TONY HELLER's social-media-account content of critical examination of climate science and politics is on Twitter and YouTube:
https://twitter.com/Tony__Hellerhttps://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1
And Tony is now on BitChute:
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/tonyheller/
And this is Tony's web-site:
https://realclimatescience.com/
DENIS RANCOURT mentioned three of his research articles.
One about forest fires:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303446052_Anatomy_of_the_false_link_between_forest_fires_and_anthropogenic_CO2
One about geopolitical propaganda thrusts of early 1990s:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332182416_GEO-ECONOMICS_AND_GEO-POLITICS_DRIVE_SUCCESSIVE_ERAS_OF_PREDATORY_GLOBALIZATION_AND_SOCIAL_ENGINEERING_Historical_emergence_of_climate_change_gender_equity_and_anti-racism_as_State_doctrines
One about radiation-physics calculations of planetary temperature:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336851499_Radiation_physics_constraints_on_global_warming_CO2_increase_has_little_effect
Links to all Denis' climate things are here:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2014/02/denis-rancourt-on-climate-science.html
Showing posts with label data integrity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label data integrity. Show all posts
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Denis Rancourt and Tony Heller agreeing on climate, by skype on December 20, 2019
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
My explanation of the global-warming 'pause' or 'hiatus'
By Denis Rancourt
It cannot reasonably be denied that the main continuous data series used by the IPCC to evaluate global mean surface temperature showed an approximately two-decade "pause" or "hiatus" starting around 2000, which deviated from the predictions of all the many general circulation models (more than 100 simulations from 41 climate models) that were calibrated from the same data series on data prior to 2000.
E.g., see IPCC itself; and Fyfe et al., Nature Climate Change 6, 224–228 (2016). doi:10.1038/nclimate2938
Those who would deny this plain historic fact should be discounted as climate trolls.
The question arises: How did this "pause" occur?
This is my best educated answer:
Call me a crank but I am not the only scientist to have concluded that a global mean surface temperature cannot reliably be calculated from measured data with enough precision to confirm or infirm warmings or coolings of fractions of a degree (Celsius) on the modern observation timescale.
In my 2007 essay, I (in part) put it this way:
Several other scientist have stressed these same difficulties. The algorithms to correct known systematic effects (such as heat island effects, etc.) are guesstimates and the implementation choices affect the result... I don't believe the GIS and spread-sheet magic.
I know what it is like measuring temperatures in a physics lab, and I know data analysis. There is no way geographers and data massage artists can take this kind of physical-measurement data and produce a meaningful global spatio-temporal mean with the claimed precision.
Such graphs should not even have been allowed to be published without complete transparency, from raw data through every algorythmic step to the final result. Any scientist should be able to see and reproduce every single step and know every assumption and manipulation and exclusion. Without this care, it is black-box magic, not testable science. The entire field has failed the test.
There you have it. Many have now argued that the "pause" is not "real". Well, I agree, as I have explained above. They argue that something else is real. I say none of it is real. None of it can even independently be verified.
It cannot reasonably be denied that the main continuous data series used by the IPCC to evaluate global mean surface temperature showed an approximately two-decade "pause" or "hiatus" starting around 2000, which deviated from the predictions of all the many general circulation models (more than 100 simulations from 41 climate models) that were calibrated from the same data series on data prior to 2000.
E.g., see IPCC itself; and Fyfe et al., Nature Climate Change 6, 224–228 (2016). doi:10.1038/nclimate2938
Those who would deny this plain historic fact should be discounted as climate trolls.
The question arises: How did this "pause" occur?
This is my best educated answer:
I believe the “pause” arose because the data could not continue to be manipulated to sustain such a large fabricated “warming” as in the previous decades of data manipulation.
Call me a crank but I am not the only scientist to have concluded that a global mean surface temperature cannot reliably be calculated from measured data with enough precision to confirm or infirm warmings or coolings of fractions of a degree (Celsius) on the modern observation timescale.
