Climategate: The Travails of a Global Warming Hobbyist
I can tell you, from the years I’ve spent both modeling and 5-axis programming airfoils, that different mathematical techniques yield different results. The sum of least squares will give a slightly different result than cubic squares when analysis of surface data is the exercise. I get all that. But I just couldn’t seem to make my tiny little experiment fit the pattern I was being told was the truth, and it didn’t matter what city I used.
Now it can probably be successfully argued that a guy with a laptop searching the internet on Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings isn’t really engaged in research, so I’ll call it research by proxy. The people who actually do the research tend to have their papers published online, for people like me to look at. And more than likely there will at least be references to where you can find the data if you’re so inclined. Not so with the whole global warming thing. It was glasnost lite — you simply trust, with no attached verification.
Then 2009 rolled around, and I was no closer to a definitive answer in my own mind about the anthropogenic global warming exercise than when I started. I remembered hearing on the news that the average daytime temperature of Mars was rising. Fine. I set off in search of information on the sun’s radiance and found a whole complete new can of worms to deal with. The sun guys had gobs and gobs of published data showing a correlation between sunspots and atmospheric temperatures on planet Earth.
Now the truly odd thing was they seemed for the most part to agree with each other concerning the relationship of spots to temperature. Where they seemed to differ was the causes of the spots and how to accurately forecast the coming ones. Their charts for the last one hundred years all pretty much agreed with each other. Counterintuitively — the more spots the higher the temperature, the fewer spots the lower the temps. Nowhere did I find sites voicing alternate views on sunspots. Not a tinfoil hat in sight.
So here we are in the closing months of 2009, and we’re hearing that probably a lot of the data in this whole AGW fiasco is now highly suspect, and at no point did I ever see where any of these guys ever talked to, or considered, what the sun guys were saying. For many years I’ve maintained that if there are 1,000 factors governing weather, we make all our forecasts and predictions based on the nine that we know. (Make that ten. The sun guys should be credited with spots.)
The more I’ve seen, the more convinced I’ve become that the global warming crowd latched onto the parallel rise in temperatures and CO2, and built what has essentially become a religion around it. For 22 years it appeared to have been a solid conclusion that they were indeed tied together. Then the inescapable truth of the matter made itself clear in 1998 that they are not necessarily linked in the fashion that was first thought. Entire professional careers have been built around, and on, the premise that man-caused CO2 raises temperatures, and it’s too late to turn back now for most of them.
It appears that Jones and the CRU folks didn’t simply massage the data. As other pundits have pointed out, they waterboarded it. There are several blatantly obvious conclusions to be drawn here. First, any group receiving public money for research must make their data available to all. Even to guys with laptops on Saturday afternoons. Second, it seems that peer review means next to nothing. In the whole AGW thing, collaborating researchers apparently became co-conspirators. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge has no place in honest scientific endeavors. Third, science in general has taken a huge hit, making the average guy wonder if large grants create large lies and vice-versa. Fourth, where the heck has our media been? Menus at the White House are more important than what is possibly the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American public? Apparently, only FOX got the memo. Fifth, school children need to be re-educated that CO2 is not the same as phosgene and sarin.
As for this disenfranchised independent voter, I’m thinking about taking up bowling and duck hunting. This climate researcher gig isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
I’m an english born civil engineer living in Denmark and I just wanted to thank you for your blog, as I emphasized totally.
One of the major problems with being sceptical is that you often feel that you are being forced by existing sites and blogs into chosing between two extremes.
Sometimes it would be nice just to discuss certain areas of the science without all the polemics.
“…and (the pro-global warming scientists) built what has essentially become a religion around it.”
This so-called religion also paid very well. These scientists made out like bandits. The money was flowing. There is little indication that any of them wore sackcloth and ashes or fasted days at a time. On the contrary, these exalted ones stayed at the best hotels and devoured gourmet food. Six figure incomes were the norm. Let’s be blunt: greed was a major factor. They lied to themselves in order to keep the good times rolling on forever. Self-delusion is not unusual when the rewards for adhering to the doctrines of the zeitgeist are so lucrative.
Terry:
Interesting and not surprising. In the late Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear” (which if you haven’t read you should) he talks a lot about just this subject.
Personally I feel this is Al Gore’s revenge for having lost the 2000 election; the povertization of America.
Superbly light-hearted summary of what it’s all about and how it seems to the interested outsider. Really AGW is no more that advocacy research and governments shouldn’t be funding it, let alone responding to it.
Terry, put those numbers down. You’ll cut yourself!
“It appears that Jones and the CRU folks didn’t simply massage the data. As other pundits have pointed out, they waterboarded it.”
Very funny AND very accurate.
What a fun read!
Religions are based on faith and not fact. Global Warming has become a religion.
Whenever a fact gets in the way of any believer it becomes a nuisance that has to be “handled”.
These people need to pick a day of worship and have meetings with someone in a robe. That way they will insulate themselves from all the heathens.
The world’s governments can then give them our money and then be allowed to be a good member of the world community (global warming church).
Great article. “Counterintuitively — the more spots the higher the temperature, the fewer spots the lower the temps.” Are you being humorous?
Great article.Key phrase here:Entire professional careers have been built around, and on,the premise that man-caused CO2 raises temperatures,and it’s to late to turn back now for most of them.
Politics in science is what we are seeing. Scientists with an agenda,how could that be?
Go buy a copy of The Chilling Stars. For an engineer like yourself you’ll see some interesting physics. Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-Theory-Climate-Change/dp/1840468157
The more information that is released the more Cosmoclimatology. If you’ve only five minutes go read this http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/cosmoclimatology
Those with any courses in nuclear physics will be amazed how the relativity works to produce the “seed” particles for clouds. And, of course, you didn’t mention orbital variations or how the ice age cycles start and end.
Clearly, as Kevin Trenberth said in an Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:36:36 -0600 email:
“We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”
Tavesty indeed.
For folks who don’t already know, a very good site where one can get an overview of Climategate as well as temperature monitoring stations, satellite data, and dirty politics of the AGW “Team” is http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Dear Terry:
I really enjoyed reading about your experiences. I hope you can reconcile with your wife. Maybe you should get a “duck lure” ringtone for your cell phone.
