CSIRO Scientists 99.999% Sure Warming Caused By Humans

[icyfroth]

A CSIRO report has declared the chances of global warming being the result of human industry as 99.999 percent likely.

The paper published yesterday in the Climate Risk Management journal noted December 2013 was the 346th consecutive month where global land and ocean temperatures exceeded the monthly average of the 20th century.

In other words, not since February 1985 have global conditions been below the average mark.

The likelihood of such an occurrence without human contribution is less than one in 100,000, the report said.

 Entire Article Here

What would scientists know, lol.

[***super_nova***]

I wonder how many ordinary people still do not get it?  Sadly too many still rather listen to shock jocks than somebody qualified.

[lightningdance]

Thanks for posting Icyfroth, I don't think anybody is denying that humans make a difference,  their actions make a difference but a new peer reviewed study exposes the BoM as getting it totally wrong and being out by at least 31%.

SOME of Australia’s long-term temperature records may contain faults introduced by the Bureau of Meteorology’s computer modelling, according to a widely published expert.

David Stockwell said a full audit of the BoM national data set was needed after the bureau confirmed that statistical tests, rather than direct evidence, were the “primary” justification for making changes.

Dr Stockwell has a PhD in ecosystems dynamics from ANU and has been recognised by the US government as “outstanding” in his academic field.

His published works include a peer-reviewed paper analysing faults in the bureau’s earlier High Quality Data temperature records that were subsequently replaced by the current ACORN-SAT.

Dr Stockwell has called for a full audit of ACORN-SAT homogenisation after analysing records from Deniliquin in the Riverina region of NSW where homogenisation of raw data for minimum temperatures had turned a 0.7C cooling trend into a warming trend of 1C over a ­century.

The bureau said it did not want to discuss the Deniliquin findings because it had not produced the graphics, but it did not dispute the findings or that all of the information used had come from the BoM database.

Faced with a string of examples of where the temperature trend had been changed after computer analysis, the bureau has defended its homogenisation ­process.

It has said that while some ­stations may show anomalous ­results, the overall record showed a similar warming trend to that of other inter­national climate ­organisations.

Dr Stockwell does not suggest that the bureau tampered with the Deniliquin data but that the ­bureau may have placed too much trust in computer modelling.

“The discontinuity at Deniliquin is not seen in the raw data and so must have been introduced by the homogenisation process,” he said.

Asked to comment on Dr Stockwell’s findings, the BoM said it “does not routinely comment on unpublished third party ­research”.

In his peer-reviewed paper on BoM’s former High Quality Data set that was replaced by ACORN-SAT, Dr Stockwell said warming may have been overstated by 31 per cent.

The quality of the ACORN-SAT data has been defended by David Karoly from the University of Melbourne, and Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Systems Science at the University of NSW.

The bureau has said adjustments were made to records after comparison with other sites and to take into account changes in ­location or instrument.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/bureau-of-meteorology-adding-mistakes-with-data-modellin...

.

[lightningdance]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

I wonder how many ordinary people still do not get it?  Sadly too many still rather listen to shock jocks than somebody qualified.

---

I listen and read many qualified commentators on the religion of "Global Warming" and I do my own research and reach a sensible an educated decision.

I certainly don't need the "peanut gallery" comments the "deniers" abuse dogma from the chattering classes  to know what I think because I'm coming from an educated opinion.

This science has been turned into a political fight when it should have stayed in academia and science, sorted out there,  but "Rudd" looking for relevance, made it political and the leftists can't move on and leave it to the experts.

[nero_bolt]

Laughable new paper claims 99.999% certainty global warming over past 25 years is man-made

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/03/laughable-new-paper-claims-99-999-certainty-global-warming-ove...

