We have all cursed the weather man on occasion but North Korean forecasters are facing a more tangible threat this week. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has turned his menacing eye on meteorologists and warned that there are “many incorrect forecasts.” Since reports state that Kim Jong Un had his wife’s former musical group executed, forecasters are understandably concerned that one unpredicted rain shower could bring lead showers. If Al Roker gets a call with a job offer from Pyongyang he might want to read the fine print.
Kim has of course continued his father’s policy of cutting off his country and virtually starving the population while he lives lavishly as a type of community godhead. There is no indication that he is anything more than a thuggish dolt. However, he went to the state-run Hydro-Meteorological Service to give guidance to the meteorologists that they need to avoid wrong forecasts. The problem is that his government has not only cut itself off from the world but the world’s technology. While spending a good portion of his revenues on weapons and a nuclear program, Kim has left North Korean in the stone age. Forecasters would have probably pointed out that they have been left with the scientific equivalent to a rock and metal rod for predictions, but that would result in a 100% chance of dead weathermen.
With a drought worsening the nation’s lack of food, Kim reportedly visited the site “to learn in detail about meteorological observation and weather forecast.” He is shown giving instructions to the meteorologists from his official state-recognized natural brilliance.
Just think what we could have accomplished if we put the money and effort we directed to Climate Change (and fighting about it) into removing mercury from the food chain.
What? No cutesy Twitter slogans or videos to contradict the IPCC’s own data? No explanation for why I’m stupid for reading and copying excerpts from the IPCC’s AR5 paper?
I do not depend on others to tell me what to think. I research data for myself.
And from their own omissions, and from their own data, and from the shameless conflict of interest as those on the IPCC financially benefit from global cap and trade, there is only one conclusion: anthropomorphic climate change is all based off of the same flawed study, including data that was missing and testing stations that were moved. Why does it matter if stations were moved? Well, for example, if one was in the shade and then moved next to a reflective building with a heat island effect. Or, conversely, if someone planted a tree nearby that shaded the testing station. Or if they put down hot blacktop nearby. The scientist was supposed to correct for heat island effects and the growth or removal of shade trees, but HE DIDN’T. He lost the original data that he homogenized. We cannot count on that homogenization being done correctly, because every single climate change computer model has been wrong. In science, we don’t “take your word for it.” It must be checked. You know, otherwise cold fusion would have been accepted decades ago. And if all everyone has to work on is the same homogenized data, and the raw data is gone, how is that supposed to be peer reviewed? He wrote a paper based on testing stations remaining stationary, and then admitted they were moved.
All subsequent studies are all based on this flawed data.
I have no idea if there is any anthropomorphic climate change. How can I come to a conclusion when the raw data is gone???
Oh, and for those “of the faith”, remember when it was Global Warming, and then they had to change it to Climate Change because the Earth was not actually warming? And then remember when headlines screamed that hurricanes were caused by Climate Change, and then there was eating crow when a study came out that the hurricane seasons were actually incredibly mild?
In the meantime, we’re pouring money into Climate Change and ignoring mercury pollution, islands of floating trash in the Pacific, pesticide and herbicide contamination, etc.
Ah, yes, the controversial Hockey Stick. The reason why the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice age were deliberately left off was because they were regional, rather than global. And yet that’s like saying if Europe was plunged into another Little Ice Age, we would just ignore those temperature points from our global climate change data because it was regional. Does that make sense to anyone? Average temperatures across the globe and regions, unless those regions start behaving in a manner that contradicts what you want your data to say, so you just leave it out???
Academia!
Max – the headlines are so great. But the IPCC’s OWN data shows that there has been a hiatus in global warming for 15 years.
So . . . what does that tell you?
Can any of you folk, so steadfast in your faith, explain to me how one species, homo sapiens, proposes to forcibly stabilize the climate at today’s values, when our climate has changed for billions of years?
Our climate changed before homo sapiens evolved. And if we all left the Earth on a shuttle tomorrow, it would change after we’re gone.