You might try doing some research on the percentage of CO2 that is contributed by man. The GW believers seem to thing the percentage is very large. Everyone else thinks its around 3%.
Imagine… if mankind became extinct tomorrow, we would reduce CO2 emissions by 3%.
Makes destroying our economy seem almost logical.
Beauxdog
CO2 emissions are a huge problem, global warming is just one of the symptoms of this ill-advised alteration of our atmosphere. The data is quite clear, even over the last ten years temperatures continue to rise, and CO2 is a significant factor in the rise. Dismissing decades of peer reviewed science over your cherry picked examples would be foolhardy at best.
Peace.
DS
Obviously, you fail to grasp the issue – Nobody is going to pay you fat grants and make you a nerd star by saying “it’s the sun, stupid.”
We are seeing the most perfect enactment of Hans Christian Anderson’s The Emperor’s New Clothes. And Barack Bare-A$$ Obama is cast in the lead role.
It will be sad to see how long it takes, and how much more money we will waste, before this scam is abandoned.
Terry, having done a fair amount of CNC programming and modeling myself, I can understand your confusion. If you only go back 200 years, you’ll find a number of peaks and valleys in temperature, C02 levels and sunspots. However, if you go back further, evidence supports a much wilder swing in temps, with the Ice Age being the most prominent, thus proving that the Earth’s climate is constantly changing all by it self. Anyone who thinks that mankind can influence the weather everywhere across the globe is deluded. There are complex forces in play that we just don’t understand, and instead of admitting we don’t understand, we try to explain it with what very little information we have, leading to the wrong conclusion.
One plea for you to consider, Mr. Hughes: Publish your data – today!
“Wanna-be researcher” is exactly right. You’re not actually researching — you’re just parsing out tiny bits and pieces from a much, MUCH larger data set involving everything from simple ground stations (although not simple enough for you to understand — quantity smooths out any small irregularities) to not so simple NOAA satellite monitoring. *All* of the data in *all* of the different data sets have to be looked at, analyzed and compared to make any sort of sense of what’s going on. This requires worldwide teams of scientists with supercomputers.
You might want to listen to your wife.
Commonsense at last!
This has been one of the most useful posts on climate change and the climategate “thing”.
It is also the first if somewhat indirect explanation about “data adjustment” for us non mathematical folk.
Nik
..you better hide your results or the CRU and Alarmists will be over to your house to beat you over the head with a hockey stick!
(P.S., you should publish your findings and methodology so others can further your effort. This is what happened in the BOOOSH USAF/TX ANG OER scandle.)
As Spock would say, ‘It’s illogical’.
Call me paranoid, but I think the whole party crasher at the White House story was engineered. The White House controls both lists, the list of invitees to the White House and the list of invitees to the White House that is given to the press and media.
Drop a name off the list given to the media and trust them to find it. Instant news. Guaranteed to get the gatekeepers salivating and push the rather technical story of AGW being the greatest fraud ever attempted off the front pages. If the Media would have allowed it to appear there. As a bonus, once the issue is “discovered” to be a clerical error, the Media will look like the pack of fools they are.
The other FUD technique is more subtle.
The story here isn’t the catty, nasty, back stabbing E-Mails, but the data and algorithms used at Hadley CRU. The Media will cover for the AGW loons as much as possible. The E-mails will fade into history, the Data won’t. The AGW loons (hereafter Swampies) are counting on most people thinking algorithm is something AL and Tipper do between plane flights. So the Joe and Jill 6-packs will close their ears at that point.
I suspect they are correct. What the swampies are over looking is that the political class doesn’t really care about algore, beyond wondering if the Secret Service carries around a portable derrick to get him off Tipper with. The Political class will see the EACRU data as rounds to fire off at their opponents who have been voting in lockstep for this boondoggle.
That is where the hack will make a difference. Most of an entire generation of politicians has been hung out to dry by the swampies. Those that survive won’t forget that. Neither will those that drag down their opponent and replace them at the public trough.
Hopefully we are looking at the twilight of Junk Science, which was invented by the Ad guys as a tactic in a FUD sales campaign.
13. David S writes:
“CO2 emissions are a huge problem, global warming is just one of the symptoms of this ill-advised alteration of our atmosphere. The data is quite clear, even over the last ten years temperatures continue to rise, and CO2 is a significant factor in the rise. Dismissing decades of peer reviewed science over your cherry picked examples would be foolhardy at best.
Peace.
DS”
..prove it. Ball’s in your guyses court now.
BC, you left out “peer reviewed.”
When science becomes the new religion, there is ever more the need for a separation between church and state…
Interesting that, now, some people say we must consider all the data, such as the satellite data. It wasn’t so long ago that the satellite numbers were dismissed because they could not be made to correlate with the ground numbers…until Dr. Hansen “recalibrated” the satellite data. I don’t think he needed a supercomputer to do that. Oh, and by the way, one doesn’t need a supercomputer to graph existing data and look for trends. A good desktop these days will suffice and a program as simple as Excel or more robust such as Mathematica or JMP will do nicely. One would need a supercomputer to build complex models and make predictions as to where the climate may be going. Good luck with that. Present models don’t even incorporate the effects of clouds.
Terry, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Someone correlated CO2 with temperature over a short and recent period, became convinced Man was at fault, and they have been trying to fit the data to these conclusions since while blackballing any more objective analysis.
Throw in a Leftist lack of a moral foundation, toss in some cash and ego, and we have the greatest scam in the history of science.
BC #17: LOL, excellent scathing satire, you really capture the mindset of the scientists clearly evident in these e-mails.
In the longer run, the biggest problem is the damage being done to the image of Scienc by these arrogant jerks.
A great article, albeit a bit thin scientifically since a couple of locational examples from Phoenix and Dallas don’t translate very well to a global generalization. But then, neither does the work of Mann, Jones, Briffa and the others embroiled in the present revelations.
