Durango Bill’s
Debunking the Deniers of Global Warming


The “Global Warming Stopped in 1998” Lie

Global Warming Deniers claim that Global Warming is a hoax/fraud/scam.
They lie, they are willfully ignorant, and they are wrong.


“Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.”
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/key-findings


   One of the false claims that Global Warming Deniers have been making in recent years is that “Global Warming Stopped in 1998”. (Alternately they may pick some other year that “global warming stopped”.) As per usual, this claim is another deliberate GWD falsehood that can be easily debunked by looking at the actual observations.

“Global warming 'hiatus' never happened”
Stanford University
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/september/global-warming-hiatus-091715.html



The Actual Temperature Record


The year 2015 set an all-time temperature record as measured by NOAA’s National Climate Data Center.

The NOAA/NCDC record

The graph above shows the NOAA/National Climate Data Center12-month average temperature data up thru Dec. 2015.
Data source:   http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global


The year 2015 set an all-time temperature record as measured by NASA/Columbia University’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The GISS temperature record

The graph above shows the GISS 12-month average temperature data up thru Dec. 2015.
Data source:   http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif


The year 2015 set an all-time temperature record as measured by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit.

The HadCRUT4 temperature record

Data source:   http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/


The year 2015 set an all-time temperature record as measured by the Japan Meteorological Agency.

The temperature record as measured by the Japan Meteorological agency

Data source:   http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html


The year 2015 set an all-time temperature record as measured by Berkeley Earth Analysis.

The Berkeley Earth temperature record.

Data source: http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-Hottest-Year-BE-Press-Release-v1.0.pdf



And what do the Global Warming Deniers say about this record warmth?

Temperature records can’t be trusted because:                                                             It’s a conspiracy.
Then and now photographs of melting glaciers can’t be trusted because:                    It’s a conspiracy.
     See “Melting Alaska makes the front page”
     http://www2.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1731.html
Videos of high tides flooding Miami can’t be trusted because:                                    It’s a conspiracy.
     See “Miami Beach Sea Level Rise, Paradise Lost!”
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4UueAile5A
     Also see: “Miami Beach’s battle to stem rising tides”
     http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article41141856.html
Anything that is not part of our “Alternate Reality” can’t be trusted because:             It’s a conspiracy.


The temperature record starting with 1975

   The graph above shows the actual global temperature anomalies as compiled by NOAA/NCDC (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration / National Climate Data Center -  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ ) from 1975 to Oct. 2016. Individual months, a 25 month centered moving average, a least squares trend line, and 10-year warming rates are shown. The graph uses data that can be found at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

Slope (green line)  = 0.171 degrees C. warming per decade.

The moving average (yellow line) shows that new record high global temperatures were set through at least Oct. 2016.

Note: NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) maintains the world's largest climate data archive.

   If you want to use calendar years as your measurement tool, then the NOAA/NCDC data shows that 2005 broke the 1998 average for record warmth. Then 2010 broke the record again. Then 2014 broke the record again. 2015 set still another record. And 2016 will set still another record. (Data available at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

   The NASA / Columbia University temperature database shows a similar pattern. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

   The red line in the above chart shows short term (10-year) warming rates in degrees per decade. Technically, it shows the 10-year, least squares slope ending at the plot position.

   The short term slope is subject to volcanic eruptions, El Nino/La Nina conditions, and/or ordinary random statistical noise. Global Warming Deniers will pick out the low points in this warming rate and claim that global warming has stopped, and/or global warming has paused, and/or global warming is in a hiatus, and/or global warming doesn’t exist, etc. When you look at the larger picture, it is obvious that these short term fluctuations are just a part of a longer term upward trend.

   Global Warming Deniers “Cherry Pick” the low points in the short term trend, and then claim that these short term low points “prove” that global warming doesn’t exist. The purpose of the Cherry Picking is to use short term random events to obscure longer term trends.




Least Squares Trend Lines

   When statisticians want to discern a trend from seemingly random data, they frequently calculate and plot trend lines along with plotting the original data. The simplest of these is a linear regression ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression ) straight trend line. There are additional calculations that can be made that show how well the trend line fits the data and the magnitude of possible errors, but the simplest analysis simply plots the trend line along with the original data.

   It should be noted that when longer time periods and larger databases are used, the potential amount of error in the calculated trend line’s coefficients is reduced. (Potential errors could be accidental or they could be a deliberate manipulation by people who want to misrepresent what is actually happening.)

   The charts below show that even if you “Cherry Pick” the time period for your temperature data, least squares regression analysis is robust enough to still show that world temperatures are continuing to rise. All the charts use data that is available at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php Also please compare each “Cherry Picked” chart with the earlier chart that shows the temperature record since 1975.


The temperature record starting in January 1996.

The chart above shows the temperature record and a least squares trend line with the time period beginning in Jan. 1996. (The 1998 El Nino event actually started in 1997. Thus 1996 is used for the chart.)


The temperature record starting in January 1998.

The chart above shows the temperature record and a least squares trend line with the time period beginning in Jan. 1998.


The temperature record starting in January 1999.

The chart above shows the temperature record and a least squares trend line with the time period beginning in Jan. 1999.

   All of the above charts were generated by Microsoft’s Excel. All of the charts show that the world’s average temperature is rising. You can alter the slope of the trend line by selectively picking your starting point, but the directional trend is the same. It doesn’t make any difference whether you pick a date just before “Global Warming Stopped in 1998”, right at “Global Warming Stopped in 1998”, or just after “Global Warming Stopped in 1998”. The actual data shows that in reality:

Global Warming Didn’t Stop in 1998.



The 1975 thru 1997 Trend Line had it Right

   It is interesting to compare a future forecast that just uses the 1975 thru 1997 data with what has actually happened since then. If trend lines have a value, then they should be useful for predicting the future.

    Thus, the NOAA/NCDC data for just Jan. 1975 thru Dec. 1997 was used for still another analysis. As with the other charts, the trend line function in Microsoft’s Excel was used to calculate a trend line. As with the other graphs, only the plotted data was used for input to Excel’s trend line calculator. The results are shown below.


NOAA/NCDC temperatures for 1975 thru 1997

Slope = 0.159 degrees C. warming per decade.

   If you use the above trend line to make a temperature anomaly forecast for the 1998 to 2016 period, what would you expect? Would you expect temperature anomalies to cluster around (or above) the 0.60 level? Now look at the preceding charts. What actually happened?

   Please compare the trend line that uses just the Jan. 1975 thru Dec. 1997 data (shown above) with the trend line that uses the Jan. 1975 thru Oct. 2016 data (first Excel chart). The upward slope of the two trend lines is almost identical. If you check the right end of the two trend lines, the warming rate has actually accelerated slightly.

   The upward trend is the same whether you include the Jan. 1998 to Oct. 2016 data or whether you omit it. If the average temperature for Jan. 1998 to Oct. 2016 had been something different than what was forecast by the 1975 thru 1997 data, then the slope (steepness) of the trend line would have changed. What happened was that the average increase in temperature for the Jan. 1998 thru Oct. 2016 period turned out to be almost identical to what was forecast by the earlier data.

Global Warming did not stop in 1998.




Land vs. Oceanic Temperatures

   It is interesting to compare the temperature record for land areas vs. the oceans. (Land areas in the northern hemisphere are used since southern hemisphere land temperatures are more subject to oceanic modification.)