In my 2007 essay, I (in part) put it this way:
"It was no easy task to arrive at the most cited original estimated rate of increase of the mean global surface temperature of 0.5 C in 100 years. As with any evaluation of a global spatio-temporal average, it involved elaborate and unreliable grid size dependent averages. In addition, it involved removal of outlying data, complex corrections for historical differences in measurement methods, measurement distributions, and measurement frequencies, and complex normalisations of different data sets – for example, land based and sea based measurements and the use of different temperature proxies that are in turn dependent on approximate calibration models. Even for modern thermometer readings in a given year, the very real problem of defining a robust and useful global spatio-temporal average Earth-surface temperature is not solved, and is itself an active area of research.
This means that determining an average of a quantity (Earth surface temperature) that is everywhere different and continuously changing with time at every point, using measurements at discrete times and places (weather stations), is virtually impossible; in that the resulting number is highly sensitive to the chosen extrapolation method(s) needed to calculate (or rather approximate) the average.
Averaging problems aside, many tenuous approximations must be made in order to arrive at any of the reported final global average temperature curves. For example, air temperature thermometers on ocean-going ships have been positioned at increasing heights as the sizes of ships have increased in recent history. Since temperature decreases with increasing altitude, this altitude effect must be corrected. The estimates are uncertain and can change the calculated global warming by as much as 0.5 C, thereby removing the originally reported effect entirely.
Similarly, surface ocean temperatures were first measured by drawing water up to the ship decks in cloth buckets and later in wooden buckets. Such buckets allow heat exchange in different amounts, thereby changing the measured temperature. This must be corrected by various estimates of sizes and types of buckets. These estimates are uncertain and can again change the resulting final calculated global warming value by an amount comparable to the 0.5 C value. There are a dozen or so similar corrections that must be applied, each one able to significantly alter the outcome.
In wanting to go further back in time, the technical problems are magnified. [...]"
Several other scientist have stressed these same difficulties. The algorithms to correct known systematic effects (such as heat island effects, etc.) are guesstimates and the implementation choices affect the result... I don't believe the GIS and spread-sheet magic.
I know what it is like measuring temperatures in a physics lab, and I know data analysis. There is no way geographers and data massage artists can take this kind of physical-measurement data and produce a meaningful global spatio-temporal mean with the claimed precision.
Such graphs should not even have been allowed to be published without complete transparency, from raw data through every algorythmic step to the final result. Any scientist should be able to see and reproduce every single step and know every assumption and manipulation and exclusion. Without this care, it is black-box magic, not testable science. The entire field has failed the test.
There you have it. Many have now argued that the "pause" is not "real". Well, I agree, as I have explained above. They argue that something else is real. I say none of it is real. None of it can even independently be verified.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Finally! -- The needed politically-driven science will be funded
Science needs competition from opposing views. However, politics drives funded establishment science. That is trivially obvious. Government funding predominantly determines the public research of "independant" university researchers.
In "climate science" there is an overwhelming global alignment towards carbon alarmism, driven by the US desire to deepen its control and exploitation of the economies of India and China and other nations via carbon extortion mechanisms.
As a result, dissenting scientific perspectives are atrophied and the needed competition of ideas and interpretations is crippled.
One of the major scams that has been allowed to propagate via a self-serving scientific establishment is the scam related to "extracting" a mean global surface temperature.
The present warming "pause" may well be an artifact of a continuous-warming data-manipulation scam that no longer is able to survive compatibility with the raw data. I propose that the "pause" is due to a partial rollback of enthusiastic fixing of the data. Maybe time will tell.
Anyway, thanks to a relatively small but now organized political opposition to carbon alarmism, apparently mostly based on US and US-aligned unglobalized domestic interests (domestic oil and shale not yet controlled by the energy giants that must follow US geopolitical machinations), there is now sufficient political opposition that some dissenting science can be encouraged.
Such a project worthy of note was recently announced:
This is a needed and brilliantly strategic approach. The coalition of scientists aims to directly examine how their colleagues have been extracting the mean global surface temperature.
As background, the biggest problem is that prestige journals such as Science and Nature and others never require authors to publicly file all their raw data and all their analysis methods. As such, the fundamental premise of scientific verifiability is allowed to be trashed.
The new coalition will attack this fatal flaw in the scientific debate. Let it be transparent!
Links to the climate science essays and articles of the author of this note are HERE.
Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, in the areas of spectroscopy, condensed matter physics, and environmental science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