What truly amuses, however, are the protestations and outrages from BC and David S who, like clockwork, arrive to deny and shout down any questioning of their religious beliefs and to defend the indefensible. They have been doing this at PJM for months now and it has become both sad but laughable. Especially from David who insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that temperatures are still rising and have been for more than 10 years and that CO2 is not a trailing indicator of temperature and a greenhouse gas that is insignificant compared to water vapor. But then we have come to expect outright lies and distortions from both of these clowns. While they invariably show up to receive their usual dose of ridicule nobody believes a word they say, or believes they offer anything of value. Still they appear. The only real question about them is whether they are sad and pathetic examples of liberal group think or simply humorous in their shallow degree of intellectual merit. Regarding the present “Climategate” they offer nothing of value and have no credentials that would warrant any serious attention.
Am I the only one terrorized by the fanaticism shown by the trolls ?
You tell them that data are not available.
They say we have plenty of data.
You tell them that data have been deleted-falsified.
They answer that we have plenty of data.
You tell them that the raising (or lowering) of temperatures wouldn’t anyway prove anything without a precise and stringent mathematical correlation with CO2 over a century.
They say that the temperatures are increasing.
These guys are ready for ANY regime, any mussolini, any obama.
They just want to clap their hands at the heads falling, no matter why and what.
Scary.
Not-individualized intelligences. Lives lost to ideology, hate, propaganda.
This is the petri dish where any danger for Freedom can grow and mutate into deadly forms.
Put all your data and models aside. What this shows, above all else, is that greed has overtaken honesty at every turn. And as we read these posts, it’s clear we have many who are following the money as their “scientific evidence”.
Hughes has taken the publicly available data and presented arguments that will start a new pursuit of greed. If only the legions at CRU and NASA had shown the common sense and genuine scientific pursuit as has an amateur Hughes, Al Gore would be a mere pauper today, and it couldn’t be any better than that! You can pretty much be guaranteed that Obama, Browner, Congress and Holdren aren’t listening to this (nor reading about it).
Junk science has survived through greed and greed is still out there, big time.
It’s time to turn-off the air conditioners in DC and send those elected nuts home for the summer like happened in the old days (and think of the carbon credits that would earn). Perhaps that’s a first step in governing greed.
“P.S., you should publish your findings and methodology”
Yup. Show us the data.
The Global warming hoax was cooked up by envirocommie Maurice Strong and his financial backer George Soros in the late 1970s. It was basically designed to criminalize the use of carbon-based energy, which has millions of uses in the lives of everyone on the planet, much less than in the developed countries. Ever since Rachel Carson first wrote “silent spring”, the environmental movement has costed millions of lives(over 50 million thru banning DDT and other insecticides/pesticides)to costing trillions in currency thru banning of such agents as Freon or Red dye #2 and the limiting the use of phosphates in detergent, amongst many questionable enivronmental decisions made thru the last 40 years. We now have literal proof that the scientific community has become ideologically communist in the fact that they will manipulate data to support a questionable or even outrightly false conclusion. We have a RICO law in the US that we used sucessfully against the mafia ,starting in the 1970s. I sincerely beleive we can and should haul in the likes of Phil Jones and Micheal Mann on RICO violations. After then , the big boys. Soros, Strong, Gore and the likes of John Holdren. Better yet, since they all agree with Islam so much, lets try them under SHARIA LAW.
Sherab, you left out: you tell them peer review was subverted and dissenting voiced were silenced, and they tell you “this is all peer reviewed science.”
Today’s interesting observation is that the “corrections” match the “warming” very closely in scale and direction.
“Today’s interesting observation is that…”
…there actually is no measured warming trend to speak of? That it’s all fabricated, and that measured temperatures are basically the same now as they were 100 years ago?
Shocking. I never would have guessed.
17. BC “*All* of the data in *all* of the different data sets have to be looked at, analyzed and compared to make any sort of sense of what’s going on. This requires worldwide teams of scientists with super computers.”
Explain one thing BC, why did the worldwide teams of scientists with super computers believe they had to cook their data to attain the politically desirable results they were looking for? It’s okay. We know you must be hurting. To be so deeply invested in such a transparent scam and then to be so let down. Some us older, wiser, and better educated analysts saw it coming back in 1976 when the same scientists used the same approach to tells us our industrial emissions had triggered the next ice age, and we were doomed. Did you hear me, doomed? Time will heal your wounds. Until then, try to digest what these nice people are trying to tell you. And be happy, we aren’t killing our planet after all!
I think I have already implied in past posts what I am posting now but it’s a decisive moment and I want to be completely explicit:
IF
this administration will carry on its anticapitalistic project of Cap and Trade despite the revelations about the climate scam
WE
will have the first unquestionable piece of evidence that
we live in a totalitarian regime.
The open and callous rejection of a factual truth will in fact be evidence that ideology moves this administration and that this administration is ready to take ANY step necessary to realize its ideological goals.
This is an historical moment.
And not in the sense the trolls would imply.
I remind this Administration that Freedom is a Gift given by GOD.
No totalitarian regime lasted nor will last, there are profound reasons for this.
A few years back there was an article on Space.com on solar observations that proved to be quite informative. It turns out that we have been making detailed scientific observations of the Sun for well over 100 years and have observations from Chinese monks and the like that go back over a thousand years.
By observing the currents on the Sun we can predict the severity of the sunspot cycles almost 20 years in advance. And the most recent observations showed the currents to be The Lowest Level Ever Recorded.
I mentioned the article to guy with a Phd in Astronomy I worked with at the time and he said “Fewer sunspots mean less solar energy.” Really! The article did not mention that – it was about sunspots and that was all. And I found from other sources that is known to be true, without doubt. The “Little Ice Age” of the late 1600’s to mid 1800’s is known to have been accompanied by a marked reduction in sunspot activity.
Put 2 and 2 together and you get…. Well, it’s pretty obvious.
Well, after years as an engineer, program manager, and head of advanced planning for an output that has the name “Cape” in its title, I am now a researcher, someone who gathers data, organizes it, and figures out what it means. I got that job because I had access to info that no one else did and I knew where to go get more. This has given me a certain reputation; I recently finished a bit of research for NASA that had nothing to do with my original field of expertise.
But as Terry points out, no one seems to have done the research on solar impacts on Earth temperature, even though a variety of different scientific sources have the data and are not trying to cover it up. Curious…
Great article Terry! Whew…afraid there for a little while you were going to drink the kool-aid and buy into Al’s used car commercials…I mean…global warming propoganda.