   71 percent of the earth’s surface area is oceanic. Any forcing that would tend to change the earth’s temperature is slowed by the oceans since it takes a huge amount of heat input to produce much temperature change in the massive volume of the oceans.

The "Land Only" temperature record.

Slope = 0.324 degrees C. warming per decade.

   The chart above shows the Northern Hemisphere “Land Only” temperature record as measured by NOAA’s National Climate Data Center. The actual data is available at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php


The oceanic temperature record

Slope = 0.129 degrees C. warming per decade.

   The chart above shows oceanic surface temperatures. Again, the actual data is available at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
Both charts use the same temperature scale.

   If you compare the two charts, there are several noticeable differences. First, there is a much greater month to month variation in temperatures for “land only”. This is to be expected since inland areas such as Chicago are going to have much larger temperature variations than oceanic areas.

   Of greater significance, the rate of temperature rise for “Land Only” is more than double the rate for ocean temperatures. The lag effect of the oceans has less influence over land areas. Thus “land only” temperatures are more “up to date” in showing what is really happening with global warming. Note that the rate of temperature rise for land areas as shown by the trend line is 0.324 degrees C per decade which is 5.8 degrees F per century.

   Greenhouse gases produce thermal forcing which is equivalent to the heat of just a few mini Christmas tree lights per sq. meter. It takes decades at this rate to significantly warm an oceanic column of water that is thousands of feet deep. However this net forcing is a 24/7 average, and current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have already committed us to hundreds of years of future oceanic warming.

   The years 2011 – 2013 were characterized by an increase in mixing between warm surface water and deeper cool water in the earth’s oceans. (Large storms such as Hurricane Sandy are really good as mixing agents.) Mixing cools off the surface water - and the air above it. This mixing caused oceanic surface temperatures to lag further behind the warming that has been observed in land areas, but once you know what has held back the “sea” component, it becomes obvious that:

Global Warming did not stop in 1998.



Deep Ocean Heating

   As measured by the amount of heat going into the earth’s oceans, it looks like global warming may have actually accelerated since the year 2000.

A measurement of the heat going into the Earth's Oceans

   The graph above shows the amount of heat energy that has been added to the world’s oceans. The original graph can be seen as Fig. 1 in the published paper “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content” which can be accessed at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

Note: OHC stands for Ocean Heat Content

   To give some idea of the amount of heat that has been added to the oceans, 1023 Joules is enough heat to warm over 67 thousand tons of water from 40 deg. F to 140 deg. F for each of the 7 billion people on planet earth. (1,000 Joules ~= 0.94845 BTU)

Earlier measurements of the heat going into the oceans.   The chart at the right shows the results of other studies that have measured the increase in oceanic heat content. Thus the results of the more recent study confirm these earlier studies. The original version of the graph at the right can be seen at: NOAA’s 2009 “State of the Climate” report. Downloadable from:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009.php

   This earlier chart shows the “Heat Content Change” of the top 700 meters of the world’s oceans as measured by several researchers. As above, the unit of measure is “Joules” which is the standard metric measure for energy. (Note: XBT stands for expendable bathythermagraph data)

   The vast majority of the heat imbalance due to global warming actually goes to warming the oceans. The increase in air temperatures and glacial melting is actually just a small component.

   As noted below, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation appears to determine (or measure) where the heat from thermal forcing ends up. In recent years, ocean currents (which are subject to the PDO) are continuing to circulate heat from the ocean’s surface down to deeper levels.

The Ocean Heat Content graph updated to June 2013.

   The graph above is from http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ and updates Ocean Heat Content up through June 2013. The world’s oceans continue to warm at an accelerating pace.

Note: Ocean temperature measurements are made by the Argo buoy system.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/About_Argo.html

   It can be easily calculated that the increase in oceanic heat from 6E22 Joules in 1998 to 19E22 Joules in 2013 is equal to the accumulated heat content of detonating 4 Hiroshima Atomic Bombs per second (running 24/7 = 126,000,000+ bombs per year) from 1998 to the present.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy for the 67E12 Joules heat content of one of these bombs.)


Ocean Heat Content and warming rate as measured by the Argo buoy system.

   The graph above shows the Ocean Heat Content as measured by the Argo buoy system (red line in the previous graph) up through Mar 2016. (Data available at http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html ) The slope of the trend line shows us how fast the oceans are warming.

As of Sept. 2016 the warming rate is:
1.04E22 Joules per year
= 4.9 Hiroshima Atomic Bombs per second
= 3.30 trillion 100-watt light bulbs running 24/7.
= 440 100-watt light bulbs for each of the 7,500,000,000 people on planet earth
all running 24/7.

Now calculate your electric bill.

Note: The relatively short time span involved for the above data means that the calculation for the warming trend will be subject to variations (possibly +/- 10% in the slope) as new data becomes available , but the long term warming trend is expected to become even steeper.


Conclusion: Global Warming did not stop in 1998.



The PDO and the Rate of Atmospheric Temperature Rise

   The rate that atmospheric temperatures rise is a complex function that includes all possible components. One of these components is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.  A detailed description of the PDO can be seen here. http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/  Ocean currents in the Pacific Ocean are known to undergo small changes depending on the positive or negative state of the PDO.


The PDO Index starting with 1975

  The chart above shows the PDO Index starting with 1975. Data for the chart can be seen at: http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest Note that the PDO was mostly negative for the 30-year period before 1975.

   The PDO appears to be a way of measuring the mixing rate between surface water and deep water in the Pacific Ocean. When the PDO Index is predominately positive, there appears to be less mixing of surface and deep water in the Pacific Ocean. This allows rapid surface warming. (Including the air in contact with it.)

   When the PDO is positive, atmospheric temperatures rise rapidly in response to carbon dioxide forcing.

   When the PDO is predominately negative, it means that the mixing rate between surface and deep water in the Pacific Ocean is greater. An increased amount of warm surface water sinks deeper into the ocean and an increased amount of colder deep water rises to replace it. (This frequently shows up as a La Nina episode.) This colder water cools the air that is in contact with it. When the PDO is negative, global warming as measured by atmospheric temperatures proceeds at a slower rate because more of the carbon dioxide forced heating goes into the deep ocean instead of the atmosphere.

   Global warming is going to continue no matter what state the PDO is in. The PDO just controls where the heat is going.



The Satellite Temperature Record

   Satellites can measure “brightness” microwave radiation which can be translated into temperatures. What the satellites lack in surface detail is offset by their ability to quickly observe the whole world. However, there are known problems when satellites are used to try to determine long term climate changes. The many “revisions” that appear in the satellite record attest to continuity problems that have yet to be satisfactorily resolved. (See “A little caution should be used . . .” below)

   The University of Alabama – Huntsville uses NASA’s satellites to monitor global temperatures. The graph below shows what has been observed up through Oct. 2016.

Global temperature anomalies as measured by satellites.

Slope = 0.154 degrees C. warming per decade.

The data source for the above graph is the “Globe” column at:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
Alternate source:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/upper-air/msu/uahncdc.lt

It would be of interest as to just how Global Warming Deniers define their claim that “Global Warming Stopped in 1998”.



A little caution should be used regarding satellite temperature measurements. Satellite observations are most useful for observing short term events, but there are multiple intrinsic problems if they are used for temperature observations over multi-year periods.

From Wikipedia:

“Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances.”

