Wednesday, October 29, 2014

New paper finds sunshine has controlled maximum temperatures and temperature ranges in China since 1962

A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres finds that daily [diurnal] temperature range in China decreased from 1962 to 2011, and that this decrease was due to a decrease in maximum temperatures related to a decrease of sunshine durations over this period. 

These changes are indicative that sunshine durations, rather than increased greenhouse gases, were the "control knob" which decreased maximum temperatures and decreased daily temperature ranges throughout China, and opposite of the predictions of AGW theory and climate models. 

The authors examined 479 weather stations in China from 1962-2011 and find 
"Results showed that DTR [daily temperature range] decreased rapidly (0.291 C/decade) from 1962 to 1989 due to slightly decreased Tmax [maximum temperatures] and significantly increased Tmin [minimum temperatures], but the decrease in DTR [daily temperature range] has stopped since 1990 as Tmax [maximum temperatures] and Tmin  [minimum temperatures] kept pace with each otherDuring 1990-2011, DTR [daily temperature range] remained trendless, with slight increase in the 1990s and slight decrease after 2000. During the whole study period from 1962 to 2011, DTR [daily temperature range] decreased at a rate of 0.157 C/decade nationally."
"Seasonally, DTR [daily temperature range] decreases were greatest in winter and lowest in summer, and the magnitudes of decrease reduced from the north to south of China. 
"The changes in DTR [daily temperature range] were closely correlated with changes in sunshine duration (SD) in China except the Tibetan Plateau, suggesting that SD [sunshine duration] decrease is an important contributor to the decrease of DTR [daily temperature range] through its influence on Tmax [maximum temperatures]."
In addition, the authors find that "the most arid region of China" experienced "increasing of precipitation," the opposite of the debunked CAGW meme of "dry gets drier and wet gets wetter." 
"In addition to the contribution of SD [sunshine duration] decrease, the increasing of precipitation played an important role in DTR [daily temperature range] decrease in Northwest China, the most arid region of China."
Similar to the findings of this paper, examination of the raw global temperature data [prior to tampering] shows a significant increase in minimum temperatures over the period 1962-1989, and then leveling off 1989-present. However, over the entire period 1940-present, there is no trend in minimum, maximum, or average global temperature anomalies. 


Spatiotemporal change of diurnal temperature range and its relationship with sunshine duration and precipitation in China


Xiangjin Shen et al


We examined the spatiotemporal variation in diurnal temperature range (DTR) and discussed the reasons for the changes of DTR in China based on data from 479 weather stations from 1962 to 2011. Results showed that DTR decreased rapidly (0.291 C/decade) from 1962 to 1989 due to slightly decreased Tmax and significantly increased Tmin, but the decrease in DTR has stopped since 1990 as Tmax and Tmin kept pace with each other. During 1990-2011, DTR remained trendless, with slight increase in the 1990s and slight decrease after 2000. During the whole study period from 1962 to 2011, DTR decreased at a rate of 0.157 C/decade nationally. Spatially, decreases in DTR were greatest in Northeast China and lowest in Southwest China with a transect running from northeast to southwest showing the decreasing trends change from high to low. Seasonally, DTR decreases were greatest in winter and lowest in summer, and the magnitudes of decrease reduced from the north to south of China. The changes in DTR were closely correlated with changes in sunshine duration (SD) in China except the Tibetan Plateau, suggesting that SD decrease is an important contributor to the decrease of DTR through its influence on Tmax. In addition to the contribution of SD decrease, the increasing of precipitation played an important role in DTR decrease in Northwest China, the most arid region of China. It appeared that changes of cloud cover (CC) were not the reasons for DTR changes in the past 50 years as CC has decreased during the study period.