Hey, by the way, I know your wife – she’d really like a diamond-encrusted duck caller. : )
Sherab @ 28:
Actually, the pattern is more like this:
We raise objections;
The troll parrots the talking points.
We refute the talking points;
The troll parrots the talking points again.
The global warming talking points are, obviously, that it’s still getting warmer, despite the recent cooling trend; and that the data is just fine, but you don’t need to see it.
Watch how often the trolls use those two lines. Even the fact that I’ve just shown everyone this pattern won’t stop some of them, they’re too stupid to do anything except repeat the talking points.
It’s the same thing with measurements taken by satellites and weather balloons. They don’t show any significant warming…until the measurements are “corrected” so that they do show significant warming…
“Data collected by satellites and balloon-borne instruments since 1979 indicate little if any warming of the low- to mid-troposphere—the atmospheric layer extending up to about 5 miles from the Earth’s surface. Climate models generally predict that temperatures should increase in the upper air as well as at the surface if increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing the warming.”–NRC
Yup. And, now, the b.s. begins…
“the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century. The disparity between surface and upper air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that surface temperature has been rising.”–NRC
Well, they figured out a way to fix that little disparity…they adjusted the atmospheric data so that now it agrees with the land measurements, which, of course, have also previously been adjusted.
What a total joke.
There are famous cases in history of “cooking” the books to make experimental observation coincide with theory. Two famous examples are Mendel’s experiments and proving Einstein’s theory. So scientist have been know to do this before to sell to their peers/public. (It should be noted that while Mendel altered his results Einstein did not).
The fact that these cookings did not alter the these theories does not give scientists the right to cook thermal trends in order to prove global warming theory due to man made interference. Unlike the aforementioned cookings which eventually converged with theory once experiments were accurately performed the fact that current predicative models continue to be more inaccurate and the data needs fudging should make honest adherents to question the theory.
The tragic thing about the war on CO2 is that the money could otherwise be spent on real pollutants and the growing threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. If the past decade has taught us anything it is that there is not infinite money available for all programs. Spending money wisely is the key.
21. Войска ПВО:
13. David S writes:
“CO2 emissions are a huge problem, global warming is just one of the symptoms of this ill-advised alteration of our atmosphere. The data is quite clear, even over the last ten years temperatures continue to rise, and CO2 is a significant factor in the rise. Dismissing decades of peer reviewed science over your cherry picked examples would be foolhardy at best.
Peace.
DS”
..prove it. Ball’s in your guyses court now.
yes prove it.
oooohh you cann’t WHY ? ooooh because the earth isn’t warming and that has been proven.
piece
I Hope the planet does warm enough to vacation in the Antarctic under a palm tree..as the prehistoric critters did millions of years ago down under ….Another whole continent would be good for business…Walmarts, Starbucks and McDonalds.etc….make it an international place…no single countries ownership allowed..!
“The data is quite clear, even over the last ten years temperatures continue to rise, and CO2 is a significant factor in the rise.”–Peace Boy
I think we have a winner for the Moonbat of the Week award.
Marjorie Mazel Hecht of Infowars:
Link to the full .pdf article HERE
Instructions for Liberal Readers:
1. Rejoice, it was a close call, but the destruction of our planet has been averted for the time being.(This is what you wanted, right?)
2. Standby for information about the next man-caused environmental disaster that will doom the planet.
3. Stay tuned to NPR and MSNBC for information and guidance from your leaders.
4. Continue to be self-righteous and indignant about the outrageous crimes against humanity by U.S. forces at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere around the world while George Bush was POTUS and acting under the influence of the evil Dick Cheney.
5. Keep repeating, “Bush, Cheney, Halliburton.”
# 15 BackwardsBoy:
“There are complex forces in play that we just don’t understand, and instead of admitting we don’t understand, we try to explain it with what very little information we have, leading to the wrong conclusion.”
Well, yes, but your sentence applies to a minority of scientists who hang on to their hypotheses to the bitter end. Nothing new here. The vast majority of “man-made climate change” propagandists don’t give a hoot about science. They are in it for personal gain, status, and power over the masses thru taxation/wealth-redistribution. They can’t do the Stalin/Hitler/Mao/Pol Pot genocidal games anymore. Even the New York Times wouldn’t go for it. Stealth power-grabbing from ordinary people as “climate, resource-depleating criminals” is the way to go nowadays in the West. Even genocide in Darfur is being explained now as a fight over resources caused by climate change caused by the developed world & capitalism.
The landscape gets even deeper and more interesting if you add Al Gore, the High Priest’s, own history of utter failure in sciences–and in everything else, for that matter–in college, and his probable desire for revenge for that humiliation, especially in an environment of Harvard and Yale and Oxford grads. For heavenssake, the guy believes the temperature at the core of the Earth is in the millions of degrees, as he’s said on the Conan O’Brian show recently. I don’t think Conan or anybody in the audience reacted in any way–chuckled, laughed out loud, booed Gore as he deserved or walked out in disgust. That’s the real tragedy.
The satellite data actually showed that the upper atmosphere was cooling. Since that didn’t agree with the desired result, papers were published to attempt to explain the problem away. With totally different explanations.
The one I especially liked depended on the assertion that it was warmer at noon than at 3PM (local time). Of course, every resident of Phoenix (or any other desert area) knows that is wrong (as can easily be seen in weather bureau data, especially in the summer).
The other posited local mass variations in the Earth that magically deflected the satellite orbits just the right amount to cancel out the
offending measurements. Funny that everyone else flying satellites
didn’t know they needed to correct their orbits.
#45 KBLinABQ: “Keep repeating, Bush, Cheney, Halliburton.’”
ROTFL Yeah, in fact, maybe I’ll go into business making rosaries for liberals. That way they can chant “Bush, Cheney, Haliburton,” interspersed with the requisite “Hail, Obamas” their slavish adherence to faux science and failed political ideologies demand.
The more I read libtard-troll comments, the more I’m ready to co-opt a line from the latest Boondock Saints movie: “I’m so smart, I make smart liberals feel retarded…which is why they always revert to the ‘Dear Leader’s’ talking points.”