“The satellite time series is not homogeneous. It is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical sensors. The sensors also deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for orbital drift and decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

Satellite temperature measurements are helpful, but they are not as accurate as surface measurements using “old fashion” thermometers (which are easy to calibrate). As stated on the Remote Sensing Systems website:

“A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).”

http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

More technical explanations of satellite observational problems can be found at:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature#Uncertainty


   One of the recent claims by Global Warming Deniers is that satellite temperature measurements are more accurate than surface temperature measurements. This is another fabrication by Global Warming Deniers.

Satellite vs. surface temperature uncertaintees

   As can be seen in the chart above, satellite temperature measurements have 5 times the error as surface temperature measurements. For a detailed explanation please see  http://www.skepticalscience.com/Satellite-record-vs-thermometers.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface_temperature_or_satellite_brightness.html

   Also please see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0 where Carl Mears (Senior scientist at Remote Sensing Systems) explains the problems involved with satellite observations and presents the above chart at 2:11 into the video.




Roy Spencer’s “Custom Adjustments” to the Satellite Record

   The UAH satellite chart shown above uses the official “peer reviewed” data that is accepted and used by NOAA. For example see “Microwave Sounding Unit Temperature Anomalies” at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/

   However, Roy Spencer (a known Global Warming Denier – see “Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1” https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/  and “Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer” http://www.skepticalscience.com/Journal-editor-resigns-over-fundamentally-flawed-paper-Roy-Spencer.html ) is not above applying his own “custom adjustments” to the official measurements to try to promote his own denial agenda.

   Roy Spencer has applied his own “Custom Adjustments” (And he acknowledges that they are NOT peer reviewed. See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/ ) that come closer to the message that he would like to promote. (Click on “Latest Global Temp. Anomaly” at http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ )

   Let’s compare the peer-reviewed official measurements as shown above with the results after Roy Spencer’s “Custom Adjustments” to the same observations.

UAH temperature anomalies after Roy Spencer's "Custom Adjustments"

Slope = 0.123 degrees C. warming per decade.

   The chart above shows the UAH satellite temperature record after using Roy Spencer’s new “Custom Adjustments”. Temperature anomalies in early 2016 are still setting new record highs as per the moving average, but “somehow” the uptrend doesn’t seem to be as steep. If we subtract version 5.6 data from Roy Spencer’s “Custom Adjustments” (v. 6.0), we can see the difference in the two data sets.

The difference between the "peer reviewed" data and Roy Spencer's "Custom Adjustments"


Slope = -0.03 degrees C. (cooling) per decade.

   The chart above shows the temperature anomaly differences between the official peer-reviewed data and Roy Spencer’s “Custom Adjustments”. We see that the “Custom Adjustments” have produced more than 0.1 degrees of “cooling” from the late 1990s to the present. Global Warming Deniers try to promote their “Global Warming stopped in 1998” agenda. “Interesting coincidence”?

   Presumably Spencer’s rebuttal would classify the earth’s melting glaciers (see below) as part of a “global warming Nazis” conspiracy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/


. . . But then again, what would you expect from someone whose “scientific methodology” is:
 “I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution”
“The Evolution Crisis”
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php


For more information, please see:
YALE Climate Connections
“How Reliable are Satellite Temperatures?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UVMsYXzmUYk


John Christy's favorite misrepresentation graph

For additional information on how Roy Spencer and John Christy willfully misrepresent satellite data, please see “Republicans' favorite climate chart has some serious problems”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/19/republicans-favorite-climate-chart-has-some-serious-problems

  It also appears that the “Denier’s” chart (above) misrepresents the weather balloon observations (see below). Global Warming models predict warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and cooling in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). This is exactly what has been observed.

   The “Denier’s” chart appears to have averaged the two regions (“Circles – Avg. 4 balloon datasets”) which gives a much slower rate of “total” warming.

   If you check the balloon observations (below) that show the lower half of the atmosphere, the average warming amount from the late 1970s to 2015 runs between 0.6 and 0.7 degrees. This is exactly what the models (red line) were predicting.

   Also, if you check the label at the top of Christy’s chart, Christy has included temperature readings up to 50,000 feet. 50,000 feet up is in the stratosphere – which is cooling as predicted by global warming models. Thus Christy has averaged stratospheric cooling with lower tropospheric warming to get a “slower warming rate”.

Temperature anomalies at the 100 mb level

   The chart above shows the temperature anomalies at the 100 millibar level in the atmosphere. (Averages a little over 50,000 feet above sea level.) Data source: 100 mb column in the Globe section at:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/

Please see the pressure < --- > altitude converter at http://www.srh.noaa.gov/epz/?n=wxcalc_pressurealtitude to convert pressure in millibars to altitude above sea level.

   Christy then compares this “slight-of-hand” slower warming rate with the expected much faster warming rate near and at the earth’s surface. He then claims that the warming rate hasn’t kept up with the warming rate forecast by the computer models. He then claims that this (deceitful) warming rate “proves” that the computer models (which are just numeric calculations that use known laws of physics) are wrong/worthless.

   It would appear that some of the serious problems of the “Republicans' favorite climate chart” include WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION OF THE DATA.


Full Definition of FRAUD

1 a :   DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically :   intentional perversion of truth in order to induce
          another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
   b :   an act of deceiving or misrepresenting :   TRICK

2 a :   a person who is not what he or she pretends to be :   IMPOSTOR; also :   one who
          defrauds :   CHEAT
   b :   one that is not what it seems or is represented to be

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud



As for Christy’s analytical forecasting ability . . .

From Discover Magazine in Feb. 2001:
“Christy thinks it equally likely that the Earth's surface will cool.”
http://discovermagazine.com/2001/feb/featgospel

“Christy has been wrong for decades”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/17/3461320/john-christy-climate-change-dick-cheney-iraq/

“Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover.”
http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/09/climate-science-contrarian-roy-spencers-oil-industry-ties.html







Weather Balloons

NOAA/NCDC (National Climate Data Center) also keeps temperature records as measured by weather balloons. Altitudes above sea level vary from sea level to 30 mb (high in the stratosphere).

The chart below shows temperature anomalies at the 850 mb level. (About 4,000 to 5,000 feet above sea level which is in the lower troposphere.)

Temperature anomalies at the 850 mb level

The chart above shows temperature anomalies at the 850 mb level as measured by weather balloons (Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC))


Temperature anomalies at the 700 mb level.

The chart above shows temperature anomalies at the 700 mb level (about 9,000 to 10,000 feet above sea level) as measured by weather balloons (Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC))


Temperature anomolies at the 500 mb level.

   The chart above shows temperature anomalies at the 500 mb level (about 18,000 to 19,000 feet above sea level) as measured by weather balloons (Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC)). The 3 charts show the 3 standard pressure levels for the lowest 1/2 of the atmosphere. (Lower Troposphere)
(Data for 2016 show partial year results)

The description for the above charts can be found at:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/weather-balloon/radiosonde-atmospheric-temperature-products-accessing-climate

If you follow a couple of links at the above webpage, you can access the source data for the above charts. It's the 850 mb, 700mb, and 500 mb data in the “Globe” section at:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/

   Of note: The 1998 temperature spike that shows up in the satellite data can also be seen in the 700 mb and 500 mb charts. The El Nino that occurred that year forced “wet adiabatic” lapse rates over equatorial regions that replaced the more normal “dry adiabatic” rates. This led to relatively higher temperatures at the 700 and 500 mb levels. (The “adiabatic rate” at any given location describes the rate that a parcel of air would cool if you lift it from sea level to higher elevations. Wet adiabatic rates cool more slowly since heat is released due to water vapor condensation. Thus “slower cooling” produces air that is less cold than what happens with “faster cooling”.)