White House sued about claims that man-made global warming caused polar vortex and record-cold winter

Excerpt from The Daily Caller:

Lawsuit: White House Won’t Show Evidence To Back Up ‘Polar Vortex’ Claims


A free-market think tank is suing the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy over its withholding of documents linked to the claim that global warming caused last winter’s polar vortex.
The free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit on Wednesday demanding documents related to the White House’s polar vortex video. The suit comes after CEI previously petitioned the White House to correct the video, which was criticized by climate scientists and ran counter to peer-reviewed studies.
But the White House said the video, in which White House science czar John Holdren connected global warming to the harsh winter, was based on Holdren’s “personal opinion” and exempt from data quality laws. When CEI tried to obtain federal documents related to the video, officials said they were part of the “deliberative process” and exempt from records requests.
“If this video really represented Dr. Holdren’s personal opinion, then it’s bad enough that OSTP spent taxpayer dollars to produce and post it on the White House web site,” said CEI general counsel Sam Kazman. “But for the agency to refuse to disclose documents related to the video in order to protect what it claims are internal deliberations is doubly ridiculous.”
The White House released its polar vortex video last January. In the video, Holdren claimed a “growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.”
The idea is that melting Arctic ice sheets weakens the swirling mass of cold air in the polar region, called the polar vortex. As the vortex weakens, its pattern becomes more erratic and pushes cold air farther south. But the video was quickly debunked by climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies showing the polar vortex is not a product of global warming (or climate change, or whatever).
“While perhaps it could be argued that Holdren’s statement is not an outright lie, it is, at its very best, a half-truth and even a stretch at that,” wrote scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute. “For in fact, there is a larger and faster growing body of evidence that directly disputes Holdren’s contention.”
“It’s an interesting idea, but alternative observational analyses and simulations with climate models have not confirmed the hypothesis, and we do not view the theoretical arguments underlying it as compelling,” five top climate scientists wrote in a letter published in Science Magazine in the wake of Holdren’s claims.
Studies done before Holdren’s claim that global warming is causing frigid winters also cast doubt on the integrity of the White House polar vortex video.
Research by Colorado State University’s Elizabeth Barnes in 2013 found that claims that “amplified polar warming has led to the increased occurrence of slow-moving weather patterns and blocking episodes, is unsupported by the observations.”
A study published before Barnes’s by Australian scientists James Screen and Jan Simmonds found that statistically significant changes in the jet stream depended largely on the methodology used by scientists. Screen and Simmonds noted their findings have “different and complex possible implications for midlatitude weather, and we encourage further work to better understand these.”
A recent study from Japanese scientists, however, claims that melting Arctic ice will bring colder winter with it. The study found that severe winters happening in Europe and Asia have doubled due to melting ice sheets.
Despite the conflicting evidence on the Arctic’s role in cold winters, the White House has not backed off from its claims that global warming is driving frigid weather. Even though Holdren purportedly espoused his opinion in the video, that has not been disclosed nor has the video been changed.
“Perhaps OSTP should give us a new video titled ‘The Holdren Document Vortex Explained in 2 Hours,’” Kazman quipped.

Observational data shows 86% of the "missing heat" is still missing and not in the oceans or atmosphere

In a comment on the Kiwi Thinker post yesterday, Bill Illis debunks the warmist's claim that "90% of the 'missing heat' allegedly trapped by greenhouse gases has gone into the oceans. Bill shows the numbers simply do not add up, 86% of the "missing" energy is still missing and has left to space, or is still hiding somewhere outside of the oceans and atmosphere [highly unlikely]. 

In addition, for multiple physical reasons, IR radiation from greenhouse gases cannot heat the oceans, due to a penetration depth of only a few millionths of one meter, which causes evaporative cooling of the ocean "skin" surface, not warming. Also, decreasing the temperature gradient between the ocean and atmosphere by a doubling of CO2 levels could only warm the oceans by 0.002C at most. And since there has been ~zero warming of the atmosphere for the past 16-26 years, there has been zero change in the ocean-atmosphere temperature gradient over that period. 

Therefore, we can effectively show no significant anthropogenic warming has gone into the oceans over the past 16-26 years due to no change in the gradient, that the ocean temperature changes have been related to solar (mediated by clouds and other potential amplification mechanisms), and to natural ocean oscillations, but not to increases in man-made CO2.