#35 Sherab…
“Those who build thrones for themselves are the first to fall” (Clear Mind 1979)
The data is quite clear, even over the last ten years temperatures continue to rise, and CO2 is a significant factor in the rise.
Which data? Certainly not this data, which shows no real change for 8 years. I exclude 1998 because of el Nino.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
So who’s the cherry picker, David S?
War.
A few things that can impact daily temperature numbers:
1) heat island effect. Many weather observation locations are no longer rural. buildings and parking lots are built up around the observation points. This causes an increase in observed temperature.
2) global temperature change will cause changes in weather patterns. This mean that dry areas become wet, warm areas cool, ect. Extrapolating one location to a global phenom is not possible.
(I am a numerical meterologist and a skeptic)
I am an engineer, but I do not do climate studies. However, I have been responsible for, working with, utilizing, and dependent on modeling and testing for most of my career. I know that much of “global warming” is based on modeling and the use of data to make assumptions.
Here are some statements of truth that no one can deny and that all should be aware:
1. A model is only as good as the assumptions used to create it. Remember that assumptions are assumed parameters. While an assumption can be determined to be a fact, it is not always.
2. A model will be either disputed by actual tests/events or verified by tests/events. Just because your model is verified one time (or even many) by a test/event does not mean that the model is true in all cases. If parameters change, the results of the model vs. event can change. Real life always trumps a model.
3. Just because someone says something loudly and for a long time does not make it true.
4. A model is a model. It is not a car. It is not real. It does not take into account controlling parameters that are not predicted or known. There are ALWAYS unknown parameters of real life that are not included in modeling. Otherwise – you wouldn’t have to model – you would know!
5. Not all models use the best data available at the time. Many use the best data available at the time for which the model is programmed to accept. There will almost always be data that cannot be included. This is an assumption – that the model has included all pertinent data. That can lead to the blind leading the blind.
6. Humans are not perfect and neither are their models. Models are mathematical algorithms programmed by humans, with even more unproven assumptions built into the programming process on top of the untested assumptions built into the algorithms. (And don’t forget #5 above – the unincluded data) An example of this is knowing that it takes (app.) 9 months to make a baby, therefore an (incorrect) assumption could be made that 9 women can make a baby in one month. Not all events can be done in parallel, nor do all events have to be done serially or to some assumed (there’s that word again!) point of completion (some babies are made in less than 9 months). Knowing the proper ordering of events is often another assumption (open to error) but essential and not necessarily obvious.
Last thought – but not necessarily a “statement of truth.” This is more of an opinion:
We do not have fixed “laws of nature” but because of thousands of years on which to see the transition that knowledge brings, we know we have a world of relativity where “rules” are generalities of observations made up to this point. At any given time, a generality can become a fact (the world is round) due to some truly tested discovery, or a law can be debunked, again due to a discovery or breakthrough in knowledge (I once read a out-dated, but serious, medical book that stated that boy eggs came from one ovary and girl eggs from the other ovary).
In conclusion, if one finds an *honest* scientist whose modeling is only dependent on proven assumptions, real and unmanipulated data, the ability to predict outcomes not yet understood and still comes to a GW conclusion, then by all means – take the leap and believe in it!
I am sure that someone will find something wrong with what I have said. After all, I am only human!
David S @ 13:
Then why is Mars also warming?
Maybe the Martians elected some guy named Boooooooooooooosh to be President of the United States of Mars?
Maybe it’s because the Martians are driving too many Mars Rover SUVs?
Maybe evil Martian capitalists are building too many factories on Olympus Mons?
Please explain, Mr. S. This David is eager to hear your answer.
To KBLinABQ: For one thing, there is *zilch* real evidence for any data cooking. Try this on for size: imagine working at a news organization where there are constant informal discussions and email exchanges about what people and stories to cover and how to cover them. Now imagine a large random chunk of those emails being stolen, and then bits and pieces pulled out by people to make the case that your news organization “conspired” to both quash dissenting story ideas (aka things that were bad or dopey ideas from the start) and push a liberal agenda (aka journalistic investigations into corporate or government shenanigans).
People see only what they want to believe, even if it’s just a windmill instead of a dragon.
More Instructions For Liberals
6. If anyone asks about climategate, redirect them by reminding that conservatives are racists want immigrants and old people to die because they don’t have healthcare.
7. Avoid any direct, rational conversations with conservatives. They are usually armed with the facts (and a large caliber semi-automatic pistol).
8. In you dark despair, close your eyes and hum, Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.
“For one thing, there is *zilch* real evidence for any data cooking.”
And, just when you think the Moonbat of the Week award has been settled…up pops another nominee.
For one thing, there is *zilch* real evidence for any data cooking.
BC, that’s just wrong. Now, if you were to say “there’s no evidence of any purposeful fraud” you might have a case. But there is absolutely evidence — explicit admissions — of steps taken to make the data fit the theory. There’s also explicit discussion of steps taken to subvert the peer review process, and clear efforts to shape the conclusions to the point that dissenters found themselves forced to resign from major committees.
#13 and 17
We all know the erroneous theory. Climate scientist and internationalist Al Gore has already laid it out and you are simply repeating it. What you are lacking is proof to support it, especially since the theory runs counter to common sense. Stop wasting your time and ours with repetitious and ridiculous claims.
Grass roots engineers: Cheers !
A Bachelor of Science in a real-world
major is enough “certification” to
understand and judge the _explanations_
of the data collection methods and
statistical analysis software used;
The scientific method is still widely
understood, and AGW Climatologists are
not playing by the rules; They win, but
with cheating. Tell your friends and
neighbors.
Can anyone tell me what man made event caused the glaciers that formed the Great Lakes to melt some 14000 years ago? Aliens with CO2 combustion engines perhaps? Or could it be some natural forces at work?
AGW is a byproduct of the $79Billion spent by the US government on so called climate research. And by the environmental movement who are the useful idiots of our day.
Can either DS or BC tell me when I can meet the “Great Pumpkin”?
BC @ 54:
Perhaps it’s Beyond your Comprehension (is that what BC stands for?), but the statement you made above could also be applied to you globaloney believers.
You’ll see global warming, because that’s what you want to believe, even if the data clearly shows a cooling trend.
