DOCSLIB.ORG

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project Richard Muller Robert Rohde Judith Curry Donald Groom Bob Jacobsen Saul PerlmuAer Arthur Rosenfeld CharloAe Wickham Jonathan Wurtele Elizabeth Muller Novim, U. Calif. Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, Georgia Tech, Oregon State preprints and merged data now online at www.BerkeleyEarth.org Wall St. Journal Op-Ed The Case Against Global-Warming SkepOcism There were good reasons for doubt, un2l now. Are you a global warming skepOc? There are plenty of good reasons why you might be…. As submi8ed: Cooling the Warming Debate Are you a global warming skepOc? There are plenty of good reasons why you might be…. I strongly dislike the 2tle they used. I was not no2fied or warned. backwards presentaon • results first (moOvaon) • data selecOon bias, homogenizaon bias, staon quality, urban heat island • Berkeley Earth The Movie • Robert Rohde: data merging, temperature reconstrucOon, spaal and stasOcal uncertainOes Annual Land-Surface Average Temperature 12-month moving average of surface temperature over land Anomalies relative to the Jan 1950 - Dec 1979 mean these are mostly 1 Gray band indicates 95% statistical / spatial uncertainty interval AMO oscillaons 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 NASA GISS Temperature Anomaly ( °C) NOAA -1.5 HadCRU Berkeley 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 RMS = 0.26 RMS = 0.75 RMS = 1.14 RMS = 1.25 cross-correlaons NOAA (a) Tavg x AMO (b) Tavg x ENSO 0.6 GISS HadCRU Berkeley Earth 0.4 0.2 0 Correlation −0. 2 −0. 4 (c) Tavg x PDO (d) Tavg x NAO 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Correlation −0. 2 −0. 4 −0. 6 −20 −10 0 10 −10 0 10 20 Lag (years) Lag (years) correlaon map AMO ENSO Berkeley Earth Berkeley Earth AMO 11-yr moving average, from Petr Chylek 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 AMO_11Y_Chylek -0.8 -1 24 yr 72 yr note: 24 is 3rd harmonic of 72 also note: 72 is 3rd subharmonic of 24 Berkeley Earth IPCC 1995: temperature rise underway by late1700s Berkeley Earth: temperature rise underway by early 1800s Annual Land-Surface Average Temperature 12-month moving average of surface temperature over land Anomalies relative to the Jan 1950 - Dec 1979 mean 1 Gray band indicates 95% statistical / spatial uncertainty interval 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 NASA GISS Temperature Anomaly ( °C) NOAA HadCRU -1.5 coldest year in the record 6 years before Tambora Berkeley 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Has global warming stopped? Cooling the Warming Debate Richard A Muller Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why. There are 757 stations in the United States that recorded net cooling over the past century,100-year cooling & warming sites many concentrated in the southeast – where some people attributed tornadoes and hurricanes to warming. Stations that cooled (o), or warmed (+) over the past century Moreover, the temperature station quality is awful. The most important stations in the United States are in the US Historical Climatology Network. A careful survey of these by a team led by Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that by US government estimates they have temperature uncertainties of 2-5ºC (3.6-9ºF) or greater. How much worse are thermometers in the developing world? Out of these poor stations, the IPCC says it detects a 0.64ºC temperature rise in the past 50 years, “most” of which, they say, is due to humans. Yet the station uncertainties are 3 to 7 times larger than this claimed warming. We know that cities show anomalous warming, caused by building materials (asphalt absorbs more sunlight than do trees) and energy use. Tokyo rose 2ºC in the last 50 years. Could that rise, and the rise in other urban areas, have been unreasonably included in the staon temperature changes Japanese Airports “cooling” Staon selecOon bias GHCN monthly 37,633 out of 39,028 staons used (96%) most of the unused were < 6 months c.f. GHCN-M: 7,280 staons (19%) Merged data now online at www.BerkeleyEarth.org Staon Quality ranks 1 & 2 (< 1oC) rank 3 (1oC) ranks 4 & 5 (> 2o – 5o C) US reconstructed temperature by quality (1,2,3) and (4,5) both ploAed difference Temperature change rates by quality Urban and Rural sites classified using MODIS satellite map ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ●● ●●●● ●● ● ●●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●●●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●●● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●●●● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●●● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●●●● ● ● ●●●●●●●●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●● ●●● ●● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ●●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ●●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ●●●● ●●●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●●●●●● ●●●●●● ●●●●●●●● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●●● ● ●●●●●● ●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ●●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ●● ●●●●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●● ● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●● ●● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●●● ●● ●● ●● ●●●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ●●●●●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●●●●●●● ●●●●●●● ●●●●● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