Translate

Sunday, July 1, 2018

+Myth: Polar Bear Population Numbers Imply that Man-Made Climate Change does not Negatively Impact Polar Bears

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.




1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



Polar bear populations increased, so either scientists do not know that man-made climate change detrimentally affects polar bears or those detrimental effects are exaggerated.

Purveyors of this myth include Steven Crowder (via his blog) [1; 2, from 6:45 to 8:25; 3, from 7:59 to 9:04; 4, from 1:15 to 2:02], Sargon of Akkad (a.k.a. Carl Benjamin) [149], Paul Homewood [23], Investor's Business Daily [63], The Daily Caller [17], The Globe and Mail [20], WattsUpWithThat [18; 19], Susan Crockford [18; 19], Climate Depot [21], and various other blogs [18]. Crockford acts as the central node from which many myth proponents drew this myth [17 - 19; 21; 23].

Myth: Polar Bear Population Numbers Imply that Man-Made Climate Change does not Negatively Impact Polar Bears

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.




1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



Polar bear populations increased, so either scientists do not know that man-made climate change detrimentally affects polar bears or those detrimental effects are exaggerated.

Purveyors of this myth include Steven Crowder (via his blog), Sargon of Akkad (a.k.a. Carl Benjamin), Paul Homewood, Investor's Business Daily, The Daily Caller, The Globe and Mail, WattsUpWithThat, Susan Crockford, Climate Depot, and various other blogs. Crockford acts as the central node from which many myth proponents drew this myth.

Friday, June 8, 2018

On How the Operators of Judith Curry's Blog Respond to a Clear Fabrication


Backstory: How some contrarians can respond to evidence of fabrication


This post breaks from my usual format. Instead of just critiquing a myth about science or addressing some arguments in philosophy, I want to make a point regarding a recent blog article. The article in question was authored by an individual named Javier in February 2018. The noted climate "skeptic" Judith Curry posted Javier's blog article on her website, as she has done for numerous other blogposts authored by Javier.

I recently discovered a clear fabrication in Javier's February 2018 blogpost. I discuss the fabrication in detail in section 2.7 of "Myth: Attributing Warming to CO2 Involves the Fallaciously Inferring Causation from a Mere Correlation"; I will explain the fabrication again later in this post. In section 2.10 of the aforementioned blogpost I also address other serious flaws in Javier's blog article.

Friday, June 1, 2018

+Myth: An Ice Core Shows a Spike in CO2 Levels without a Spike in Temperature

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.




1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



The myth claims that an Antarctic ice core revealed a recent rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, without a concurrent rise in temperature. Thus recent CO2 increases did not cause much recent warming.

Proponents of this myth include Tony Heller (a.k.a. Steven Goddard) [1, from 11:26 to 13:42; 2; 37; 38], Javier of Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog [51, figure 110], Iowa Climate Science Education [41], Patrick Moore [3], Suspicious0bservers (a.k.a. Ben Davidson) [40], CO2IsLife [39], and various climate science critics online [4; 5; 36].

Myth: An Ice Core Shows a Spike in CO2 Levels without a Spike in Temperature

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.




1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



The myth claims that an Antarctic ice core revealed a recent rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, without a concurrent rise in temperature. Thus recent CO2 increases did not cause much recent warming.

Proponents of this myth include Tony Heller (a.k.a. Steven Goddard), Javier of Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog, Iowa Climate Science Education, Patrick Moore, Suspicious0bservers (a.k.a. Ben Davidson), CO2IsLife, and various climate science critics online.

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

+Myth: Karl et al. of the NOAA Misleadingly Altered Ocean Temperature Records to Increase Global Warming

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.





1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



The myth states that Thomas Karl and other researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) misleadingly, or fraudulently, altered sea surface temperature records in order to artificially increase the global warming trend. Karl et al. fabricated an analysis in this way in order to remove a recent "pause" or "hiatus" in global warming.