You’ll see no problem in the hacked/released emails, because you don’t want to believe there could be anything wrong with the Saviors of the Planet.
Need I continue? Or have you decided to slink back off to DailyKOS for more talking points?
#28. Sherab Zangpo:
Well said
Aside from the two clueless trolls here, and my caveat that the onus is on them to prove their beloved Alarmist AGW theory, it would really behoove all of us to get behind a massive effort to deconstruct this bullsh!t now that some of the raw/underlying data has been released with the CRU hack.
I mean, the bravo sierra that Peace-Creep lays down about having/needing Cray supercomputers and massive CPU power to look at peer-reviewed data is an enormous crock.
The SETI@home called upon folks to volunteer their idle home computer CPU cycles to assist in the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence and — as I stated earlier — the Bush/Tx ANG “fake but accurate” scandal was brought down by people working incrementally to investigate and answer questions and reply to false accusations, etc.
The splooges who want to ram this down our throats have demonstrated that they have no respect for the intellectual process and wish to quash dissent. That lying sack bloated piece of animal fecal matter, Gore, and his stupid-assed disciples have pontificated about the nobility of their endeavor. People like trolls Peace-Creep and BS can pound sand as far as I am concerned.
This is it, cretins, no more Mr Nice Guy. Your era of lying liberalism holding sway over the good, honest, hardworking people of this country is rapidly coming to an end, your words are empty and your logic proven deceitful.
@ 54. BC:
To KBLinABQ: For one thing, there is *zilch* real evidence for any data cooking.
I suggest that to enlighten yourself on the issue, you Google the following search term: cru “fudge factor”. If you do not know what “fudge factor” means, a term that scientists and engineers know all too well, I suggest that you go to Wikipedia.
BC: to assist you, I have included the Google search term: cru “fudge factor”Edjumincate yourself.
Isn’t amazing that our trolls BC and David S (where’s the other epsilon minus semi-moron Moho?) continue to assert that data is honest even after the CRU has admitted that the data has been “massaged” and that the original data set was “accidentally” deleted. They have become totally detached from reality. I am not even sure whether they are actually human or just some sort of Artificial Intelligence program designed to post nonsense on the internet.
“Can anyone tell me what man made event caused the glaciers that formed the Great Lakes to melt some 14000 years ago?”
That was me.
I drove my SUV up to Minnesota that year to do a little ice fishing.
Sorry.
My bad.
162 MBs is not a “random chunk” of email. It also contained code for the models, which have been pulled apart and shown to be criss-crossed with fudge factors. As Louise pointed out, these types of models can be complex. One example: Describe the trajectory of a thunderstorm moving from southwest to northwest and what happens when it crosses a river, a discontinuity. Not exactly easy. Now multiply that by millions as you try to account for thousands of lightning strikes every second across the globe, for patterns of ocean currents that vary over all the layers in the oceans of the world. Combine that with the layers of the atmosphere, with all the gases, the constant ionization, with varying clouds and temperatures, mountains and other “discontinuities”. Now add in the sun pumping energy into the atmosphere with varying intensity; now add in the human energy sources, again varying by continent, with different wind patterns and forest distributions.
Does anyone honestly think we have reached a level of sophistication in our models, our understandings, and our technology that we can come anywhere close to modeling it?
I don’t, but I would be willing to listen if they could just take known conditions and predict the past.
I’ve spent a lifetime working on complex electromagnetic models and we can’t do anywhere near what is necessary for climate prediction. Hell, we can’t even solve our own very small piece of the physical simulation needed.
I read somwhere:
“Now, I’ll bet Al Gore is sorry he ever invented the internet.”
Steven
In defense of engineers (and scientists):
Scientists make and test theories. Settled science can and should change as data is found to conflict with theory.
Engineers apply science daily. If buildings and aircraft fell down as often as theories are revised, there would be great outcry and blame levying.
It may take significant insight to develop a theory, but testing one is a lot simpler.
I do forensic engineering in which we know that something is clearly wrong with the structure, and we strive to find out what caused it. My colleagues and I argue the possible causes and try to see which best fits the observed data. We don’t expect to discover new theories, but we do expect to better understand the ways the ones we have work together.
Scientists have a lot more latitude to think outside the box: engineers have less because any errors they make have more immediate consequences.
When you start kidding yourself, you’re well down the slippery slope.
tdiinva @ 67:
Were they ever attached to it, except by the slightest possible connection?
TO: David S., #13
From: A University Professor (Atmospherics)
I’ll try to keep this simple……Co2 is not “huge” problem. It’s not a problem at all. Smog and other pollutants are a problem, but do not contribute to “climate change” (or is it “global warming”, I can’t really keep a handle on that one). You breathe out Co2. Co2 is a necessary part of life itself. I live in a desert that was once a tropical forest. There was “more” Co2 in the atmosphere over the Southern California/Arizona desert two million years ago then there are now. As a university professor who know that the whole “global warming/climate change” issue is nothing but a scam, I take personal insult that you will continue the lie, especially after the truth recently came out. You should be ashamed of yourself.
There was never a rational reason why all data connected to climate studies were not released to the general public. A Microsoft legitimately does not want anybody to be able to look at it proprietary information. This is also especially true of any company performing national defense work. But climate studies? Let’s get real. We should care less if a high student, Bozo the Clown, or my next-door neighbor looks at these studies. They can knock themselves out. Data are data. Can you back up your studies with empirical evidence? That’s the only valid question that must concern the scientific community.
Get rid of CO2, it will result in DEATH, the extinction of life itself. Why? Life is based on CARBON & OXYGEN. Plants need CO2 to live; it is not a pollutant & plants expel oxygen.
Global Warming is a religion for people who do not believe in God. What a sad, pathetic existence you have. You have become a Death Cult.
The hacked emails of climategate are not necessary to show that global warming has stopped and human caused global warming never was.
The Argo float data shows that global warming stopped abruptly in about 2004 (graph on pp4 of http://www.oceanobs09.net/plenary/files/Wijffels_HeatContentTemperature_2Aa_vfinal.pdf )
The research presented in the October 14 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true provides a model that accurately calculates all average global temperatures since 1895 with no consideration whatsoever of changes to the level of CO2 or any other ghg. All unknowns in the model can be determined just using data prior to about 1975. The model then accurately predicts average global temperatures since then.