So, since you guys know so much about science, I’m just wondering how our species shall force the climate to stay the same, and why we should?
Max – do you have an opinion on the Arctic ice cores that revealed that there used to be a rich biodiversity there? At one time even dinosaurs roamed in a more temperate Arctic.
People can ridicule me, label me with childish names like “denier”, make fun of my intelligence.
But my conclusions are based on the International Panel of Climate Change’s own reports. You know, the IPCC whose conclusions mold global policy. And everyone in the science community is, or should be, aware of the recent backlash against IPCC for the contradiction between their conclusions and their own data.
My conclusions are also based on admissions by the had of the Climate Change Unit, and other scientists. It is based on data that’s come up missing, testing stations that have been moved.
Look . . . this doesn’t fly in industry science. I have no idea why it would in academia. If anyone does this in the pharmaceutical industry, they get sued.
Again from AR5:
“Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and geographical inconsistencies in the trends. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.”
Whoops. That previous AR4 report that global warming was causing droughts was overstated.
But do you see a correction in the media or in the general body of knowledge? Nope.
From AR5:
“Anthropogenic forcings are very likely to have contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979. There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability.
Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s.There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s.”
Translation – mankind caused Arctic sea ice decline, but they do not know what is causing Antarctic sea ice increase. Nor do they know what caused the warm anomalies in the Arctic in the 20s and 30s.
Help! Lost a post!
“It is seen that the rate of rise during 1930-1950 was comparable to, if not larger than, the value in recent years. This IPCC’s analysis does not support an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in the latter 20th century, and hence the data does not support the IPCC’s conclusion of a substantial contribution from anthropogenic forcings to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s.”
“After expecting an increase of 0.2oC per decade in the early decades of the 21st century from the AR4 statements, the rate of warming over the past 15 years is only ~0.05C.
The IPCC AR5 bases its projection for the period 2016-2036 of 0.10 to 0.23oC per decade on expert judgment, rather than on the climate model results
The IPCC does not have a convincing or confident explanation for the hiatus in warming.”
From IPCC AR5:
“the hiatus is attributable, in roughly equal measure, to a decline in the rate of increase in effective radiative forcing (ERF) and a cooling contribution from internal variability (expert judgment, medium confidence). The decline in the rate of increase in ERF is primarily attributed to natural (solar and volcanic) forcing but there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.”
From IPCC AR5:
“[T]he rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) [is] 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade)which is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012) [of] 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade.”
Here is a summary of the IPCC AR4 and AR5:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
This is from the IPCC’s OWN reports:
Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent
Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming
And yet, inexplicably, their conclusion that anthropomorphic climate change is extremely likely has come under intense scrutiny in the scientific community – because it is in direct contradiction to their own preceding data.
I know that people who are not very interested in science do not follow this very closely. They just latch on to the conclusions propagated in the media.
But do not let other people tell you what to think. Follow this link, and read for yourself the IPCC’s own report. And then try to reconcile it with the conclusion.
Pure science and politics do not mix. And having people on the IPCC who have financial interests that benefit from climate change politics is not a good formula for pure science.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/statuses/477454863635214336
Who here knows the differences between old ice packs and new ice formations?
https://twitter.com/billmckibben/statuses/476697742472122368
Joe Blow,
Don’t believe me? Then how ’bout the fact keepers?
https://twitter.com/billmckibben/statuses/476817550341185536
Joe Blow
Wish he would do the same with climate scientist as Earth celebrates it’s 18th year in a row in no significant Global Warming. “The Pause” continues.
= = =
April 2014… HOTTEST MONTH ON RECORD!
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/april-2014-global-temperature-ties-warmest-record-noaa-20140520
13 of the 14 HOTTEST YEARS ON RECORD happened since the year 2000.
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/13-14-hottest-years-record-occurred-21st-century-wmo-20140324
Dredd:
“Your sources are obvious from your statements.” What, you mean the IPCC? If you actually READ their documents, you can see for yourself that their conclusions are not even in keeping with their own data.