Myth: Karl et al. of the NOAA Misleadingly Altered Ocean Temperature Records to Increase Global Warming

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post





1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



The myth states that Thomas Karl and other researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) misleadingly, or fraudulently, altered sea surface temperature records in order to artificially increase the global warming trend. Karl et al. fabricated an analysis in this way in order to remove a recent "pause" or "hiatus" in global warming.

Monday, April 30, 2018

+Myth: Attributing Warming to CO2 Involves the Fallaciously Inferring Causation from a Mere Correlation


The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.




1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



Changing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels correlate with long-term temperature changes on Earth [5; 11 - 21; 447; 1055; 1069, figure 1, with temperature change in panel d updated in 1057; 1589; 1604]. There is also an evidence-based [7 - 10; 34 - 74; 84; 202, chapter 3; 394; 684; 887; 1078; 1101; 1108; 1185; 1357; 1658; 1659; 1741; 1754; 1787; 1831; 1836, pages 22 - 24; 1838, page 57] scientific consensus [28; 31, table 1; 32, figure 2 v007 on page 11; 33, page 49; 499, page 28 in chapter 2; 500] that humans caused most of the recent global warming, predominately via increasing levels of greenhouse gases such as CO2 (just as there is an evidence-based scientific consensus on other topics [22 - 30; 309 - 312; 314; 331, page 3.8; 399; 943 - 946; 947, table 3 on page 4594; 1363; 1435]). Therefore scientists attribute most of the recent warming to man-made release of CO2. Some critics object to this causal attribution, since the critics claim the attribution involves incorrectly inferring causation from correlation [75 - 83; 85 - 87; 89 - 93; 95; 96]. The critics' claim is the myth this blogpost focuses on.

Myth: Attributing Warming to CO2 Involves the Fallaciously Inferring Causation from a Mere Correlation


The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.




1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



Changing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels correlate with long-term temperature changes on Earth. There is also an evidence-based scientific consensus that humans caused most of the recent global warming, predominately via increasing levels of greenhouse gases such as CO2 (just as there is an evidence-based scientific consensus on other topics). Therefore scientists attribute most of the recent warming to man-made release of CO2. Some critics object to this causal attribution, since the critics claim the attribution involves incorrectly inferring causation from correlation. The critics' claim is the myth this blogpost focuses on.

Thursday, March 1, 2018

+Myth: Judith Curry Fully and Accurately Represents Scientific Research

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.




1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



Judith Curry is a prominent critic of mainstream science on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) [1 - 4]. A number of parties champion her positions and cite her as an accurate source of climate science information [88 - 94], including the George C. Marshall Institute [91], the Global Warming Policy Foundation [90], The Daily Mail [92], The Washington Times [94], John Stossel [93], and the "lukewarmer [95]" Matt Ridley [89]. Curry's reliable representation of scientific research is the myth this blogpost addresses.

Myth: Judith Curry Fully and Accurately Represents Scientific Research

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.




1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



Judith Curry is a prominent critic of mainstream science on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW)A number of parties champion her positions and cite her as an accurate source of climate science information, including the George C. Marshall Institute, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, The Daily Mail, The Washington Times, John Stossel, and the "lukewarmer" Matt Ridley. Curry's reliable representation of scientific research is the myth this blogpost addresses.

Myth: Evidence Supports Curry's Claims Regarding Satellite-based Analyses and the Hot Spot

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis (divided into 3 sections)
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.





1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



Climate models predict that in moist tropical areas, a region of the lower atmosphere known as the troposphere will warm more than Earth's surface. This region of greater warming is known as the "hot spot". Judith Curry, a critic of mainstream climate science, casts doubt on the hot spot's existence. She also casts doubt on a recent satellite-based analysis of tropospheric warming. Curry's claims on these topics constitute the myth this blogpost rebuts.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

+Myth: Evidence Supports Curry's Claims Regarding Satellite-based Analyses and the Hot Spot

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis (divided into 3 sections)
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.