As can be seen in the charts, weather balloon data confirms that Global Warming didn’t stop in 1998.



The actual temperature record vs. projections/forecasts by the real models

   Earlier we looked at one of the fabricated CMIP-5 charts that Global Warming Deniers tout. As stated at the top of this page, “Global Warming Deniers claim that Global Warming is a hoax/fraud/scam. They lie, they are willfully ignorant, and they are wrong.”

It is worthwhile comparing actual temperature observations vs. the real CMIP-5 / IPCC projections.

Actual temperature anomalies vs. CMiP5 / IPCC models

The chart above was posted on Ed Hawkins’ Twitter page. https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins

   As stated on his Twitter page, Ed is a climate scientist at the University of Reading. Conversely, Global Warming Deniers resort to blogs by people such as Anthony Watts (no college degree in anything), Christopher Monckton (a British politician whose educational background is classics and journalism), etc.

   The chart above shows the actual temperature record as recorded by HadCRUT4 as well as projections by the IPCC and the CMIP5 computer model ensemble. ( http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/index.html  )

   Instead of actual temperatures not living up to what the models had predicted, we see that up through 2015, global temperatures were running at the upper end (warmer than) of what was forecast. In the real world, Global Warming (and all of its expected consequences) is perhaps running faster than what was expected.

   The lesson to be learned is that Global Warming Deniers fabricate their “facts”. If you want the real facts, check a reliable source.





Radiative Forcing

    The reason that global warming is occurring is that human activities have modified the earth’s ability to radiate heat back out into space. The requirement for the earth’s temperature to remain constant is that incoming solar energy (“solar irradiance”) must be balanced by a combination of reflection of this incoming solar radiation and outgoing long wave heat radiation. If incoming solar radiation is relatively constant (and it is), but outgoing heat radiation is reduced, then the earth will warm until rising temperatures (which increase outgoing radiation) can establish a new temperature equilibrium.

   Human activities have changed the earth’s ability to radiate heat. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, combustion of fossil fuels (natural gas, oil, and coal) have increased the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide by over 40%. Carbon dioxide slows the earth’s ability to radiate heat into space. Carbon dioxide and multiple other human generated components have altered the heat balance that existed before the industrial revolution.

   This imbalance caused by human activities is called “Radiative Forcing”. That chart below illustrates the various components of climate forcing, and shows the changes in the net magnitude of this forcing since 1750.

The components of radiative forcing.

   The chart above is part of the “Summary for Policymakers” section of the IPCC’s AR5 report. The top portion shows the various components and the magnitude of their forcing. The bottom portion shows the increasing amount of forcing for various years as measured against what existed in the year 1750.

   The “Solar” component is of interest. Global Warming Deniers try to sidestep the issue by blaming the sun for global warming. The change in irradiance from the sun is negligibly small compared to 1750 values, and has actually decreased since the mid-1980s. Thus Global Warming Deniers are wrong again when they claim the sun is responsible.

   As a technical note, notice that all the molecules listed under “Resulting Atmospheric Drivers” have 3 or more atoms in each molecular compound. Molecules that have 3 or more atoms are capable of absorbing (and reradiating) long-wavelength heat radiation while ordinary atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) form molecules with only 2 atoms each. Molecules that only have 2 atoms do not absorb long-wavelength radiation (the radiation at ordinary temperatures). Thus ordinary oxygen and nitrogen which compose most of the content of the atmosphere are not directly involved in the earth’s heat budget.

   Overall, forcing is increasing and, most likely, will continue to increase for many decades into the future. Other feedback factors such as increased water vapor in the atmosphere are only beginning to kick in, and will become much stronger in the future. The continuing increase in forcing supports the observation from oceanic heating (shown earlier) that total global warming is accelerating. Planet earth will be a much different place by the time temperatures warm enough to reestablish thermal equilibrium.



Other Confirming Observations that Global Warming is Continuing

Status of the world’s glaciers as measured by Switzerland’s World Glacier monitoring Service

Source:
Switzerland’s World Glacier Monitoring Service
http://wgms.ch/latest-glacier-mass-balance-data/

   The chart above shows what is happening to the world’s glaciers. They are melting!    Not only are the world’s glaciers shrinking, the shrinkage rate has accelerated in recent years.

   As for the false claims by the Deniers that glaciers in the Himalayas are advancing, a detailed study that analyzed 7,090 glaciers in central Asia (including the Himalayas and Karakoram) and that was published in 2012 ( http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n9/full/nclimate1580.html ) found that:

“The total glacier area of 7,090 glaciers has decreased from 13,363.5 km2 to 12,130.7 km2 in the period between the 1970s and 2000s.” http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n9/extref/nclimate1580-s1.pdf (Page 3)

    For more information (including then and now photos) about “The Mighty Himalayan Glaciers are Vanishing”, please see http://www.glacierworks.org/ . There’s also a 75 minute video “Rivers of Ice: Vanishing Glaciers of the Greater Himalaya” at http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/default.aspx?id=171318
Alternately, please see http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsChristopherMonckton.html for a “Poster Child” example of a Global Warming Denier lying about the Himalaya’s Melting Glaciers.

Also, please see:
“Science News”
“Study: Mount Everest losing its cloak of ice and snow as world warms”
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/05/13/Study-Mount-Everest-losing-its-cloak-of-ice-and-snow-as-world-warms/UPI-90911368491160/?spt=hs&or=sn

and

Also please see:
“Multi-decadal mass loss of glaciers in the Everest area (Nepal Himalaya) derived from stereo imagery”
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/5/349/2011/tc-5-349-2011.pdf
“We reveal that the glaciers have been significantly losing mass since at least 1970, despite thick debris cover. The specific mass loss for 1970–2007 is 0.320.08mw.e. a−1”
(mw.e. a-1 = meters of water equivalent per annum(year))


The world’s glaciers did not stop melting after 1998.


   NASA has independently measured that the world’s glaciers are melting. How about 4.3 trillion tons of melting from 2003 to 2010?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/grace20120208.html

If global warming stopped in 1998, what melted 4.3 trillion tons of ice?



Argentina’s Upsala Glacier 2003 to 2011

   The Upsala Glacier is one of the larger outflow glaciers from the Southern Patagonia Icefield. The two pictures below were generated by Google Earth. The yellow line was generated by Google Earth’s distance measuring tool, and is over two miles long. The small blue squares show where people have taken photographs.

The Upsala Glacier in 2003

The picture above shows the Upsala Glacier as of May 11, 2003.


The Upsala Glacier as of 2011

   The picture above shows the Upsala Glacier as of Dec. 28, 2011. Icebergs and many smaller ice fragments are floating on a lake which now occupies the former location of the glacier.

If Global Warming stopped in 1998, what caused the Upsala Glacier to melt back over 2 miles from 2003 to 2011?




Alaska’s Columbia Glacier

   The first two pictures below are from NASA's Earth Observatory.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/columbia_glacier.php


The Columbia Glacier in 1986
 
The first picture shows Alaska’s Columbia Glacier as of 1986.


The Columbia Glacier as of 2014.

This next picture shows the Columbia Glacier as of  2014.


