Tuesday, 24 September 2013

Snake Oil Salesman Suzuki fails simple science test. (Updated)

From Prof Ole Humlum's Climate4You Aug 2013
Everyone interested in climate science knows of the main data sets for measuring global temperature; the two satellite data sets, the remote sensing system (RSS) and the set from the University of Alabama Huntsville. The other data sets are NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) and from the Hadley climate research unit the  two HadCRUT sets with different methods of tweeking - HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT 4.

David Suzuki has made a career out of travelling the world pushing the alarmist view of climate change.
Last 12 years from above
Surely then he would be aware of these global temperature data sets. And yet on QandA last night, when asked about them by Bill Koutalianos, he seemed to be unaware of them.

Bill: Since 1998 global temperatures have been relatively flat, yet many man-made global warming advocates refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Has man-made global warming become a new religion in itself?  
Suzuki: ...yeah well don’t know how, er where er why you’re saying that. The 10 hottest years on record as I understand it have been in this century. In fact the warming continues, it may have slowed down but the warning continuous and every body is considering some sort of revelation in the next IPCC reports that are saying we got it wrong - as far as I understand – we haven’t. So where are you getting your information? I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they're thinking. 
Last three years temperature turning down

Bill: UAH; RSS, HadCruT, GISS- data that show a 17 year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the CO2 warming theory.  
Suzuki: What is the reference - I don’t  er…..  
Bill:Well, they’re the main data sets that IPCC uses…. Those Data sets show a 17 year flat trend which suggest there may be a problem with 
At this point Suzuki interrupted
Suzuki: There may be a climate sceptic down in Huntsville Alabama who has taken the data and come to that conclusion.

It seems it first, Suzuki, this snake-oil salesman, appears not to know about the datasets that all climate scientists use,  then, when he  hears UAH he refers obliquely to John Christy and denigrates him  although Christy has been  a former IPCC author. Christy was a lead author of the 2001 report by the IPCC. 

From Watts Up with That:

The details are below and are based on the SkS Temperature Trend Calculator:
For RSS the warming is not statistically significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.120 +/-0.129 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.141 +/- 0.163 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.091 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.092 +/- 0.106 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.104 +/- 0.106 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For NOAA the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For NOAA: 0.085 +/- 0.102 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not statistically significant for each set to their latest update, they are as follows:
RSS since August 1989;
UAH since June 1993;
Hadcrut3 since August 1993;
Hadcrut4 since July 1994;
GISS since January 1995 and
NOAA since June 1994.

Later, Suzuki refers to the supposed consensus. Much has been written of the fraudulent studies of the consensus. Just last week a new opinion piece came out:

Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warming

Apart from a handful of eccentrics, everyone believes in the reality of manmade climate change. That’s the message of a recent paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the latest in a series of similar efforts that have been used as a stick with which to beat policymakers. But scratch at the surface of any of these publications and you find that there is considerably less to them than meets the eye.

Suzuki referred to the Naomi Oreskes piece that appeared in Science in 2004. A curious choice considering the flaws in that piece of science fiction.


What Oreskes got wrong:

Dr. Peiser used “global climate change” as a search term and found 1,117 documents using this term, of which 929 were articles and only 905 also had abstracts. Therefore it is not clear which were the 928 “abstracts” mentioned by Oreskes, and Science did not, as it would have done with a peer-reviewed scientific paper, list the references to each of the “abstracts”.  

Significantly, Oreskes’ essay does not state how many of the 928 papers explicitly endorsed her very limited definition of “consensus”. Dr. Peiser found that only 13 of the 1,117 documents – a mere 1% – explicitly endorse the consensus, even in her limited definition.
Is Suzuki that ignorant, or does he turn a blind eye to the science that doesn't fit?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
See also: WUWT

Climate campaigner David Suzuki doesn’t know what the climate temperature data sets are

                                     * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


See Also QandA from the viewpoint of Canada's Ezra Levant: