Shared publicly  - 
Here we go !! Finally an optimist. There is nothing wrong with our climate.
Michael Bromley's profile photoDave Broad's profile photoPeter William Lount's profile photoMaTT Hader's profile photo
meteorologist =/= climatologist. Remember Anthony Watts, the meteorologist and vocal climate change denier? Turns out he was pulling a 5-figure salary from the Heartland Institute. Neglected to mention that, he did.
The world's first professional degree program in climatology was offered to students by the University of Queensland in 2001. Almost none of the people who call themselves "climatologists" actually have an academic degree in that field. Most of them are either meteorologists, physicists or geologists.
+Nichole Steponavich I can prove that what I said is true:




Yes, the term 'climatology' has existed for decades. Anyone who used their expertise in meteorology, physics, math/statistics, geology or related fields to study climate could be referred to as a climatologist. But there were no degree programs in that field until 2001. So the criticism that a person's degree isn't in climatology is a sword that would disqualify every single person who contributed to every single IPCC report issued to date.
1) is the link I sent you
2) is an opinion piece by a guy whose website is a 404 and whose sources are 404s.
3) do you have the name of that? I'd rather not download a pdf.
+Nichole Steponavich 1) You obviously didn't read and understand your own link. Read it again, carefully.

And read my comment again, carefully: "The world's first professional degree program in climatology was offered to students by the University of Queensland in 2001. Almost none of the people who call themselves "climatologists" actually have an academic degree in that field. Most of them are either meteorologists, physicists or geologists."

2) The second link works for me. Yes, some of his links have become stale. That's life on the web.

Can you falsify what the author says?

3) That pdf link is the only one I have.
NASA requirements to be hired as a "climatologist":

Education/Training Needed:

The minimum education required for this position is a bachelor’s degree in meteorology or atmospheric sciences from an accredited college or university. Experience in computer modeling techniques is extremely helpful for this job. To do research, at minimum a master's degree is required and a Ph.D. is highly desired for this position.

Suggested School Subjects / Courses:

Math (algebra, trigonometry, calculus)
• Physics
• Meteorology
• Statistics
• Computer modeling
• Geography

Note the lack of any mention of a degree in climatology. Also note that the scientist referenced in the posted article, Physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls, meets NASA's requirements to be hired as a climatologist.
The paper I linked to says that climatology is an amalgam of sciences that dates back to the 19th century. Just because meteorologists can be climatologists doesn't mean they always are. It doesn't really matter if your degree says atmospheric scientist or geologist, there are areas of specialty within all the sciences. A meteorologist only needs a basic knowledge of climate science to do his job, because they forecast weather and weather =/= climate.
+Nichole Steponavich Your original comment made the strongly implied assertion that, because Klaus-Eckart Puls is listed as a meteorologist, that he lacked the necessary credentials to have a professional opinion regarding climatology. That assertion has been utterly refuted. His degrees and experience in multiple fields eminently qualify him to have a professional opinion regarding issues in climatology--to the same degree and extent as most of those who have contributed to the various official IPCC reports over the past decades. He in no way is a "junior meteorologist" barely qualified to forecast the weather, as anyone who cares to check can verify for themselves.

That's all that matters here.

The rest of your comments are non-sequitur.
"Remember Anthony Watts, the meteorologist and vocal climate change denier? Turns out he was pulling a 5-figure salary from the Heartland Institute. Neglected to mention that, he did." - Nichole Stephonavich.

+Nichole Steponavich you are lying about Anthony Watts and are liable for slandering him; time to get your facts straight before you dig a deeper legal hole for yourself.

First off $44,000 funding for a scientific study is peanuts especially considering that Watts hired a programmer for implementing web site back end programming to collect climate data from other sources and process it for presentation.

Not only that but the USA budget alone for climate research each year is USD$2.4 Billion dollars. That's billion. So $44,000 is irrelevant peanuts for a project that sets up a useful web site so that people can visualize climate data.

$44,000 is one fifty four thousandth and five hundred and forty fifth of the USA $2.4 billion dollar climate budget.

"Readers may recall that when Peter Gleick first sent out the stolen Heartland board documents and the fake document to give the story “legs”, there was a mention in there of a project that I asked Heartland to help me fund. They found a private donor who was interested in my idea, and agreed to fund it. The amount of funding I received, based on the plan I submitted, was $44K, which when compared to many scientific papers and projects that get funded, is a proverbial drop in the bucket. For example, Michael Mann got a boatload of money: Mann’s $1.8 million Malaria grant – “where do we ask for a refund’? to study something outside his normal area of expertise – mosquitoes and malaria."

$44,000 for a scientific study is not a five figure "salary", it's to get work done on a science study. Also by calling it a "salary" you imply that Watts will continue to receive that each year, not so as it's a one time project and in fact Watts asked for $88,000 but only got $44,000 from a Heartland donor.

"Today, I’m going to offer my first update on it, so that everyone can see for themselves just how terrible and evil it is in the scheme of all things climate.

The goal of this project is to provide a publicly accessible one-on-one live comparison of temperatures between GHCN and other hourly reporting stations from the older surface network, to the new Climate Reference Network (CRN). The impetus was the heat wave in Texas last year, where I noticed that while there were a number of record setting high temperatures, many of them were higher than temperatures seen in the CRN. This suggested to me that UHI and siting effects play a role in elevating such temperatures. Unfortunately at that time there was no easy way to offer such visual comparisons, and I thought there should be, hence my idea that I asked Heartland to help me find a funding source for."

Your misrepresentation of Watts leads one to wonder how many other facts you're misrepresenting Nicole.
I don't want to get too deep into that discussion, I think the point is, that there are different opinions and data on the issue depending on what you are looking at and how you are interpreting it. Climate is obviously determined by too many factors, more that can be actually considered in a forecast. And there are just as many factors that can be connected to climate change or to other factors. Depending on whether you believe in it or not, you will come to a different interpretation and conclusions.
"I don't want to get too deep into that discussion, I think the point is, that there are different opinions and data on the issue depending on what you are looking at and how you are interpreting it."

That is irrelevant just as opinions on science are. Science believed is not better than believing in an alleged god.

All that matters is whether or not the claims of climate scientists can be verified independently and unfortunately for those making the claims they can't be independently verified. In fact just the opposite has happened, their claims have one by one been dismantled and falsified. Mother Nature isn't cooperating either and has proved all the climate models wrong these past 12+ years thus falsifying the so called "models" used in them.

But most damning of all, temperature increases since 1880 do NOT correlate with CO2 increases which crushes the CAGW hypothesis into eggshells after breakfast.
+Nichole Steponavich you need to get a basic science education girl, not to mention stop believing in science facts on authority, and start being skeptical of all science claims and work to verify them yourself. It's time to unlearn your beliefs and start learning how science works and how to apply the scientific method yourself so that you can begin to think for yourself rather than merely parrot alleged science facts you incultcate yourself with as a true believer in Co2 Climate Doomsday Rapture aka CAGW.
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains. And falsification is not absolute, but is instead a matter of relative probabilities. Such "proof" is never final: All scientific laws, theories and hypotheses forever remain subject to falsification at any time. All that is required is for an alternative hypothesis to be shown--by empirical evidence and quantitative analysis of the relative probabilities--to have a statistically-significant higher probability of being correct.

The CAGW hypothesis is that a) The Earth's climate is warming, b) The warming is substantially a result of human emissions of CO2 and, c) The magnitude of the warming will be enough to have significant effects, and d) The net effects of the warming will be harmful, and e) The harm caused by the warming will be great enough to be worth the net costs of politically-coerced mitigation.

The alternative hypothesis--which is also the null hypothesis--is that a) The warming is substantially due to natural causes for which humans are not substantially responsible, and/or b) The magnitude of any human-caused warming will not be not be great enough to have significant effects by itself (regardless of the effects of any warming not caused by man,) and/or c) The net effects of warming will not be harmfull--or if they are, then not by enough to be worth the cost of politically-coerced mitigation.

The null hypothesis has never been falsified. There have been no peer-reviewed studies published that quantitatively analyze both p(CAGW | Historical-Temperature-Data) [the probability that CAGW hypothesis is true, given the historical temperature data] and p(NullHypothesis | Historical-Temperature-Data) [the probability that the Null Hypothesis is true, given the historical temperature data], showing that the former (CAGW) has a statistically significant higher probability of being true than the latter (the null hypothesis--that warming is substantially natural.) Not one.

But the reverse is not true:



We evaluate to what extent the temperature rise in the past 100 years was a trend or a natural fluctuation and analyze 2249 worldwide monthly temperature records from GISS (NASA) with the 100-year period covering 1906–2005 and the two 50-year periods from 1906 to 1955 and 1956 to 2005. No global records are applied. The data document a strong urban heat island effect (UHI) and a warming with increasing station elevation. For the period 1906–2005, we evaluate a global warming of 0.58°C as the mean for all records. This decreases to 0.41°C if restricted to stations with a population of less than 1000 and below 800 meter above sea level. About a quarter of all the records for the 100-year period show a fall in temperatures. Our hypothesis for the analysis is, as generally in the papers concerned with long-term persistence of temperature records, that the observed temperature records are a combination of long-term correlated records with an additional trend, which is caused for instance by anthropogenic CO2, the UHI or other forcings. We apply the detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) and evaluate Hurst exponents between 0.6 and 0.65 for the majority of stations, which is in excellent agreement with the literature and use a method only recently published, which is based on DFA, synthetic records and Monte Carlo simulation. As a result, the probabilities that the observed temperature series are natural have values roughly between 40% and 90%, depending on the stations characteristics and the periods considered. "Natural" means that we do not have within a defined confidence interval a definitely positive anthropogenic contribution and, therefore, only a marginal anthropogenic contribution cannot be excluded.
In other words, this study finds that the probability that the observed climate change is some combination of natural variability and urban heat island effect to be as high as 90%. That's a very strong case in favor of the null hypothesis, and makes it extremely unlikely that there could be a 3-sigma difference in favor of the AGW hypothesis.


A methodological note on the making of causal statements in the debate on anthropogenic global warming


At best, the empirical evidence for human impact on climate change, more specifically, the anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is based on correlational research. That is, no experiment has been carried out that confirms or falsifies the causal hypothesis put forward by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that anthropogenic increasing of green house gas concentrations very likely causes increasing of the (mean) global temperature. In this article, we point out the major weaknesses of correlational research in assessing causal hypotheses. We further point out that the AGW hypothesis is in need of potential falsifiers in the Popperian (neopositivistic) sense. Some directions for future research on the formulation of such falsifiers in causal research are discussed. Of course, failure to find falsifying evidence in empirical climate data will render the AWG hypothesis much stronger.


Econometrics and the Science of Climate Change


Econometrics has a long history as the technique of choice for testing the merits of alternative hypotheses across most of the social sciences as well as many of the natural and materials sciences, not to mention pharmaceutical science, where it is widely used to evaluate the efficacy of alternative medications, including the use of placebos as counterfactuals. However its greatest value is in the social sciences where laboratory experiments are not feasible, but least squares linear regression can be used to assess the relative significance of alternative independent variables as explanatory factors. The founding texts of climate science, John Tyndall (1861) and Svante Arrhenius (1896), discovered and estimated the radiation absorption effects of what they called aqueous vapour and carbonic acid (now known as water vapour and carbon dioxide), unlike the oxygen and nitrogen that comprise the bulk of our atmosphere. Tyndall‘s experiments showed that the most powerful radiative effect was that of water vapour. Arrhenius also included water vapour in his more theoretical analysis.

Now however most climate scientists‘ models assume that anthropogenic addition to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (hereafter denoted [CO2]) and of certain other greenhouse gases like ozone and methane (in aggregate denoted as [CO2e]) is the major determinant of climate change, and have relegated Tyndall‘s primary role for atmospheric water vapour (hereafter [H2O]) to having only a secondary, or ―feedback, effect arising from the higher temperatures supposed to result primarily from increasing [CO2]. This assumption has never been validated by observations of the relative proportions of [H2O] that stem from solar radiation and rising surface temperature. Moreover the literature of climate science affords no evidence of the use of econometrics to test the core hypothesis that―most of the temperature change observed over the last century is attributable to the build-up in the atmosphere of anthropogenic emissions of CO2e, of which CO2 is by far the largest in volume terms, rather than being due to Tyndall‘s aqueous vapour [H2O]. In particular none of the leading texts such as the IPCC‘s Solomon et al. (2007), Stern (2006) and Garnaut (2008, 2011) performs or reports any econometric analysis of the core hypothesis.

This paper seeks to begin filling that gap, and finds that hypothesis is falsified at a wide variety of locations, oceans, and land masses (including Australia) with lengthy time series data on various climatic variables, including atmospheric water vapour [H2O]),and where available, opacity of the sky (OPQ), and solar radiation received at the earth‘s surface (SSR). Unlike Total Solar Irradiation – TSI – which is relatively constant, SSR is dependent inter alia on the amount of cloud cover. Multi-variate econometric analysis shows that at none ofthese locations, oceans, and landmasses is the role of [CO2] statistically significant, and even that it can be negatively correlated with changes in temperature, whereas [H2O] invariably plays a highly significant role. If the core hypothesis of climate science cannot be confirmed at any specific location, ocean, or landmass, then it cannot be confirmed for the globe even if a Popperian black swan could be found somewhere. In short, the econometric analysis of this paper fails to falsify the nul hypothesis of climate science, that there is no relationship between anthropogenic emissions of the main greenhouse gas, CO2, and observed temperature change.
"Incapable" seems to be the operative word. It's ok though, many people are belief stricken in science just as they are belief stricken in religion, it's merely a sign of their scientific illiteracy which is rampant in society. It's that which allows science claims such as CAGW or Homeopathy that seem reasonable but are not proven to be made and gotten away with for so long.
Watts has never been paid by the heartland institute. That's a misinformed smear I'm afraid.
Well other than being paid $44,000 for a science project by a Heartland Donor that it is. Whether the money flowed through Heartland's bank account I do not know, we'd have to ask Watts, but he says that the $44,000 came from one of their donors that they found for him.
no but hydrogen might as long as you dont set the ionosphere on fire
Add a comment...