   Finally, this third picture shows a Google Earth view of the same area. Google Earth’s distance measuring tool has been used to show that the glacier has melted back 11 miles. (Yellow line.)

A Google Earth measurement of the Columbia Glacier's retreat

If Global Warming stopped in 1998, what melted 11 miles of the Columbia Glacier after 1998?




Polar Sea Ice Extent

   Another “claim” by Global Warming Deniers is that Polar Sea Ice Extent is expanding. Again, this is another Lie.

Polar Sea Ice Extent as measured by NASA

The above chart is from NASA’s Earth Observatory.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85246&eocn=home&eoci=iotd_grid
(As published by the American Meteorological Society http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00605.1 )

   The chart shows Polar Sea Ice Extent as observed by satellites from 1979 thru 2013. There has been a slight increase in Antarctic Sea Ice Extent but this has been more than offset by larger declines in Arctic Sea Ice Extent. The combined sea ice extent is in a continuing downtrend. (Note: As of mid Nov. 2016 Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is setting new record levels.)

(From the NASA link)

“Furthermore, the global sea ice loss has accelerated. From 1979 to 1996, the ice loss was 21,500 square kilometers (8,300 square miles) per year. This rate from 1996 to 2013 was 50,000 square kilometers (19,500 square miles) lost per year.”

Note: The increase in sea ice around Antarctica was forecast 13 years ago.

“It [Antarctic sea ice cover] is also qualitatively consistent with the counterintuitive prediction of a global atmospheric-ocean model of increasing sea ice around Antarctica with climate warming due to the stabilizing effects of increased snowfall on the Southern Ocean.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JC000733/full
May 2002


If Global Warming stopped in 1998, why has sea ice extent accelerated its downtrend – including a new record low in 2012?


Addendum: As of Nov. 2016, both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent are making all-time new lows.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/




Sea Level is Rising


Sea Level is Rising




Sea level is rising.

   The chart above shows what is happening to sea level. As the world warms, sea level rises due to thermal expansion plus water from melted glacial ice. The most recent data at http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries_global.php indicates this rate of sea level rise is continuing to accelerate beyond what was observed up through 2011.


The rate of sea level rise has quadrupled since the 1870 to 1924 period.

   The chart above is a copy of what can been seen at Columbia University’s web page at http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/SeaLevel/ . The rate of sea level rise has quintupled since the 1900 to 1930 period.

“So-called "nuisance flooding" -- which causes public inconveniences such as frequent road closures, overwhelmed storm drains, and compromised infrastructure -- has increased on all three U.S. coasts, between 300 and 925 percent since the 1960s”
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140728_nuisanceflooding.html


If global warming stopped in 1998, what is causing sea level to rise?



Holland Island and Sea Level

   Holland Island is one of the famous (and a bit sad) stories of sea level rise.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378005000579

http://sometimes-interesting.com/2013/04/08/the-last-house-on-holland-island/

   In 1900 Holland Island had a population of 253. Today, due to sea level rise and subsidence, there is nothing left standing.


Holland Island 1898 map and Google Earth view in 2013

(Click on image for a large version)

   A 2013 Google Earth view of the Holland Island area is shown on the left along with an 1898 map on the right. Since 1898, Long Island and the unnamed islet north of it are gone. The north end of Adam Island has been submerged to where only a few sand bars are left.

   The north to south peninsula that used to exist on the southwest side of Holland Island no longer exists. The marshy peninsula on the southeast side of Holland Island is also gone. The northern peninsula that extended nearly to Adam Island has been reduced to a few sand bars. This is where the “Last House on Holland Island” stood until 2010. It is now gone.

   Sea level is expected to rise 20 feet over the next 1,000 years. (See “Eemian interglacial” in the next section (below))  This is enough to submerge major coastal cities including Miami and New Orleans. Over the next 1,000 years these and other cities will gradually be abandoned just as Holland Island has been abandoned. Sometime between now and 1,000 years from now, there will be a “Last Building in Miami”. 1,000 years from now, it too will be gone.

   And long before the land is submerged, the millions of septic/sewage systems will no longer function. (Oh S _ _ _  – All over your backyard)

   The process of abandonment will be gradual salt water intrusion which will rot building foundations and destroy fresh water supplies. (Throw in a hurricane or two for good measure.) Taxes will gradually/relentlessly be increased for public works programs to try to protect what is left. The current population will try to hold out, but future generations will understand what is happening. They will decide to live somewhere else.

USGS study for Miami-Dade County: “The results of the study indicate that as of 2011 [from 1995 to 2011] approximately 1,200 square kilometers (km2) of the mainland part of the Biscayne aquifer were intruded by saltwater.”
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20145025



Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana


Map of Jean Charles, LA in 1963Google Earth view of Jean Charles, LA

   The inhabitants of Isle de Jean Charles, LA are being forced to relocate as a result of rising sea level. The map on the left is a USGS map using 1963 data. The land surrounding Isle de Jean Charles was a marsh – but it was land.

   The right-hand view is via Google Earth. Marshy areas are now just muddy water. It won’t take very many more years until Isle de Jean Charles is also “just muddy water”.

Ditto for New Orleans.
Ditto for Miami.


North Topsail Beach, North Carolina

   The three pictures below give an idea of what is happening and what will continue to happen to beachfront property around the world.

North Topsail Beach in 1993

The picture above is a Google Earth view of the seashore in North Topsail Beach, NC as of 1993.


North Topsail Beach as of 2015

The picture above is a Google Earth view of the same area, but as of 2015.

Q: What has changed in the intervening years?
A:
1) The beachfront in front of the condos (lower left) is gone.
2) The beachfront and first row of beach homes to the right of the condos are gone.
3) Walls of sandbags have been placed in front of what is left to try to postpone the inevitable.

And what has happened to property values of the remaining homes in North Topsail Beach?

Zillow.com shows the decline in property values.

   The picture above is Zillow’s ( http://www.zillow.com/ ) estimate of the value of the house with the blue roof as well as values for all homes in the North Topsail area.

   Global Warming Deniers are invited to invest their savings in North Topsail Beach real estate.








The 800,000 Year Historical Carbon Dioxide Record

   NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory has an animation video at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html that shows the historical record of what humans are doing vs. what “Nature” does. The chart below is a print screen image from this video.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide via NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory

   The near vertical line at the right end of the graph shows what human activities have done in the last few decades. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to human activities continues to accelerate upwards.

   In the Eemian interglacial that peaked about 125,000 years ago, sea level rose so that the nearest land to what is now Miami, FL was some 35 to 40 miles away. What do you suppose will happen when glacial melting and thermal expansion of the oceans catches up to what we have already done?



What is Going to Happen to Sea Level?

   The picture below shows a diagram that was published in the July 2015 issue of Science Magazine.
(“The World’s Leading Journal of Original Scientific Research”)
“Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6244/aaa4019.abstract

Histirical sea levels as per Science Magazine

The diagram shows:
“Peak global mean temperature, atmospheric CO2, maximum global mean sea level (GMSL), and source(s) of meltwater.
Light blue shading indicates uncertainty of GMSL maximum. Red pie charts over Greenland and Antarctica denote fraction (not location) of ice retreat.”

   In the Eemian Interglacial that peaked about 125,000 years ago, sea level was some 6 to 9 meters (20 to 30 feet) higher than current levels. This occurred even though maximum carbon dioxide levels were well below what we have now. The right portion of the diagram shows what is expected to happen when warming and glacial melting catch up to current carbon dioxide levels. What is going to happen with future levels of carbon dioxide?