Is there a list of all possible types of things that could or do influence the climate and their rank as to importance? It seems the sun and volcanoes would be a couple but I imagine there are so many that the statistical validity of the predictions from the computer model might be very weak. Judging from the emails about their data and the cryptic nature of both data and models , I don’t think I would want to take a pill for a medical conditions created by these guys or using their methods. Could they even put a pill on the market with this sort of science behind it? Would the class action lawyers be lining up for their payoff if it were known this is how the pharmaceutical got created?
Actually I’m all for Global Climate change. I live in the Desert of Southern California, It’d be great if it ended up more like Fort Collins, CO.
Four seasons would rule!
Good post & good style. When you are out of step with the “experts”, it makes you wonder about yourself. Just keep using your engineer’s approach to problem solving because the rest of science has forfeited discpline and rigor for politics and press releases.
Several popular blogs that slammed Dan Rather for his Rathergate and exposed him and CBS are now defending Climategate scientists and their distortion and deletion of scientific data.
I have been given a time out or blocked account at Charles Johnson’s (little green footballs) for not worshiping the CARBON SUN GOD of Climate Change.
I can only guess how much RealClimate.org has donated into his GREEN FOOTBALL TIP JAR.
But at least we know where some of our tax grant monies have gone.
If one googles my name and “Misology”, one will find a series of article by me regarding the misuse of science in various fields.
I wrote this and think some of you might be interested. I read every damn e-mail and the that docs I could open.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/11/28/the-conspiracy-of-the-centuries-reader-post/
In my life I have seen three eschatologies promulgated by the religion of environmentalism.
1.)Global cooling: We’re all going to freeze to death.
2.)Deforestation: We’re all going to suffocate.
3.)Global warming: We’re all going to burn.
There have always been tent revival con men hawking their snake oil to cure the end times. Now is no different than any other time. When the preacher man says, “Repent, the end is nigh…” KEEP SINNING!
@ 73. James:
If indeed you are a Professor, you are a disgrace to your Alma mater. CO2 levels are higher than any period in the past fifteen million years.
I’ll try to keep this simple……Co2 is not “huge” problem. It’s not a problem at all.
Nonsense. CO2 levels have dramatic impacts.
As a university professor who know that the whole “global warming/climate change” issue is nothing but a scam, I take personal insult that you will continue the lie, especially after the truth recently came out. You should be ashamed of yourself.
On the contrary. It’s a shame students pay good money for such a poorly informed professor’s salary. I cringe at the thought.
Peace.
DS
http://www.technobahn.com/article/200910091647
David S. CO2 trails warming so warming is the cause!
Davis S states CO2 levels are at their HIGHEST for 15 Million YEAS OK David S give us UNCONTRAVERTABLE PROOF and not from one of your EXPOSED AGW SCAMMERS either from a REAL Scientist please that does not MANIPULATE data and HIDE THE DECLINE. Also please give us a link to the SCIENTIFIC PAPER which PROVES that MAN MADE CO2 contributes ANYTHING at all to Global Warming or indeed if Global Warming has taken lace in the last TWELVE YEARS even as MAN MADE CO2 continued to INCREASE and while you are at it PROOF that CO2 is a POLLUTANT. You inability to provide us with PROOF will PROVE what you are.
Peace and love MOONBAT
CO2 level and temperature level for the last 600 million years are graphed at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
A graph showing predicted and measured temperatures since 1895 and the associated research are presented in the October 14 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . The pdf provides a model that accurately calculates all average global temperatures since 1895 with no consideration whatsoever needed of changes to the level of CO2 or any other ghg. All unknowns in the model were determined just using data prior to about 1975. The model then accurately predicts average global temperatures since then.
David S @ 84:
I repeat my earlier question from 53. (No, I am not going to let you get away with ignoring it, at least not until everyone here recognizes that you are ignoring it).
If CO2 levels are the problem, why is Mars also warming?
Are the eeeeeeeeeeeevil Martian capitalists, led by Marvin, building too many factories on Olympus Mons?
Are Martian families driving too many Mars Rover SUVs?
Or did the Martians just elect some politician named Boooooooooooosh?
You’re obviously ignoring the question because you can’t answer it, and your lack of an answer shows the gaping hole in your assertions about CO2. And I fully intend to throw it into your face every chance I get.
I’m a little confused about the message of this article.
At first what you seem to be saying is that you only found warming temps in cities, presumably due to the heat island effect. And even that stopped in 1998.
But out in the countryside, there was never any warming.
Later, you say that the sun guys have predicted the warming. What warming? I thought you didn’t find any?
Ever hear of “Chaos Theory?” Know where the modern version (something similar had been published back in the Nineteenth Century but largely forgotten) got its start?
One Professor Lorenz, a meteorologist, realised he had messed up his data in an attempt at climate modelling. Yet the resulting output of the model looked fair, if not quite as expected. His conclusion – no model could ever be accurate to more than “noise” variation. This became popularised as “The Butterfly Effect” because of its intimate relation with climate modelling.
you gotta look at data from the begning of earths history, hard to do, but possible. if you can manage to do that then you’ll see that global warming is cyclic. earth heats up, things die, earth cools down, things die. these warming and cooling events are about ten thousend years long, give or take. thats pretty shourt considering the estimated age of the earth is about 4.4 billion years old…. so in short, we are along for a hot cosmic ride, so sit down buckle up and stop trying to controll a natural phenonom! however i will give you the fact that things have been lookin kinda funny in the last 100 years or so. please keep in mind tho that the earth is about 4.4 billion (thats 9 zeros) old and 100 years is like a blink of the eye in its history. I would have to say that yes humans and our blasted technology are PARTLY responsible for the rise in global temperatures, co2 and other greenhouse gasses. i believe that we are just a very small catalyst in the natural equation, and that things will only get worse before they get better. carbon bucks are a joke dont do it. walking and biking 3 times a week might help, if every person, in every city in every country around the world participated, not likely (the US and UK are the fattest countries in the world…) the people we need to put the pressure on are the big companies, oil producers, plastic producers, and the farming community. so get up off your couch, push back from your desk and write your local congressman (or woman)!