1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



Climate models predict that in moist tropical areas, a region of the lower atmosphere known as the troposphere will warm more than Earth's surface. This region of greater warming is known as the "hot spot" [1, pages 14 and 42; 2; 3, page 6; 4]. Judith Curry, a critic of mainstream climate science, casts doubt on the hot spot's existence [5; 6]. She also casts doubt on a recent satellite-based analysis of tropospheric warming [7]. Curry's claims on these topics constitute the myth this blogpost rebuts.

Thursday, February 1, 2018

+Myth: The CCSP Presented Evidence Against the Hot Spot's Existence

This post is part of a series addressing issues related to the hot spot. The other parts of this series are listed in the "Myths about the Hot Spot" section of the "Quick Scientific Debunking" page.


The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.




1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



Climate models predict that in moist tropical areas, a region of the lower atmosphere will warm more than Earth's surface [19, page 4; 20 - 23; 24, from 31:01 to 31:48]. This region of greater warming is known as the "hot spot" [25, pages 14 and 42; 26; 27, page 6; 28]. The myth claims that a 2006 report of the United States Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) [36, figure 5.7 on page 116] provided evidence against the hot spot's existence [2 - 18]. Many myth advocates resort to deception (or willful avoidance of evidence) in order to defend this myth.

Myth: The CCSP Presented Evidence Against the Hot Spot's Existence

This post is part of a series addressing issues related to the hot spot. The other parts of this series are listed in the "Myths about the Hot Spot" section of the "Quick Scientific Debunking" page.


The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. The Myth and Its Flaw
  2. Context and Analysis
  3. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  4. References

This is the "main version" of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.




1.  The Myth and Its Flaw



Climate models predict that in moist tropical areas, a region of the lower atmosphere will warm more than Earth's surface. This region of greater warming is known as the "hot spot". The myth claims that a 2006 report of the United States Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) provided evidence against the hot spot's existence. Many myth advocates resort to deception (or willful avoidance of evidence) in order to defend this myth.

Sunday, January 14, 2018

+John Christy Fails to Show that Climate Models Exaggerate CO2-induced Warming

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. Summary and Objections to the Myth
  2. Elaboration on the Myth
  3. Elaborations on the Objections
  4. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  5. References
If you want the "tl;dr" for this post, then I suggest reading sections 1 and 2. Alternatively, if you are familiar with John Christy's claims on tropospheric temperature trends, then simply skip ahead to section 2.

Each numbered point in section 1 corresponds with a numbered portion of section 3. So there is no need to read this entire post; instead, you can look at section 1 to see which numbered point you find interesting, and then go to the corresponding numbered portion in section 3 for further details.

This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.




1. Summary and Objections to the Myth



Climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider published a paper examining warming in the lower atmosphere. They use this analysis to argue that climate models exaggerate [1; 9] a parameter known as climate sensitivity [2 - 7; 21]; this implies that the models over-estimate warming caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) [1]. Christy+McNider's claim that models over-estimate climate sensitivity is the myth I focus on in this blogpost.

John Christy Fails to Show that Climate Models Exaggerate CO2-induced Warming

The outline for this post is as follows:
  1. Summary and Objections to the Myth
  2. Elaboration on the Myth
  3. Elaborations on the Objections
  4. Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
  5. References
If you want the "tl;dr" for this post, then I suggest reading sections 1 and 2. Alternatively, if you are familiar with John Christy's claims on tropospheric temperature trends, then simply skip ahead to section 2.

Each numbered point in section 1 corresponds with a numbered portion of section 3. So there is no need to read this entire post; instead, you can look at section 1 to see which numbered point you find interesting, and then go to the corresponding numbered portion in section 3 for further details.

This is the "main version" of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.

References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.




1. Summary and Objections to the Myth



Climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider published a paper examining warming in the lower atmosphere. They use this analysis to argue that climate models exaggerate a parameter known as climate sensitivity; this implies that the models over-estimate warming caused by carbon dioxide (CO2). Christy+McNider's claim that models over-estimate climate sensitivity is the myth I focus on in this blogpost.