A Typical Example of a GWD “Source” for the “Stopped” Lie

   On Oct. 13, 2012 a British Global Warming Denier tabloid (the “Mail Online”) ran a story with the following headline:

“Global warming stopped 16 years ago,
reveals Met Office report quietly released...
and here is the chart to prove it”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

   The author of the article (David Rose) has a history of willful misrepresentations of reality. But then again, neither David Rose nor his tabloid audience are interested in factual evidence.

The story included the following chart:

The Mail Online's fabricated chart

In reality:
“Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue.”
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/tag/climate-research-unit/
Alternately
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/
Thus when the headline states that there was a report, it is just another Global Warming Denier lie.

      The above graph (which has a “Ben Weller” label as a source) has been widely circulated in Global Warming Denier blogs on the Internet. The article contains no source reference for the “temperature data” in the graph. The origin and credibility for the chart data is unknown, and the only information we have is that the chart was authored by “Ben Weller”.

    It’s instructive to compare the graph that was published in the Daily Mail’s “Mail Online” with the actual temperature record as compiled by the UK’s Climate Research Unit.

The actual HadCrut4 temperature data.

Slope = 0.18 degrees C. warming per decade.

   The graph above shows the Hadley Climate Research Unit’s monthly temperature anomalies from 1975 to present. The data can be accessed and checked for accuracy at
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
(Note: Old versions of the table are subject to minor changes as corrections and late data become available.)

   The 35 month centered moving average (yellow line) is of interest.  It shows that average temperatures beginning in Dec. 2001 have been consistently warmer than the warmest 35 month average that was seen in 1998. If global warming stopped in 1998, why have temperatures for the last 15+ years averaged warmer than what was observed in 1998?

In spite of what the Mail Online article claims, it is obvious that Global Warming didn’t stop in 1998.

   The HadCRUTEM4 data can be easily traced to an actual temperature database. The Daily Mail “Mail Online” graph is attributed to “Ben Weller”.

Who or what is Ben Weller?

Google searches using
“Ben Weller” climate
“Ben Weller” meteorology
“Ben Weller” temperature
return links to various blogs/forums/websites that discuss the article, but not to any source that would indicate that “Ben Weller” works for any scientific organization. Conclusion: The “Ben Weller” name on the chart does not refer to a scientific organization.

   There is a Ben Weller freelance photographer who has contributed work to the Daily Mail/Mail Online. The suspicion arises that Ben Weller has widened his repertoire to include fabricating “Graphic Arts”.

   As for the Daily Mail’s/Mail Online’s “journalistic credibility”, you should realize that they devote a lot of attention to “features” such as:

UFOs
Over 19,000 hits about UFOs at the Daily Mail website.
Over 19,000 hits at the DailyMail website.

Bigfoot
Over 180,000 hits about "Bigfoot" at the Daily Mail website.
Over 180,000 hits at the DailyMail website.

etc.

   Readers should understand that the Daily Mail/Mail Online (and most other publishers) will publish articles that are targeted toward a specific audience - including the audience’s (willfully ignorant) “intelligence” level.


   The source data for the “Global Warming Stopped” headline is unknown. However, Global Warming Deniers are gullible, scientifically ignorant fools who will believe any LIE as long as it supports what they want to believe. Thus they fabricate a mysterious temperature record and then point to this fabricated temperature record as if it were true.



“Red Handed” Evidence that Global Warming Deniers are Liars

The Mail Online/Daily Mail generously provides evidence that they print lies. Here is a Print Screen copy from the Mail Online’s web page on Sept. 19, 2013.

Lies by the Mail Online

The Mail Online asserts “the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it”.

If we check the world’s temperature databases we find that:

1) GISS/NASA shows that 2005, 2007, and 2010 were all warmer than 1998.
     http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

2) NOAA/NCDC shows that 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998.
     https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

3) HadCRUT4 shows that 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998.
     http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-gl.dat

4) And the UAH satellite temperature graph (above) shows that global temperatures have been consistently above the 1998 moving average for the last 14 years.

   The Mail Online is lying again when it states that 1998 was the warmest year on record. Then they fabricated a claim that there is a cover-up.

   The top of this web page states that Global Warming Deniers “lie, they are willfully ignorant, and they are wrong.” The Mail Online is a perfect example demonstrating that Global Warming Deniers are liars.




Still Another Willful Lie by David Rose & The Daily Mail/Mail Online


Another fabricated lie by the Mail Online

   On March 16, 2013 The Daily Mail/Mail Online ran the above chart.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

   David Rose and The Daily Mail/Mail Online claim that temperatures are not following the predictions made by the IPCC. The graph has been widely circulated in the Global Warming Denier blogosphere.

   Does the Daily Mail/Mail Online chart show what the IPCC actually said, or is the Daily Mail/Mail Online chart a fabrication of what the IPCC really said?


What the IPCC really said

The chart above shows what the IPCC really printed in their 2007 report. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf  (Page 98)

The Daily Mail/Mail Online and David Rose willfully fabricated still another lie.




Another Global Warming Denier Lie


As documented above, Global Warming Deniers are not above fabricating false “reports”. Here’s the headline of another example:

“UN Hiding Reports About Inaccurate Global Warming Numbers”
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/11478/20140308/un-hiding-reports-about-inaccurate-global-warming-numbers.htm

This of course is not true, but the assertion needs to be debunked.


The “title” of the actual “report” is:

OVERSENSITIVE
HOW THE IPCC HID THE GOOD NEWS ON
GLOBAL WARMING

   The content of the “Report” is actually Global Warming Denier propaganda put out by “The Global Warming Policy Foundation”.
http://www.thegwpf.org/

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Oversensitive-How-The-IPCC-hid-the-Good-News-on-Global-Warming.pdf

   In turn the GWPF is a “Think Tank” headed by British Politician Lord Lawson – who by an “amazing coincidence” is the same Lord Nigel Lawson who was one of the people featured in Martin Durkin’s pseudo-documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.
http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

Martin Durkin: “Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys”

The scientific validity of the “report” is zero.




“The Register” – And Another Global Warming Denier LIE

   “The Register” is another online Global Warming Denier website – and similar to other Deniers, “The Register” circulates typical GWD fabrications and lies. The Print Screen images below were recorded on July 21, 2015.


A false claim by "The Register"

   The Print Screen image above records an article that appeared on July 21, 2015 on the online website of “The Register” The Register has fabricated a claim that Arctic sea ice cover has returned to values seen in the 1980s. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/21/arctic_bounces_back_world_returns_to_sea_ice_levels_seen_in_1980s/

The claim is another Global Warming Denier LIE.


The reality of Arctic sea ice extent


   The Print Screen image above is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, and displays a graph showing Arctic sea ice extent for every year in the 1980s – plus the first part of 2015. The graph can be interactively generated at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

   The top lines in the graph show Arctic sea ice extent for every year from 1980 thru 1989. The lower line shows what has happened so far in 2015. The Register’s claim that the “Arctic BOUNCES BACK, world returns to sea ice cover seen in 1980s” is a LIE.




An Individual Global Warming Denier
Liar and/or Willful Ignoramus
John Coleman


   “Wing Nut” media often promote “name” people to promote Global Warming Denier ideology – mostly because the GWDs don’t have any evidence - leaving “noise making” as their denial weapon of choice. One of these people is the 80-year old John Coleman.


