Recently, I’ve see few things which have bothered me a bit. Now, some of these thoughts have already been expressed, but I thought I’d add my own perspective.
For those who may not have heard, we have another dendro(tree ring) paper out. It is published in full at Nature Climate Change. The paper shows a slight declining temperature slope for over 2000 years.
Of course, this seemingly refutes the works of Mann and all of the others. Personally, I view this as good news, but not for the reason some other’s would. There are some problems with this paper. I’ll just mention a few.
First of all, this study was limited to the geographic location of “northern Scandinavia”. This is not the same as stating the northern hemisphere. And, it goes beyond this, the authors note no divergence from the temp record. This doesn’t reconcile with what has been accepted. But, what is most important, is that these trees suffer from the same physical limitations as all of the other trees in the dendro/temp studies. In fact, this paper reinforces my posit as to why dendro shafts are so straight. For information read this ……. Why Are Dendro Shafts So Straight? The same critiques applied to the other dendro papers apply to this one as well. Just because it slopes as some would like it, doesn’t mean this is anymore valid than the other papers. And, again, I see this as verification that they are inadequate in determining paleo temperatures. This is a trap. Do not step in it.
Another thing I saw which was a bit troubling was this …….
Texas State Climatologist Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon takes an extended interest in Dr. Robert Brown’s comment-turned-essay on WUWT.
The background is lengthy, so go here for the full background story. But, essentially it was a stir about calling skeptics, deniers in a paper by a Dr. Bain. So, Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon(JNG), a luke warm alarmist, says that skeptics aren’t deniers. What prompted JNG to make such a proclamation? The writing of a Dr. Robert Brown, a Lecturer of Physics at Duke University in a response to Dr. Bain, from the comment section of WUWT. JNG explains it ……
Bain, in attempting to explain himself, digs a deeper hole. First he notes that those he would call skeptics and those he would call deniers are two distinct sets of people: “So in my mind we were ultimately challenging such “denier” stereotypes. But because we were focused on our target audience, it is true that I naively didn’t pay enough attention to the effect the label would have on other audiences, notably skeptics.” But then, he proceeds to refer to skeptics as those who believe AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is not occurring, which is precisely fits the definition of “denier” given in his Nature study!
Brown’s comment offers a different characterization of most skeptics, at least those who frequent WUWT, including himself: “they do not ‘deny’ AGW…What they challenge is the catastrophic label and the alleged magnitude of the projected warming on a doubling of CO2.” This seems to be cleanly outside Bain’s “denier” definition, but since Bain equated deniers with skeptics, Bain is tarring them both with a broad brush.
Again, this is a trap. This is allowing an alarmist to define what a skeptic is. For instance, I deny very little. But, I also affirm very little. Much of climate science is guessing with very little ability to verify or refute. Now here’s the point. Neither John Nielsen-Gammon, nor Robert Brown, nor Bain, regardless of what they agree upon, are going to tell me or anyone else who is and who isn’t a skeptic. There are not “levels” or degrees to which a person is a skeptic. The CAGW hypothesis stands on many legs. If one is false, then the whole is false. If one is skeptical of any or all of the CAGW hypothesis, then, they are a skeptic. If you’re in for a penny, then you’re in for a pound. This is a divisive trap. Do not step in it!
And this leads me to the last thing I’m going to mention on this post. Last week, Dr. Judith Curry wrote a post about a meme filled AP news piece “what global warming looks like.” Apparently she was asked questions but wasn’t quoted in the article. So, she share her responses and expounded her thoughts. Judith Curry is the trap. She says and clearly understands the things necessary to be a skeptic. But, she never drives the point home. She is seemingly on an endless trip towards compromise. I’ll demonstrate….. she concludes her post with this statement…..
JC summary: So is this what global warming looks like? Well, this is what the 1930′s and 1950′s looked like. I have stated many times before that I think the 1950′s (warm AMO, cool PDO) are a good analogue for current weather patterns and extreme events. The good news in this latest episode is that no one seems to be trying to attribute extreme events to AGW; merely saying ‘this is what global warming looks like.
Clearly, that’s horse shit. Just because they’re not explicitly stating as such, they are definitely being implicit in attempting to tie recent weather to AGW. It is deception to state otherwise. On the first question the reporter asked of her…….
JC: As global average temperature increases, you can expect periodically there to be somewhere on the globe where weather patterns conspire to produce heat waves that are unusual relative to previous heat waves. However, there have been very few events say in the past 20 years or so that have been unprecedented say since 1900.
Her wordsmithing is incredibly frustrating. Our GAT is increasing? Since when? The rest is correct, by why simply state “as global average temperature increases…”? There’s no illumination, no caveats, just a statement would one could take as affirmation that the earth is warming and that we’re seeing the effect of it today in the U.S. But, we know it is not warming. Even by their own temp readings it hasn’t in the last 15 years and this year is 3rd coolest in the last 15. It is impossible to attach the word warming to this year. As usual, she provides and movement on the issues similar to that of a ping-pong game. This is a trap. Skeptics should not step in these traps.
Do not step in the traps!