Anthony Watts / 18 hours ago September 3, 2014

I was tipped off to this paper by a Tweet from SkS Reichfurher John Cook, and I started on writing a rebuttal, but discovered The Hockey Schtick had already done a complete job, so I’ve reposted it here.  -Anthony

The Hockey Schtick writes: A new paper published in a journal called “Climate Risk Management” claims a ridiculous degree of “certainty” of  99.999% that global warming over the past 25 years is man-made. The claim is made based upon climate models already falsified at confidence levels of 98%+.

Fundamental problems with this claim [which is basically the falsified IPCC attribution claim of 95% certainty on steroids] include:

There is no statistical difference between the rate of warming over the 27 years from 1917-1944 and the 25 years from 1975/1976 to 2000:

Climate models fail to simulate the [natural with 99.999% certainty] observed warming between 1910 a...

Not being able to address the attribution of change in the early 20th century to my mind precludes any highly confident attribution of change in the late 20th century.” – Judith Curry

The IPCC’s attribution statement [and likewise this new paper is not seem logically consistent with ...

• “climate models are not fit for the purpose of detection and attribution of climate change on decadal...” -Judith Curry
• Statistically significant global warming of the surface stopped 19 years ago and in the troposphere ...
• Over 40 excuses for the 18-19 year “pause” in surface warming indicate that natural climate variability is far greater than climate models simulate, and is capable of overwhelming any climate influence of CO2
• Much of the warming of the past 25 years may be artificial due to urban heat island effects and extensive up-justing of temperature records long after the fact
• The paper uses climate models falsified at confidence levels exceeding 98%, thus the assumptions and conclusions derived from models are invalid

• The models also did not predict the 18-19 year “pause” in global warming, thus are not valid to determine attribution to natural vs. anthropogenic causes
• Climate models are also unable to simulate natural warming during prior interglacials, which were wa... another reason why they cannot be used to rule out that the past 25 years of warming is unnatural or man-made

“Why is the period 1940-1970 significantly warmer than say 1880-1910? Is it the sun? Is it a longer period ocean oscillation? Could the same processes causing the early 20th century warming be contributing to the late 20th century warming? Not only don’t we know the answer to these questions, but no one even seems to be asking them!” -Judith Curry

• Additionally, climate models do not properly simulate solar amplification mechanisms, ocean oscillations, convection, clouds, atmospheric circulations, gr... and thus cannot be used to exclude these natural factors as potential causes of warming
• The model used by the paper assumes only solar total irradiance adequately describes solar forcing of climate, ignoring large changes in the solar spectrum and solar amplification mechanisms. In addition, a simple integral of solar activity does explain most of the known climate change over the past 400 years.

Thus, this new paper is wrong with 99.999% certainty

Lots more here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/03/laughable-new-paper-claims-99-999-certainty-global-warming-ove...

[nero_bolt]

http://www.climate4you.com/

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

This is the type of hyperbole that the deniers clutch with a death grip:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Of particular note are these paragraphs........

In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them." NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a "past president" of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he "still has a role in governing the organization."

The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

[lightningdance]

This is the type of hyperbole that the deniers clutch with a death grip:

See, it's this type of response that makes this whole argument useless. It becomes a ranting place and any sensible debate turns into mud slinging and name calling. Goodbye.

[boris1gary]

---

@lightningdance wrote:

This is the type of hyperbole that the deniers clutch with a death grip:

See, it's this type of response that makes this whole argument useless. It becomes a ranting place and any sensible debate turns into mud slinging and name calling. Goodbye.

---

lightningdance wrote: peanut gallery" comments the "deniers" abuse dogma from the chattering classes  to know what I think because I'm coming from an educated opinion.

This science has been turned into a political fight when it should have stayed in academia and science, sorted out there,  but "Rudd" looking for relevance, made it political and the leftists can't move on and leave it to the experts.

mmm....name calling and mud slinging

It's beyond stupid that our world class CSIRO has had it's funding slashed, shame the Minister for Science couldn't have done something.

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

The CSIRO are merely lapdogs for the IPCC.......of cource they would say that..... what else would you expect........lol.