Skeptical Science tells you that 90% of the warming went into the oceans. That is, of the heat remaining in the system, 90% went into the oceans.
But they really left out the percentage that has merely been emitted back to space and/or is simply missing.
The IPCC says that the net forcing is +2.30 W/m2 right now. On top of that, there should have been water vapor and cloud feedbacks for another +1.75 W/m2.
But all that is showing up is 0.535 W/m2. 86% of the energy is no longer here or is missing.
The latest numbers from CERES shows that there is no change in Net Radiation since the year 2000, almost 14 years now.

Updated CERES numbers to April 2014.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

New paper finds El Ninos were more common during Little Ice Age, opposite of climate alarmist claims

A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds that El Ninos were more common during the frigid Little Ice Age, and conversely, La Ninas were more common during the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods. This finding is the opposite to claims by the IPCC and climate alarmists such as Kevin Trenberth that global warming, if it resumes, will make El Ninos more frequent.

The paper joins others debunking the claim that El Ninos have become more common during the 20th century, or that global warming increases the frequency or strength of El Ninos. 

Upwelling variability off southern Indonesia over the past two millennia

Stephan Steinke et al

Modern variability in upwelling off southern Indonesia is strongly controlled by the Australian-Indonesian monsoon and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, but multi-decadal to centennial-scale variations are less clear. We present high-resolution records of upper water column temperature, thermal gradient and relative abundances of mixed layer- and thermocline-dwelling planktonic foraminiferal species off southern Indonesia for the past two millennia that we use as proxies for upwelling variability. We find that upwelling was generally strong during the Little Ice Age (LIA) and weak during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Roman Warm Period (RWP). Upwelling is significantly anti-correlated to East Asian summer monsoonal rainfall and the zonal equatorial Pacific temperature gradient. We suggest that changes in the background state of the tropical Pacific may have substantially contributed to the centennial-scale upwelling trends observed in our records. Our results implicate the prevalence of an El Niño-like mean state during the LIA [Little Ice Age] and a La Niña–like mean state during the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] and the RWP [Roman Warm Period].

Related: New paper debunks claim that greenhouse gases make climate "more El Niño-like"

New paper finds very low climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 levels of less than 0.3C

A new paper calculates the climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases by using seasonal changes to determine the climate response to radiative forcing from the Sun, and then uses the IPCC radiative forcing assumptions of solar forcing and greenhouse forcing to determine sensitivity to CO2. 

According to the analysis, the climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 is only 0.23C to 0.32C [mean 0.275C], an order of magnitude less than claimed by the IPCC, but right in line with 15 other papers and analyses finding very low climate sensitivity to CO2 of << 1C for a doubling of CO2 levels. 

Note the 0.23C sensitivity calculation assumes 1 W/m2 of solar forcing has the same effect as 1 W/m2 greenhouse forcing [as assumed by the IPCC], whereas the 0.32C sensitivity calculation assumes solar forcing has a greater effect on climate than greenhouse forcing [as claimed by other papers, due to energetic UV from the Sun only, which can penetrate the oceans unlike IR from greenhouse gases, and potential solar amplification mechanisms].

The author finds sensitivity to doubled CO2 is ~0.5C in the Northern Hemisphere and ~0.2 in the Southern Hemisphere, and that the oceans [more of which are in the Southern Hemisphere] act as a strong negative-feedback cooling agent for the global climate.