Another Global Warming Denier "dingbat"

Original source of the picture above was: “Prominent dingbat wants to sue Al Gore for fraud” http://scholarsandrogues.com/2008/03/14/prominent-dingbat-wants-to-sue-al-gore-for-fraud/

   John Coleman has minimal qualifications and no evidence to back up his mistaken opinions. He has no educational background in either meteorology or climatology. His degree is in Journalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)

   Just like P. T. Barnam (“I am a showman by profession...and all the gilding shall make nothing else of me” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._T._Barnum ), Coleman’s “expertise” consists of entertaining the masses – not educating them.

   His contribution as cofounder of the Weather Channel lasted one year before he was forced out (more than 30 years ago) by the other cofounder. (Due to major operating losses – Coleman was CEO and president.) “Eventually, Landmark forced Coleman out of TWC.” The falling out included a lawsuit which Coleman apparently lost.
http://www.desmogblog.com/john-coleman

http://web.archive.org/web/20140404154135/http://www.kusi.com/story/12963605/john-coleman
(It appears that KUSI is trying to “vanish” this web page. If anyone would like Print-Screen copies of what it used to look like, please send me an email and I’ll attach the images to my reply.)


In regard to Coleman’s quote
“There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past”
( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/23/weather-channel-founder-john-coleman-there-is-no-significant-man-made-global-warming-at-this-time/ )
perhaps John Coleman should take a vacation trip to visit the (former) glaciers on the Matterhorn.

Then and recent pictures of the Matterhorn

As for the Weather Channel itself:

Global Warming: The Weather Channel Position Statement

“These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/global-warming-weather-channel-position-statement-20141029

“Accuweather” has the same conclusion.

“Global Warming has Not Stopped”
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/global-warming-has-not-stopped/21199576

For more information on John Coleman, please see the Guardian article:
“Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman prefers conspiracies to climate science”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/03/weather-channel-founder-not-credible-on-global-warming




James Delingpole

   Most Global Warming Deniers tend to be willfully ignorant and/or liars. Another applicable classification might be “Certifiably Delusional”. The delusional category seems to fit James Delingpole – who writes columns for wing-nut websites such as breitbart.com, blogs.telegraph.co.uk, dailymail.co.uk, etc.

James Delingpole qualifies as another "Wing-Nut"

   The above article was published by James Delingpole in April 2012.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100151233/global-cooling-be-very-afraid/

    In the article, Delingpole tells us how Global Cooling is going to take over the world. For example, the chart above forecasts a sharp drop in temperatures for Hanover, NH. The first of two sharp temperature plunges should have been in place by the year 2015.

   Well, 2015 showed a worldwide record jump upward in temperatures. To date, Delingpole hasn’t explained “What went wrong”.


   For a historical 2010 view of Delingpole’s Global Cooling obsession (Delingpole is convinced that there is Global Cooling but it is being covered up by a world “Conspiracy”), please see:
Global Cooling and the New World Order. Global Cooling on the Agenda of the Bilderbergs
By James Delingpole
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order-global-cooling-on-the-agenda-of-the-bilderbergs/21218
(In reality, 2010 set a new record for world warmth, until that record was broken in 2014, until that record was broken in 2015 . . .)



Delingpole also shows a complete ignorance when it comes to the role and source of carbon dioxide.

From:  https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/tag/anthropogenic-co2/

Cliff: Ah, you know we’ve got, the greenies are all against cars and the exhaust, and you know, all this pollution that we put in the air. Ah, what’s the equivalency of a volcano that’s erupting and spewing stuff into the air thirty miles high.

Delingpole: That’s a good question. You remember that volcano that erupted in Iceland a couple of years ago?

Cliff: Yep, that’s the one that made me start thinking about it

Delingpole: Yeah, I think that, I think that that – that volcano produced more CO2 than I think humans have produced in the last, in the last fifty years.

   In reality, human activities produce over 100 times as much CO2 per year as volcanoes For example, please try to find any volcano eruption (including Mount Pinatubo - the second biggest Volcanic Eruption in the 20th century) on this CO2 graph. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html


Also please see: “It's official: a new Ice Age is on its way.” June 15, 2011
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100092280/10-reasons-to-be-cheerful-about-the-coming-new-ice-age/

Global Cooling and the New World Order By James Delingpole
Sept. 26, 2010
http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_Cooling_and_the_New_World_Order_by_James_Delingpole.htm

“that over a decade of global cooling such as that that we have experienced”
About Feb. 2012
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/884/review_watermelons_by_james_delingpole



Deceit by Breitbart

Deceit: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/deceit?s=t
“the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating”

A deceitful article by Breitbart

   On Nov. 30, 2016 Breitbart ran a story with the headline “Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/30/global-temperatures-plunge-icy-silence-climate-alarmists/

   If you check the temperature charts shown earlier on this web page, we see that in reality, global temperatures have not plunged. In fact 2016 is will set another new record high in global temperatures.

   In the first paragraph of the story, Breitbart tries to use “land temperatures” as a proxy for global temperatures. As shown earlier on this page, land temperatures are subject to a large amount of random variation. The land temperature chart shows a steadily rising trend in temperatures, and the moving average is making new record highs as of late 2016.

   Upon further inspection, we see that the article was authored by James Delingpole. (See the section above for more information on the pathological lies of James Delingpole.




Fraud and Deceit by “Steven Goddard”

   Steven Goddard (whose real name is Tony Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard ) runs the realclimatescience dot com website. Goddard (Heller) is another typical Global Warming Denier in that he uses deceit/fraud to promote the denier agenda.

On March 7, 2016 he posted an article titled “NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years”

Steve Goddard's "NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years" article.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/

   The article included a fabricated graph that allegedly implied that Radiosonde (Weather Balloon) data showed no warming as compared to 58 years ago.

Steve Goddard's graph fabrication.

   The picture above shows how Steven Goddard (real name Tony Heller) combined two different graphs that measure two different observation data sets to get a single graph. In particular, note the words “I combined the two graphs”.

   There are several examples of outright fraud in Steven Goddard’s (real name Tony Heller) presentation.

1) The real complete radiosonde data set is available at ftp://ftp1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/ . Why would anyone “combine the two graphs” when the real single-source data set is available? Graphs for the real data were shown earlier on this web page, and they show accelerating warming for the entire period of record.

2) The left side of the graph that Steven Goddard (real name Tony Heller) fabricated contains temperature data up to the 100 mb level in the stratosphere. As shown earlier on this web page, the 100 mb level in the stratosphere is cooling as per global warming models. Steven Goddard’s fabricated chart combines stratospheric cooling (left side of Goddard's graph) with tropospheric warming (right side of Goddard’s graph), and then he alleges “NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years”.

Steven Goddard (real name Tony Heller): “The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.”

3) The original chart that Steven Goddard (real name Tony Heller) used was published in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society, and was used to show short term variations in global temperatures. This included normal brief cooling that follows volcanic eruptions. Steven Goddard erased the labels for the Mt. Agung and Fuego eruptions from his combined chart.

Summary: The heading on this web page states:
“Global Warming Deniers claim that Global Warming is a hoax/fraud/scam. They lie, they are willfully ignorant, and they are wrong.”
Steven Goddard (real name Tony Heller) is still another example of the fraud committed by Global Warming Deniers.