●●●● ●●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●●●●●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●●●● ●●● ●●●●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●● ●●●● ●●● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●●●●●● ●●●●●●● ●● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ●●●●●●●●●● ●●●● ●●●● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ●● ●●●● ●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●● ● ●● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ●●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ●●● ●●●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●●● ● ● ●●●●● ● ●●● ●●●● ●● ●● ● ●●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ●●●● ●● ● ●●●●●● ●● ●● ●●●●●●●● ●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ● ●●●●● ● ● ●●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●● ●●● ●● ●● ●●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●●● ●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●●●●●● ●●●●● ● ● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●●●●●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●●●●●● ● ● ●●● ●●●●●● ●●●●●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●● ●●●●● ●●●●●●● ● ●● ● ●●●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●●●● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ● ●●●● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●● ● ● ●● ●● ●●● ●●● ● ● ● ●●●●● ●●●● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ●● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●● ●●● ● ●●● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●● ●● ● ● ● ●●●●● ● ●●●● ●●●● ● ●●● ●●● ● ●● ●● ● ●●●● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●●●●●●●● ● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●● ●●● ● ●●●●●● ● ● ●● ● ●●●●●● ● ●●●●●●●● ●● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●●●●●● ●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●●●●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●● ● ●●●●● ● ● ●● ●●● ●● ● ● ●●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ●●●● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ●●●●●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●● ●●●●●● ●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ●●●●●●● ●● ●● ● ●●● ●● ●● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ● ●● ●●● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ●●●● ● ●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ● ●●● ●● ● ●●●●●●●●●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●●● ●●●● ● ●●● ● ●●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic - the New York Times
    12/11/2017 The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic - The New York Times https://nyti.ms/Ouq7Yv Opinion | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic By RICHARD A. MULLER JULY 28, 2012 Berkeley, Calif. CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases. These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy, Hearing
    CLIMATE CHANGE: EXAMINING THE PROCESSES USED TO CREATE SCIENCE AND POLICY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 Serial No. 112–09 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 65–306PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY MCNERNEY, California CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan MO BROOKS, Alabama ANDY HARRIS, Maryland RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DAN BENISHEK, Michigan VACANCY (II) C O N T E N T S Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page Witness List ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Response to Request for Input from Commissioner Allison Herron Lee, Securities and Exchange Commission
    Response to Request for Input from Commissioner Allison Herron Lee, Securities and Exchange Commission on Climate Risk Disclosures Benjamin Zycher Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute June 10, 2021 Estimation of climate “risks” by public companies would be futile, politicized, distorted by an imperative to avoid regulatory and litigation threats, and largely arbitrary, and thus would not serve the traditional goal of the provision of material information to investors. Submitted by webform: https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/ruling-comments This comment letter responds to a request for input from Securities and Exchange Commissioner Allison Herren Lee on the topic of climate “risk” disclosures by public companies.1 It is organized as follows: Summary I. Climate Uncertainties and Choices Among Crucial Assumptions. II. The Evidence on Climate Phenomena and the Effects of Climate Policies in the EPA Climate Model. III. Observations on the Materiality of Climate “Risks.” IV. Additional Observations and Conclusions. 1 See https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/lee-climate-change-disclosures#. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational organization and does not take institutional positions on any issues. The views expressed in this testimony are those of the author. 2 Summary • No public company and few, if any, government administrative agencies are in a position to evaluate climate phenomena, whether ongoing or prospective, with respect to which the scientific uncertainties are vastly greater than commonly asserted. • The range of alternative assumptions about central parameters is too great to yield clear implications for the climate “risks” facing specific public companies, economic sectors, and geographic regions.
    [Show full text]
  • STATEMENT to the COMMITTEE on SCIENCE, SPACE and TECHNOLOGY of the UNITED STATES HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES Hearing on Climate S
    STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Hearing on Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method 29 March 2017 Judith A. Curry Climate Forecast Applications Network Georgia Institute of Technology [email protected] Major points: • Scientific progress is driven by the creative tension spurred by disagreement, uncertainty and ignorance. • Progress in understanding the climate system is being hampered by an institutionalized effort to stifle this creative tension, in the name of a ‘consensus’ that humans have caused recent climate change. • Motivated by the mandate from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the climate community has prematurely elevated a scientific hypothesis on human-caused climate change to a ruling theory through claims of a consensus. • Premature theories enforced by an explicit consensus building process harm scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t undertaken. As a result, we lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate variability and societal vulnerabilities. • Challenges to climate research have been exacerbated by: o Unreasonable expectations from policy makers o Scientists who are playing power politics with their expertise and trying to silence scientific disagreement through denigrating scientist who do not agree with them o Professional societies that oversee peer review in professional journals are writing policy statements endorsing the consensus and advocating for specific policies • Policymakers bear the responsibility of the mandate that they give to panels of scientific experts. The UNFCCC framed the climate change problem too narrowly and demanded of the IPCC too much precision – where complexity, chaos, disagreement and the level of current understanding resists such precision.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Undisputed Facts
    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION ) MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 2012 CA 008263 B v. ) Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr. ) NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STEYN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant Mark Steyn submits the following Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. Mark Steyn’s July 15, 2012 Blog Post 1. On July 15, 2012, Mark Steyn posted a blog titled “Football and Hockey” on National Review’s online blog “The Corner” (“the Steyn Post”) to National Review Online. See Mark Steyn, Football and Hockey, National Review Online, July 15, 2012, https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn/. 2. The Steyn Post states, in full: In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal: I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred [at Penn State] two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Lines & Hockey Sticks
    Red Lines & Hockey Sticks A discourse analysis of the IPCC’s visual culture and climate science (mis)communication Thomas Henderson Dawson Department of ALM Theses within Digital Humanities Master’s thesis (two years), 30 credits, 2021, no. 5 Author Thomas Henderson Dawson Title Red Lines & Hockey Sticks: A discourse analysis of the IPCC’s visual culture and climate science (mis)communication. Supervisor Matts Lindström Abstract Within the climate science research community there exists an overwhelming consensus on the question of climate change. The scientific literature supports the broad conclusion that the Earth’s climate is changing, that this change is driven by human factors (anthropogenic), and that the environmental consequences could be severe. While a strong consensus exists in the climate science community, this is not reflected in the wider public or among poli- cymakers, where sceptical attitudes towards anthropogenic climate change is much more prevalent. This discrep- ancy in the perception of the urgency of the problem of climate change is an alarming trend and likely a result of a failure of science communication, which is the topic of this thesis. This paper analyses the visual culture of climate change, with specific focus on the data visualisations com- prised within the IPCC assessment reports. The visual aspects of the reports were chosen because of the prioriti- sation images often receive within scientific communication and for their quality as immutable mobiles that can transition between different media more easily than text. The IPCC is the central institutional authority in the climate science visual discourse, and its assessment reports, therefore, are the site of this discourse analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response
    A RATIONAL DISCUSSION OF CLIMATE CHANGE: THE SCIENCE, THE EVIDENCE, THE RESPONSE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION NOVEMBER 17, 2010 Serial No. 111–114 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 62–618PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BARON P. HILL, Indiana PETE OLSON, Texas HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania ALAN GRAYSON, Florida SUZANNE M.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011
    Rohde et al., Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:1 http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000101 Geoinformatics & Geostatistics: An Overview Research Article a SciTechnol journal only mean temperatures; however, the three groups reported changes A New Estimate of the Average that ranged from 0.81 to 0.93°C when estimating the increase in land temperatures during the 2000s decade relative to the 1950s decade. Earth Surface Land Temperature As described below, we estimate this change as 0.90 ± 0.05°C (95% Spanning 1753 to 2011 con"dence). Robert Rohde1, Richard A. Muller1,2,3*, Robert Jacobsen2,3, Methods and Materials 1 2,3 2,3 Elizabeth Muller , Saul Perlmutter , Arthur Rosenfeld , In this paper we present results for the Earth’s land surface 2,3 3 4 Jonathan Wurtele , Donald Groom and Charlotte Wickham temperature only, based on analysis of monthly averages at each station. We gathered and merged monthly and daily thermometer measurements from 14 databases to arrive at a collection of 14.4 Abstract million mean monthly temperature observations from 44,455 sites. We report an estimate of the Earth’s average land surface During this process duplicate stations present in the 14 databases were temperature for the period 1753 to 2011. To address issues detected and eliminated. !ese data have now been posted online in of potential station selection bias, we used a larger sampling of a uniform format at www.BerkeleyEarth.org, along with a description stations than had prior studies. For the period post 1880, our estimate is similar to those previously reported by other groups, of the merging and duplicate removal method.