Early on in my research I came across this sight: http://www.earthsgeomotor.com/
This guy correctly predicted the coming cooling period based mainly on the changing magnetic field. The magnetic field has a huge effect on climate and is conveniently ignored by mainstream climatologists.
David S, long before the Dinosaurs existed, the Earth once had a higher oxygen content; as a result of the high oxygen content, plants grew in abundance & were quite large. Likewise, insects first emerged & they were very large in contrast to their current size today. The Earth also had a tropical climate. Think of a very large rain forest with insects the size of pigs or horses. Now, how is mankind the cause of Global Warming since mankind did not exist on Earth? Try to explain that one.
I have lived in Phoenix AZ since 1984. When I first moved here we got frosts regularly in the winter, car windshields would frost over and have to be scraped to go to work in the morning. Now it hardly ever happens. Of course, I lived out in the desert away from the main area of the city. Now the city has caught up and surrounded my house. Everyone here knows the temperature has gone up over the last 20 to 30 years. It is the urban heat island effect and has nothing to do with global warming.
As a scientist, I, too, have been perplexed by the CO2/Global Warming controversy. Current proponents of cataclysmic apocalyptic dangers to society from CO2 will not even look at the best data we have concerning CO2 levels and temperature anomalies. See the articles in Nature, May ’08, concerning CO2 levels in ice core measurements that correlate with a timeline from 800,000 years ago to the present(way before the internal combustion engine and Al Gore). CO2 levels correspond to warming spikes throughout the timeline with the levels not very different from today. CO2 levels of ~300 ppm spike several times in the timeline with coresponding temperature anomalies. Of course, proponents say that todays levels are at 380ppm, and that is higher–they are, of course, quoting the levels at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, which is comparing apples to oranges. Correlating CO2 rises with temperature increases does not establish a causal relationship. The government papers blaming the six greenhouse gases for global warming make blanket assumptions that are not even referenced. You just cannot base science on assumptions. The fervor of the doomsayers is frightening. The lack of inclusion of other weather variables, sunspot activity, volcanic eruptions, etc., is striking only to those who are skeptical. The motives of all concerned is very worrisome to me, and for the life of me, I cannot fathom how this controversy became a liberal/conservative matter. And can anyone explain to me how “carbon offsets” factor in? Talk about snake oil. Just my thoughts–like you, this weekend research is tiresome.
#80 Fearless Leader:: I too have been blocked by Charles Johnson by daring to question the Great Lizard and raising valid scientific points. I, too, wonder where his financing originates.
#84:: Getting a little personal aren’t you. “CO2 levels have dramatic impacts”–reference please? Please read the article in Nature and see where CO2 levels were 400,000 years ago. Trying to align one variable with causality in a multivariable complex problem is not very intelligent.
Considering that about a half million years of records indicate that CO2 rise FOLLOWS temperature increases (based most likely on sunspot activity and ocean currents) and that CO2 forcing peaks at about 200-250ppm, can some alarmist trot out an explanation for their “faith”?
Of course not! Much easier to throw tantrums, knowing that the squeaky wheel gets the grease (or, in this case, tax-funded grants).
Oh, and by the way, has any big oil funded research ever been found fraudulent? At all?
The objective of all models is to predict.
The model (with eye-opening graph) presented in the October 14 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true accurately predicts average global temperatures since 1895.
As shown at slides 7, 8, and 9 at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf the 20 or so GCMs that the IPCC uses fail miserably to predict.
From another blog:
A veteran meteorologist, Anthony Watts, had reason to doubt the reliability of US Surface Temperature Records so he founded http://www.surfacestations.org and set out to audit 1,221 weather stations operated by the National Weather service.
After surveying over 70% of those sations, he issued a report that states:
“(W)e found that 89 percent of the stations—nearly 9 of every 10—fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.” (Pg. 1) The report concludes, “the raw temperature data produced by the USHCN stations are not sufficiently accurate to use in scientific studies or as a basis for public policy decisions.” (Pg. 17)
It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report
a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice
that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.
The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.
About the author of the study:
Anthony Watts is a 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran and currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio.
He got his start as on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana and at KHSL-TV in Chico, California. In 1987, he founded ItWorks, which supplies broadcast graphics systems to hundreds of cable television, television, and radio stations nationwide. ItWorks supplies custom weather stations, Internet servers, weather graphics content, and
broadcast video equipment. In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStations.org, a Web site devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations across the U.S.
Garbage in, garbage out.
to #52: well said, a model is a model, never perfect, just a fuzzy picture of what could happen… a mere road map, and even then things come up that could never have been predicted.
to #94: please pull your head out of the sand and look globally. the friggan ice caps are melting for god sake! we dont see it as much where there isnt that much weather, trust me. but when you go to places where the entire ecosystem depends on the changing of the seasons, you notice it a whole lot more! Flagstaff ueed to get piles of snow, now not so much and the forests are burning, and pests are taking over. Hawaii hasnt seen much change since i moved here, still the rainest place youll ever step foot. a collgue in Alaska told me that their family cant live in the arctic circle anymore because the ice it too unstable… they had to move where theres land which has endangered their culture.
to #95:well put also. you cant look at a small part, you must see the entire picture. like you i dont understand when this became a political matter either, i too am scared for my future and the future of my child. god forbid my baby has to do a school report on an extinct species and choose the polar bear, or the hawaiin monk seal…
to #99: you really think scientists get all their data from weather stations? please, we are smarter than that! yes its hard to collect that much data, and most of the data we have collected in the past was rather rudimentary, but our blasted technology has brought us a long way. we now have deep ocean sensors (last time i checked no artificial heating there…) and weather balloons the climb high in to the atmosphere (still dont see any artificial heating there…).
to all: when scientists do take data, we take several readings from one location over several days. and its not just one parameter (the thing being measured) either. looking at only one thing is literally like judging a book by its cover, or stereotyping a person based on a onetime event. like the author of this paper he is judged by several people based off of his one article, because he was curious and decided to find something out for himself when most people wouldnt even do that. nobody here could possibly begin to know who the real terry hughes is.
i bid thee all farewell and happy hunting for the scoundrel who is responsible for climate change (thats the politically correct term for golbal warming…)