Google translation from the summary of the paper at the Swedish Stockholm Initiative site, and link to the full paper [in English], which is currently under open review:



Open examination


I have long wondered if it would be possible to use the seasons to appreciate the earth's sensitivity to greenhouse gases. On a beautiful day, I took hold of the matter and wrote a paper. After that I got good feedback from some other climate educators and updated the paper here [in English]
But it felt like it was too easy to get this together. It's very simple calculations done, so someone ought to have thought like this before. But I have not seen any such calculations here before. Therefore do I now up this report here at KU as a kind of "open review".
I would first like to have views on whether there is any reason why you could not count on it this way. Then I would like to have comments on whether the report is understandable and if there are unclear parts. 
The report is in English, but below is a brief summary in Swedish. [Google translation]
Using seasonal changes to appreciate Earth's reaction to radiation effects
Nature performs a continuous experiment with altering the Earth's radiation balance. During the northern hemisphere winter gets more Southern Hemisphere insolation and during the summer, the northern hemisphere more solar radiation. If we consider the northern and southern hemisphere as energetically relatively isolated from each other, we can follow the changes in solar radiation produces a change in temperature. Below are averages for the years 1979-2013 from ECMWF. Note that "irradiance" means "radiation per surface".
Temperature and solar radiation (scaled down to 1 / 10th) of the Northern Hemisphere
Temperature and solar radiation (scaled down to 1 / 10th) of the Southern Hemisphere
One can clearly see that the temperature is a little behind insolation on time. It is probably due to a sluggish response especially from the time it takes to warm up lakes and seas. Therefore, it is faster to heat up than the land masses of the oceans. But the system still responds fairly quickly to changes. The maximum temperature is reached after only one month after maximum insolation reached.
It is also clear that the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere is about the same inertia, but that the temperature changes much less in the southern hemisphere. This suggests that there is a strong negative feedback in the Southern Hemisphere.
Based on these measured data, I try now to create a climate model with approximately the same temperature response to a change in solar radiation. If we assume that the temperature response is a function of solar radiation, but that the temperature response is also low pass filtered to obtain an inertia, the climate model can be described as follows:

Flow chart for simple climate model.
ΔI is the change in radiation (irradiance), and Dt is the change in temperature.
To adapt this climate model against measured values ​​are needed only three parameters:
the first A temperature shift to be able to convert between delta temperatures to absolute temperatures of
the second A slope factor between insolation and temperature (parameter ki picture above).
3rd A filter value to define the inertia of the system.
By adjusting these three values ​​for the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere, I try to get a good consistency with the measured values ​​as possible. The result is shown below.
Solar radiation, temperature and simulated temperature for the Northern Hemisphere
Solar radiation, temperature and simulated temperatures for the southern hemisphere.
It is clear that it is possible to obtain a very good agreement between measured values ​​and model.
According to the IPCC, a doubling of carbon dioxide levels result in increased radiation of about 3.7W / m² and that this would correspond to about 5.1W / m² increase in solar radiation. Therefore, we can use the simple climate model described above to calculate how much higher temperature 5.1W / m² would provide.
The result is that the so-called climate sensitivity, ie a doubling of carbon dioxide, would provide approximately 0.5 ° C in the northern hemisphere and 0.2 ° C in the southern hemisphere. But this calculation does have its uncertainties. The greatest uncertainty is: if there is a (unknown to me) significant energy flow between the hemispheres, which is seasonal, the Earth's albedo changes with solvinkeln, and on the assumption that 3.7W / m² carbon radiation corresponding to 5.1W / m² solar radiation would be wrong. The first uncertainty can increase the climate sensitivity figure, and the other two can potentially lower the climate sensitivity figure is significant.
Excerpts from the paper:
Magnus Cederlöf     magnus.cederlof@gmail.com   Version 0.4   October 18, 2014
Abstract
By looking at how the changed solar radiation over the annual seasons a ect the two hemispheres it is possible to get an estimation of how the climate system reacts to changes in the radiation balance. The inertia in both northern hemisphere (NH) and southern hemisphere (SH) is about the same, but the temperature change in response to radiation change is much larger in NH than in SH. This implies a large negative feedback in the SH. Based on daily temperature data from ECMWF, a climate model with only three parameters is created. It is shown that this model can simulate the temperature response to the changes in solar irradiance (radiation per area) fairly well. If it is assumed that the energy exchange between NH and SH can be neglected, it is possible to calculate how the hemispheres react to changes in radiation forcing. If IPCC's assumption of forcing effi cacy is used, a 3.7W/m2 of greenhouse gas forcing, that is the climate sensitivity, should correspond to about 5.1W/m2 of solar forcing. This model show that 5.1W/m2 of radiation forcing would give approximately 0.5°C higher temperatures on the NH and approximately 0.2°C on the SH.
1 Introduction
Understanding how earth responds to a change in incoming radiation from the sun is essential to understanding how earth will react to increase level of so called greenhouse gases. This study uses the fact that nature conducts a continuous experiment in changing earth's radiation balance. During the northern hemisphere (NH) winter, southern hemisphere (SH) receives increased solar radiation, and vice versa. 
In this experiment I have used an average of the 2 meter temperature from ECMWF's ERA-interim reanalysis [1] which provides, amongst others, daily gridded temperature data for complete earth starting at 1979. This temperature is compared to the change in solar irradiance (radiation per area) to the two hemispheres. I have assumed that the solar irradiance is in average 338 W/m2 and that albedo is 0.3. This means that the average energy in ow on earth is in average 338*0.7=237 W/m2.
...4 Conclusion
Since both hemispheres show similar inertia but large di erences in temperature response compared to irradiance change, it implies that SH has a large negative feedback when the temperature changes. Similar pattern is seen in the difference between ocean and land in NH, where the ocean seems to have a large negative feedback. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that rising temperatures over water causes more clouds to form which will hold the temperature change back.
A very simple climate model with only three parameters can simulate the hemispheres temperature response to the seasonal changes in solar irradiance fairly well. By using this climate model, it is possible to estimate the hemispheres temperature response to increased radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. When assuming that the seasonal energy exchange between the hemispheres is neglectable and a doubling of the carbon dioxide level would cause 3.7W/m2 forcing, a climate sensitivity gure can be calculated. This climate sensitivity has in this case been calculated to about 0.5°C for NH and about 0.2°C for the SH if IPCC's assumptions of efficacy is used. In this case it is assumed that 3.7W/m2 of greenhouse forcing corresponds to 5.1W/m2 of solar forcing. But if the efficacy of greenhouse gases is signi cantly lower as at least one study indicates [4], the climate sensitivity will also be signi cantly lower. 
The major uncertainty factors in this study are: ˆ
  • If there is a (to me unknown) seasonal energy exchange between the hemispheres. ˆ 
  • If the efficacy comparison between greenhouse gases and solar radiation is incorrect. ˆ
  • If the albedo is sensitive to solar declination. 

The 1st factor, if found signi cant, will increase the climate sensitivity figure, but the other two can signi cantly decrease the climate sensitivity figure.
The strong negative feedback over the oceans can also explain why the biggest temperature rise during the 20th century occurred on land. But the temperature increase that has been measured is bigger than what would be expected due to the changes in the carbon dioxide levels according to this study. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that natural variations also causes the radiation balance to change and also in this case the land will experience the biggest temperature change.

Related:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/25/changes-in-total-solar-irradiance

Observations show IPCC exaggerates anthropogenic global warming by a factor of 7

Analysis shows the "missing heat" has gone to space & less "heat trapping" from increased greenhouse gases

A post today from Kiwi Thinker examines recent trends in the greenhouse effect from satellite data since 1979 and shows, opposite of warmist claims, that the greenhouse effect and "heat-trapping" of the atmosphere has steadily decreased along with the increase in greenhouse gas levels. The author concludes from this empirical NOAA data,

1. The "missing heat" has gone back to space as it always has...via outgoing longwave infrared radiation.

2. And more importantly, the greenhouse effect is not increasing as per IPCC dogma.

Thus, Trenberth's "missing heat," which only exists in falsified climate models, is not present in the atmosphere or oceans, and is now past Alpha Centauri located 4.3 light years away, i.e. it's not "in the pipeline" and is never coming back.

The analysis supports that of Dr. Noor van Andel, who unfortunately passed away three years ago, finding that IR radiation to space increased over the past 62 years, the exact opposite of the predictions of CAGW theory and computer models. 


Slide from one of Dr. van Andel's lectures
In a post at Australian biologist Jennifer Marohasy's site, spectroscopist and engineer Michael Hammer also comes to the same conclusion finding the last 30 years of NOAA satellite data is incompatible with AGW theory. And the NOAA data plotted below by climate4you.com also demonstrates an increase in outgoing IR radiation over the satellite era. 

Diagram showing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180oW and 179oE (0oE and 359.5oE) and 90oN and 90oS since December 1978 ( red line; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the global monthly average lower troposphere temperature (blue line; University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA). The thin lines represent the monthly values, while the thick lines are the simple running 37 month averages, nearly corresponding to running 3 yr averages. The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978) and covers the main part of the atmospheric infrared window. Last month shown: October 2010 (OLR) and January 2011 (UAH). Last diagram update: 13 February 2011. Click here to download the entire series of NOAA monthly OLR-values since June 1974. Choose first 'OLR' then 'Select field'.

An Empirical Look at Recent Trends in the Greenhouse Effect

Just in case you were not aware, since about 1997 or so, there has been nearly no global temperature rise. This is despite atmospheric CO2 concentration continuing to rise. To date there are some 55 ideas to explain this slowdown in global warming. Some of the ‘explanations’ presume the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ is operating as the IPCC models calculated; it’s just that the heat has hidden elsewhere, maybe deep in the ocean.
I wondered if there was empirical data available of the greenhouse effect? And could it show whether or not the greenhouse effect is increasing with increasing CO2, as the IPCC models expect?
First a very quick summary of the IPCC’s greenhouse theory goes something like this.  Increasing CO2 absorbs some of the upwards radiation from the surface, and then re-emits it back toward earth. This has the effect of increasing earth’s atmospheric temperature as outgoing longwave infrared radiation (OLWIR) is reduced by increasing quantities of CO2. Then, recognising that water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, the IPCC models propose that positive feedbacks dominate. This is where some warming leads to increased water vapour, and as water vapour is the main greenhouse gas this increases the greenhouse effect, this further lowers OLWIR, and increases the temperature.
So let’s see how the measurements fit the theory. I needed two data sets, one for OLWIR, and the other global temperature.
I emailed the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) asking for website directions to their OLWIR data. Their response was quick and I downloaded monthly average OLWIR (W/m2) for each 2.5 degree latitude by 2.5 degree longitude area of the globe. After converting the netCDF files to Excel, I scaled each area’s OLWIR to account for the varying size of the area, resulting in a global average OLWIR. (I used Cosine(Latitude) to approximate the relative areas). (There was also some missing data mid 1994 to early 95. I populated this by a linear interpolation). The resulting annual average OLWIR is shown in the graph below for the years 1979 to 2012. A linear regression fit shows a generally increasing trend in OLWIR over this period.[i.e. less "heat trapping" from increased greenhouse gases]
The temperature data I chose is the average of both University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). The result is also plotted on the graph below. A linear regression fit shows a generally increasing trend for years 1979 to 2013.
And now we’ll take a look at the Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) relative emissivity trend. Using an average global temperature of 14C, the SB relative emissivity has been derived using E/(K*T^4) for each year and plotted on the graph. If the greenhouse effect was increasing, the relative SB should be declining.  It’s not.  It’s flat lining.
The two primary results of this empirical study are:
The missing heat has gone back to space as it always has – as per SB law, via OLWIR.
And more importantly, the greenhouse effect is not increasing as per IPCC dogma.
There are probably about 55 reasons why … and there’s likely more to be said …
OLWIR, Temp and SB

h/t Has The Missing Heat Gone Back To Space? from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT by Paul Homewood
Related:
Feb 15, 2011
Dr. Noor van Andel has updated his paper CO2 and Climate Change and explains in greater detail how climate scientists have adjusted radiosonde (weather balloon) data to try to bring it into agreement with their computer ...
Jan 30, 2011
Dr. Noor van Andel, former head of research at Akzo Nobel, has a new paper out showing the available data to date contradicts the notion of greenhouse gas induced global warming or 'climate change.' He notes that while ...
Sep 14, 2010
Dr. Ir. Noor van Andel, former head of research at Akzo Nobel, recently presented a talk at the Dutch Meteorological Institute KNMI, concluding there is • No observational evidence for influence of CO2 on past or present ...

Monday, October 27, 2014

UCLA: Michael Mann Wins Nobel Prize- Again!

Although the UCLA Hammer Museum quietly corrected it's erroneous internet claim that Michael "Mann shared the Nobel Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" 10 days before Mann's political propaganda lecture, according to the color-laser-printed brochures that were handed out last week at the UCLA Hammer political propaganda forum on climate change, and which were also available all over the museum, Michael Mann has been re-established as a Nobel Prize winner once again who "shared the Nobel Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."



No doubt, ten days was not sufficient time to correct the error on the color-laser-printed brochures and reprint them. Besides, think of the intergenerational harm to Gaia from all that wasted paper and ink. Love the photoshopped polar bear who doesn't know how to swim standing on the small ice floe and the "Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is a danger" garbage at the head of the brochure.

UCLA Hammer Museum website before Steve Milloy pointed out to UCLA that Mann is a fake-Nobelist:



UCLA Hammer Museum website after correction:


I wonder where UCLA obtained the information about Mann's fake Nobel. Could it be from the Mann himself? Or maybe from the back cover of the books Mann was signing in the lobby?

Related: 

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Michael Mann's UCLA Schtick

At the "UCLA Hammer Forum on Climate Change" held this past week, which I was unfortunate to attend, the only speakers were warmists Michael Mann and UCS scientist Brenda Ekwurzel. I previously covered the litany of misrepresentations of UCS chief of climate science education Dr. Ekwurzel, and now provide my written notes on the misrepresentations in Dr. Mann's presentation and his answers to written questions from the audience carefully selected by the moderator.  

I shot one photo of the audience of mostly aging-hippie-types, before being told photos, video, and audio recording were prohibited. About 150 people attended the public event, but at least 25% of the seats in the theater were empty. The lady who sat down next to me immediately said "if there are any climate deniers here, I'm going to smack them," and then proceeded to sleep through most of the event. I was surprised that there were so few Generation-Y college-age attendees at the UCLA Hammer Museum, apparently not too much concern about the whole "inter-generational justice" climate change thing Mann discussed. 




  • Started presentation claiming the evidence for AGW is "straightforward and not controversial."
  • Said CO2 levels have not been as high as today for "several million years" [debunked]
  • Said there are multiple lines of evidence for AGW, using the repeatedly debunked image from SkS
  • Claimed IPCC report is "conservative" and that climate scientists are "conservative" in their projections of climate change
  • Said natural variation cannot explain recent climate change [debunked]
  • Said climate change we are allegedly experiencing now is "dangerous" and we will soon be inhabiting a "different planet"
  • Said with "business as usual" there will be 4-5C warming by 2100, and 8-10C warming in the Arctic [debunked]
  • Said use of polar bears as the "poster child" for AGW was a "mistake" because it gave the "false impression that climate change is a distant thing" despite it allegedly happening "everywhere"
  • Said he doesn't have to convince the people in the audience from Southern California that climate change is real: "just look at the historic drought" [debunked]
  • Claimed flooding from Florida king tides (which are controlled by gravitation from the Moon and Sun and have occurred for millennia) "used to happen only once a year," but allegedly due to AGW, "will happen once a month."
  • Said due to climate change, the surge from Sandy was 13 feet instead of 12 feet and that this caused flooding of an extra 25 miles inland [debunked]
  • Claimed sea level rise of 3-6 feet by 2100 [debunked]
  • Discussed his Scientific American article on 2036 doomsday scenario [debunked]
  • Said "California drought was made worse" by climate change, and is "the worst ever seen" [debunked]
  • Said Senator Inhofe, Heartland Institute, Republicans in general, and "climate deniers" are all allegedly funded by the Koch brothers.
  • Said Inhofe was scheduled to give a speech at a Heartland meeting, but had to cancel because he was ill from swimming in a lake with an algal bloom due to "unprecedented heat in Oklahoma" (implying that was man-made)
  • Showed his thoroughly debunked hockey stick [containing 'Mike's trick to hide the decline'] and called it an "icon" of the IPCC that is now part of a "veritable hockey league" of other "hockey sticks" since "every study says recent temperatures are unprecedented." [debunked]
  • Said you don't even need his hockey stick to know that AGW is real because of the greenhouse effect described [incorrectly] by Arrhenius in 1896.
  • Says the Republicans get their climate science from a journal...(long pause)..."The Wall Street Journal"
  • Said Republicans are "the party of anti-science"
  • Said the only debate Congress should be having is "how to deal with this problem, and not pretend the problem doesn't exist"
  • Showed the picture of his daughter at an aquarium with a polar bear diving for a fish behind her, as Anthony has already commented upon. Using this picture as a prop, said AGW is a problem of "intergenerational ethics" and that he didn't want his daughter to one day have to tell her kids that "polar bears used to exist, but we damaged their home." 
  • With that tear-jerker of an ending, Mann finished his presentation.

Additional notes on Mann's responses to written questions from the audience (which were first carefully  filtered by the moderator):

  • Said "scientists are the most conservative people on the planet" and that "science has self-correcting machinery." Said that if a scientist commits fraud or makes a mistake, "you'll be found out" by other scientists, and that one "gets ahead in science by proving other people wrong" [conveniently failing to mention that Mann himself is potentially the most "caught out" scientist in history, by McIntyre & McKitrick, Wegman and the NAS, Richard Mueller, John Christy, and many others].
  • Said that "for thousands of scientists to conspire and the oceans and atmosphere to play along" would be necessary for AGW to be a "hoax"
  • Said climate skeptics "are not real skeptics," they are just "denialists"
  • Said the IPCC claims "are as certain as science can be about anything"
  • Said "in many ways, China and India are ahead of us on fighting climate change"
  • Said there's no reason why renewables can't replace fossil fuels
  • Said Koch brothers are funding ALEC and the "campaign of denial"
  • Said North Carolina is trying to "outlaw Teslas"
  • Said CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere is "centuries" and that even if man-made emissions completely stopped now, warming would continue for "centuries" [debunked]
  • Said CO2 emissions must be reduced 5-10% per year starting now, that he said that many years ago, "but I'm really serious this time!" [accompanied by Cheshire smile]
  • Said Exxon is planning for a carbon tax of $60/ton, meanwhile "funding the disinformation campaign"
  • In answer to audience question, "Can capitalism be defeated to stop the destruction of the natural world?" [which received applause from the UCLA aging-hippie-commie audience], Mann said it was the other speaker's turn to answer.
  • Said there are 5 times more fossil fuels available than necessary to warm the planet by 2C, which if all were burned, would allegedly warm the planet 10-14C
  • Said "we are already seeing dangerous climate change"
Following the presentations and questions, the fake-Nobelist went to the lobby for book signings [the back cover of which says he shared the Nobel Peace Prize], guarded by 3 heavily-armed UCLA police officers nearby [I've attended many other events in this same theater and never seen any UCLA police officers at any other events].

The great Mann smiling for a fan
Perhaps 20-25 attendees bought Mann's book for signing . 
I asked if I could stand in the line to ask Dr. Mann a question without having to buy his book first, and was told no.

On the way to the theater parking lot, I noticed the bicycle rack was empty, and the anti-capitalism and anti-fossil fuel attendees driving off in their fossil-fueled vehicles. 

Related:

Michael Mann loses the Nobel Prize – again
Exclusive Report from UCLA: Michael Mann stunned when asked about Nobel prize fakery