccurate conclusions;
- Finds no contradiction to the IPCC statements made;
- Makes unfounded conclusions;
- Resorts to speculation and presumption;
- Is unpublished and is “unpublishable”, not because of any scientific conspiracy but because of the previous points.
Poor work Andrew Bolt.
[* What is the register? The Register is the one of the world’s biggest online tech publications, with more than five million unique users worldwide. The US and the UK account for more than 1.5 million readers each a month…
Most Register readers are IT professionals – software engineers, database administrators, sysadmins, networking managers and so on, all the way up to CIOs. The Register covers the issues they face at work every day – in software, hardware, networking and IT security. The Register is also known for its “off-duty” articles, on science, tech culture, and cult columnists such as BOFH and Verity Stob, which reflect our readers’ many personal interests.]
Not unusual, not the hottest, not still warming February 14, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Misrepresentation.
Bolt’s Post 15 February, 2010
In this post, Bolt purposely misrepresents a climate scientist to make up his own climate change claims:
In response to this question:
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Phil Jones responds:
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
So, shorter: The global warming from 1995 is nearly significant at the 95% confidence level.
To the question:
Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
Andrew Bolt turns this into:
There has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years, and even cooling since January 2002.
Jones said the cooling was definitely not significant and the warming was nearly significant, yet Bolt chooses to make that claim!
In relation to the question on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Jones is asked:
There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
Phil Jones says:
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
[In fact, there is quite strong evidence (via SkepticalScience) that the MWP was not a global phenomenon but was associated with localised or isolated warming which was offset by colder temperatures over other parts of the globe.]
Bolt uses this statement to illogically jump to a conclusion that:
So the recent rate of warming isn’t unprecedented when likened to recent warming periods that are not blamed on man.
Not only does Bolt misrepresent Jones but he then claims his own misrepresentations as facts:
And these facts, agreed to now by one of the scientists most responsible for the man-made warming theory, is behind the greatest mass panic in modern history.
Been there before, and survived beautifully February 13, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Doesnt Understand, Misrepresentation.
Bolt’s Post 13 February, 2010
Bolt asks a question:
So if the science on the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] is not settled, why did the IPCC use the since-discredited ”hockey stick” of IPCC author Michael Mann to claim it was?
But does he really want to know the answer?
Well, if he does, SkepticalScience can provide it:
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
I wonder, does Bolt understand what the grey shade is above and below the temperature line? They are uncertainties. Note that the uncertainties are a measure of the possible variation expected from the “true” or “real” temperatures. What this means is that, whilst the data collected provides the plotted temperature series (black line with 40 year running average in blue), theoretically, the temperatures at each point of the series could actually lie anywhere in the grey shaded area. And this is what sceptics use to suggest that the global temperature could have been as high as it is today by virtue of the uncertainties.
However, those sceptics that say it actually was as high are being disingenuous and misleading. The time series itself and its relatively continuous nature from one point to the next, in relation to the uncertainty, suggest that a “reasonable degree of confidence” can be assumed in the legitimacy of the temperature series.
However, as SkepticalScience says:
The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.
No one denies that there were errors made in the initial study produced by Mann. But to continue to assert that the whole area of long term temperature estimation using ice core data and other temperature proxies is discredited and that subsequent results from reanalysis are unusable is untrue and deceptive.
Suzuki snows the gullible February 12, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Abuse, Misrepresentation, Smear.
Bolt’s Post 13 February, 2010
Bolt starts his post with abuse of David Suzuki:
Ah, that old shonk Suzuki can’t miss this opportunity to mislead.
The bolded text was a link to a Bolt column that presumably proves Bolt’s right to abuse Suzuki – a standard underhand tactic of Bolt’s.
But, in this post, Bolt is referring and referencing a post by Watts that clearly wants the reader to believe that, the fact that Northern America has had excellent and widespread snowfalls this winter, is evidence enough to debunk the scientific claims that snowfalls have declined over the past 50 years.
As has already been pointed out, a single season does not serve to disprove the science that has established the snowfall decline that is likely to be associated with climate change and global warming:
TRENDS AND VARIABILITY OF SNOWFALL AND SNOW COVER ACROSS NORTH AMERICA AND EURASIA. PART 2: WHAT THE DATA SAY, David A. Robinson* , Rutgers University, Department of Geography, Piscataway, New Jersey, Richard R. Heim Jr. NOAA / NESDIS / National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
The results presented in this paper represent a first look at what promises to be a valuable database of historic station snow observations. The addition of satellite-derived snow extent data only further strengthens our evaluation of snow variability and potential trends. Results show that snowfall and snow cover was more pervasive in the 1960s and 1970s than in the 1950s or in the past 20 years. In particular, recent decades exhibit the lowest spring snow values observed in the past half-century.