    [Show full text]
  • Oversensitive How the Ipcc Hid the Good News on Global Warming
    OVERSENSITIVE HOW THE IPCC HID THE GOOD NEWS ON GLOBAL WARMING Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok Foreword by Professor Judith Curry The Global Warming Policy Foundation GWPF Report 12 GWPF REPORTS Views expressed in the publications of the Global Warming Policy Foundation are those of the authors, not those of the GWPF, its Trustees, its Academic Advisory Council members or its Directors. THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION Director Dr Benny Peiser Assistant Director Philipp Mueller BOARD OF TRUSTEES Lord Lawson (Chairman) Baroness Nicholson Lord Donoughue Lord Turnbull Lord Fellowes Sir James Spooner Rt Rev Peter Forster Bishop of Chester Sir Martin Jacomb ACADEMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL Professor David Henderson (Chairman) Professor Richard Lindzen Adrian Berry Professor Ross McKitrick Sir Samuel Brittan Professor Robert Mendelsohn Sir Ian Byatt Professor Sir Alan Peacock Professor Robert Carter Professor Ian Plimer Professor Vincent Courtillot Professor Paul Reiter Professor Freeman Dyson Dr Matt Ridley Christian Gerondeau Sir Alan Rudge Dr Indur Goklany Professor Nir Shaviv Professor William Happer Professor Philip Stott Professor Terence Kealey Professor Henrik Svensmark Professor Anthony Kelly Professor Richard Tol Professor Deepak Lal Dr David Whitehouse OVERSENSITIVE How the IPCC hid the good news on global warming Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok Foreword by Professor Judith Curry ISBN 978-0-9573880-7-9 c Copyright 2014 The Global Warming Policy Foundation Contents Contents 1 Foreword 3 About the authors 5 Executive summary 7 Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Curiae Dr
    Nos. 14-CV-101 & 14-CV-126 IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS ________________________________ COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants, and NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., Defendant-Appellant, v. MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., Plaintiff-Appellee. ________________________________ On Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division, No. 2012 CA 008263 B ________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE DR. JUDITH A. CURRY IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS’ PETITIONS FOR REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC ________________________________ John J. Vecchione (D.C. Bar. #431764) Counsel of Record R. James Valvo, III CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE 1875 Eye Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 499-4232 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae January 25, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................ 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3 I. SCIENTIFIC NORMS AND FIRST AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE BOTH EMBRACE THE VIEW THAT ROBUST DEBATE IS CRUCIAL TO TRUTH, PROGRESS, AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE. ................................................ 3 II. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT ALLOW DR. MANN TO USE LAWSUITS AS ANOTHER WEAPON TO HARASS AND SILENCE HIS
    [Show full text]
  • Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process
    Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process Robert Rohde, Richard Muller (chair), Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Jonathan Wurtele, Don Groom, Judith Curry, Charlotte Wickham Abstract A new mathematical framework is presented for producing maps and large-scale averages of temperature changes from weather station thermometer data for the purposes of climate analysis. The method allows the inclusion of short and discontinuous temperature records, so that nearly all digitally archived thermometer data can be used. The framework uses the statistical method known as Kriging to interpolate data from stations to arbitrary locations on the Earth. An iterative weighting process is used to reduce the influence of statistical outliers. Statistical uncertainties are calculated by subdividing the data and comparing the results from statistically independent subsamples using the Jackknife method. Spatial uncertainties from periods with sparse geographical sampling are estimated by calculating the error made when we analyze post-1960 data using similarly sparse spatial sampling. Rather than “homogenize” the raw data, an automated procedure identifies discontinuities in the data; the data is then broken into two parts at those times, and the parts treated as separate records. We apply this new framework to the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) monthly land temperature dataset, and obtain a new global land temperature reconstruction from 1800 to the present. In so doing, we find results in close agreement with prior estimates made by the groups at NOAA, NASA, and at the Hadley Center / Climate Research Unit in the UK. We find that the global land mean temperature increased by 0.89 ± 0.06 C in the difference of the Jan 2000-Dec 2009 average from the Jan 1950-Dec 1959 average (95% confidence for statistical and spatial uncertainties).
    [Show full text]
  • Know the Facts a Skeptic’S Guide to Climate Change
    Know the facts A skeptic’s guide to climate change Are you a climate change skeptic? You should be. With so many people ignoring the science, it’s important to distinguish facts from alarmist statements. Public exaggeration of the harms from global warming have made many of us skeptical of all reported climate science. And rightly so. Despite this, there are scientific facts about global warming that are not in dispute: Human emissions are responsible for the CO2 is a greenhouse increase in CO 2 gas, and more of it in the atmosphere leads to a warmer planet Be an informed skeptic... These scientific facts have been known for at least five decades. 1 Is the extreme weather we see today really caused by global warming? These days, climate change is being blamed for everything, from Hurricane Sandy to tornadoes in Missouri. Claims are made that push beyond what science can tell us. Attributing cause-and-effect to individual weather events is fiendishly difficult. This chart provides a quick assessment of which extreme weather events are not likely linked to global warming, which events might be linked, and which events have demonstrated (though often exaggerated) links. May change Evidence No global with global of some Extreme warming warming but global weather event link amount not warming established link Hurricanes X Tornadoes X Droughts X Forest fires X Heatwaves X Coastal floods X Earthquakes X Floods X 2 Is global warming real? As with any issue in science, there are some things that we know, and some things that are uncertain.
    [Show full text]