   For more information about “off-the-reality-rails rants” by Steven Goddard (real name Tony Heller), please see the “New Lows: Sea Ice and “Steven Goddard” credibility”
at:
https://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/14/new-lows-sea-ice-and-steven-goddard-credibility/

and/or

“Symptom Of A Liar”
http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/

This guy “nails” the real Steven Goddard (real name Tony Heller).
https://tonyhellerakastevengoddardisnotasociopath.wordpress.com/who-is-tony-heller/

Probable address:
Anthony Heller
Apt. 102
6509 Quiet Hours
Columbia, MD 21045
Tel. (970) 460-6147
Email: tonyheller@gmail.com

Website registration for "realclimatescience.com



Steven Goddard's (real name Tony Heller) address.

Also
http://website.informer.com/Anthony+Heller.html

This appears to be a 704 sq. ft., “Bedford” unit in the HUD subsidized (low income) “Chimneys of Cradlerock” complex. http://www.chimneysofcradlerock.com/apartments/communitymapdisplay.do?lid=en_US&pid=1825

6509 Quiet Hours Apt. 102 is near the top of the above map.

Floor plan of 6509 Quiet Hours Apt. 102


   All of the above brings up the question of “why” do Steven Goddard (real name Tony Heller) and many other Global Warming Deniers go out of their way to reject reality. This motivation may be answered by the following question:


Q: We might ask: What happens to someone who ends up being a financial failure and wants to blame “The Conspiracy” for all of their problems?

A: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/malcontent
Adjective
1. not satisfied or content with currently prevailing conditions or circumstances.
2. dissatisfied with the existing government, administration, system, etc.
Noun
3. a malcontent person, especially one who is chronically discontented or dissatisfied..

Note: This is the same Steven Goddard (real name Tony Heller) who is convinced that there is a “Conspiracy” that has turned historical temperatures from “a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend”.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/





Our Lying Political Leaders


   Lying isn’t limited to just television, newspaper, and media. It also takes place in the U. S. Senate. The picture below is an excerpt from the Congressional Record.

Sen. Jim Inhofe lying in the Congressional Record.

(Click on picture for a large image.)

   The picture above shows Oklahoma’s Senator Jim Inhofe lying, as documented in the Congressional Record. https://www.congress.gov/crec/2014/07/28/CREC-2014-07-28-pt1-PgS4988-2.pdf

Senator Jim Inhofe said:

 “In fact, for the past 15 years temperatures across the globe have not increased. Let’s think about that. Is anyone listening here? Temperatures have not increased over the last 15 years.”

(If you follow the link, scroll down one page to get to page S4989.)

Please check the NOAA/NCDC “1998 to Present” and “1999 to Present” charts (shown earlier) to see what “the scientific record” recorded for this time period.



Also, please see another example of a Global Warming Denier’s assertion that Global Warming has stopped.
http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/FabiusMaximusIgnorance.html
The Fabius Maximus Website is an example of a Global Warming Denier website. A look at the evidence that GWDs lie, they are willfully ignorant, and they are wrong.




Anatomy of Denial

From: Powell, James Lawrence. "The Inquisition of Climate Science". Columbia University Press.Powell 2012, pp. 170–173 as quoted from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Global warming deniers…. throw up a succession of claims, and fall back from one line of defense to the next as scientists refute each one in turn. Then they start over:

The earth is not warming.
All right, it is warming but the Sun is the cause.
Well then, humans are the cause, but it doesn't matter, because it warming will do no harm. More carbon dioxide will actually be beneficial. More crops will grow.
Admittedly, global warming could turn out to be harmful, but we can do nothing about it.
Sure, we could do something about global warming, but the cost would be too great. We have more pressing problems here and now, like AIDS and poverty.
We might be able to afford to do something to address global warming some-day, but we need to wait for sound science, new technologies, and geoengineering.
The earth is not warming. Global warming ended in 1998; it was never a crisis.




Global Warming Models

   How accurate are the computer models that are used to forecast global warming? The chart below is from an in depth essay on global warming at the American Institute for Physics. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

Observed temperature anomalies vs. wat the computer models produce.

   The top part of the chart shows actual observed temperature anomalies vs. what the computer models produce. The bottom part of the chart shows 4 primary components that are used for the computer models. Volcanic eruptions and El Nino are basically random events, and thus their short term fluctuations cannot be predicted in advance. A good reference for tracking current El Nino status is the Earth System Research Laboratory’s web page at:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

   Solar irradiance varies slightly with the 11year sunspot cycle. There is some variability in the length of the cycle and its magnitude, but overall it has just a small influence and irradiance has actually been negative in recent decades.

   The largest influence is “Anthropogenic Effects” with human generated carbon dioxide outweighing all other components. With atmospheric carbon dioxide on a relentless climb, guess what is going to happen to the earth’s temperature in the future?



“Computer Climate Models Are Not Fundamentally Flawed”

As reported at:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/models-not-to-blame-in-failure-to-predict-pause-says-study.html

The climate record with 15 year trend-lines

“Fifteen-year temperature trends. The solid black line is the time series of the global mean surface temperature, plotted as a departure (anomaly) from a baseline period 1961–90. The dashed black line is a smooth fit to this series, representing the long-term warming rate. The blue and red lines are linear trends for each 15-year segment running over 1850–64, 1851–65, …, 1999–2013. Each 15-year segment is shown in red if the trend rises faster than the long-term warming rate in the same 15-year period and blue if it rises more slowly. Marotzke and Forster show that these 15-year trends are dominated by natural (free) variations. The free variations drive the 15-year trends above and below the long-term warming rate as they ride along with it. Courtesy: Nature.”

Citation:
Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends by Jochem Marotzke & Piers M. Forster published in Nature, doi:10.1038/nature14117



Our Best Knowledge

The best information about changes in the world’s climate can be found in our best educational institutions.

The following organizations provide evidence that:
1) Global Warming / Climate Change is real.
2) Human activities are by far the largest causative agent.
3) Global Warming / Climate Change is a continuing, ongoing phenomenon.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“Report: Human activity fuels global warming”
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html

California Institute of Technology
“How We Know Global Warming is Real”
“The science behind human-induced climate change”
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/skeptic_2008.pdf
(If link is broken use:
http://web.archive.org/web/20131228065558/http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/skeptic_2008.pdf )

Stanford University
“A large body of scientific information indicates that global climate change is unequivocal, almost certainly is caused mostly by human activities, is already causing significant harm, and as it continues, holds great risks for our future.”
https://pangea.stanford.edu/programs/outreach/climatechange/

Columbia University
“The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming”
“With higher CO2 concentrations come expectations of a stronger greenhouse effect and therefore warmer global temperatures.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/greenhouse.htm

Atmospheric Sciences - University of Illinois - Champaign
“Evidence continues to mount that human activities are altering the Earth’s climate on a global scale.”
http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/research/01climate.html

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/global-warming

Scripps Institution of Oceanography (University of California - San Diego)
http://scripps.ucsd.edu/img/climate_flyer.pdf

  If global warming stopped in 1998, please provide an explanation as to why our best schools and universities are providing evidence that global warming is continuing.



Conclusion

   The actual observations show that global warming didn’t stop in 1998. What is happening is that a few Global Warming Deniers fabricated a story, and the other members of the Global Warming Denier cult continue to demonstrate their willful ignorance by repeating the same false story.


Return to the Global Warming Deniers index page

Return to Durango Bill’s home page


Web page generated via KompoZer