Climategate: Three of the Four Temperature Datasets Now Irrevocably Tainted
The warmist response to Climategate — the discovery of the thoroughly corrupt practices of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) — was that the tainted CRU dataset was just one of four independent data sets. You know. So really there’s no big deal.
Thanks to a FOIA request, the document production of which I am presently plowing through — and before that, thanks to the great work of Steve McIntyre, and particularly in their recent, comprehensive work, Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts — we know that NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) passed no one’s test for credibility. Not even NASA’s.
In fact, CRU’s former head, Phil Jones, even told his buddies that while people may think his dataset — which required all of those “fudge factors” (their words) — is troubled, “GISS is inferior” to CRU.
NASA’s temperature data is so woeful that James Hansen’s colleague Reto Ruedy told the USA Today weather editor:
“My recommendation to you is to continue using … CRU data for the global mean [temperatures]. … “What we do is accurate enough” — left unspoken: for government work — “[but] we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.”
To reiterate, NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climategate temperature data. According to NASA.
And apparently, although these points were never stressed publicly before, NASA GISS is just “basically a modeling group forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data.” But now, however, NASA GISS “happily [combines the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) data] and Hadley Center’s data” for the purpose of evaluating NASA’s models.
So — Climategate’s CRU was just “one of four organizations worldwide that have independently compiled thermometer measurements of local temperatures from around the world to reconstruct the history of average global surface temperature.”
But one of the three remaining sets is not credible either, and definitely not independent.
Two down, two to go.
Reto Ruedy refers his inquiring (ok, credulous) reporter to NCDC — the third of the four data sets — as being the gold standard for U.S. temperatures.
But NCDC has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere — Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts have found NCDC completely incredible, having made a practice out of not including cooler temperature stations over time, exaggerating the warming illusion.
Three out of the four temperature datasets stink, with corroboration from the alarmists. Second-sourced, no less.
Anyone know if Japan has a FOIA?
And the data sets now coming out of Australia and New Zealand, regional but extremely important components of the Southern Hemisphere’s overall average as well as the longest running data sets, have been found to be completely at odds with actual thermometer readings because of agency alteration, “norming”, and “homogenization”. The net effect of which is to make the past considerably colder and the present warmer.
Mark Twain suggested that Congress might be our only native criminal class. Climategate suggests that certain mental proclivities for, ‘green’ ‘global warming’ ‘birkentock’, and ‘marxism’ are a sure sign of profound mental durchfall.
“Anyone know if Japan has a FOIA?”
This is a job for ClimateNinja.
Unfortunately, it takes him at least 30 years to get a job done.
The warming scam goes on and on but our own beloved MSM remains deaf, dumb and blind. And why shouldn’t they? According to the enviromental left the evidence is “complete.” Higher temperatures are evidence of global warming. Cooler temperatures are evidence of global warming. Four feet of snow in Washington D.C. is evidence of global warming. The Haitian earthquake (according to “activist” actor Danny Glover) is evidence of global warming. A constant ache in your Uncle Bert’s arthritic left knee is evidence of global warming. A massive fraud is being perpetrated on almost everyone on Earth and our fearless jouralistic watchdogs could care less. Nothing to see here just move along.
Soviet historians could, with absolute certainty, predict the ineluctable future but, could never foretell the ever-changing past.
If this keeps up the NY Times may have to do a front page story on the collapse of this monumental lie, possibly in 2011 or 2012.
I can’t wait to stop by later and read some of the comments from the two or three $5 per hr rent-a-posters that the DNC picks up from the gutter to provide for “liberal” opinion on this site.
Not that you’ll get anything on the issue because the issue’s dead.
Hey Fred, I wear Birkenstocks, and I think global warming is the biggest hoax in the history of science. You owe my sandals an apology.
Global Warming hoaxers have no reliable original data, by their own admission. CDC; NASA-GISS; NCDC; UN-IPCC: all bogus! If anyone else had honest data we would have heard about it by now, and since we haven’t, there isn’t any. Apart from their fake “facts,” the Warmist thugs’ scientific methodology is intentionally distorted and their analytical programs are demonstrably corrupt. None of their conclusions are true! This whole thing is a Big Lie, a Marxist plot to install a global political dictatorship with authority to rule and tax the world by fiat.
Stock market analysts who tried to foist such bucket-shop drivel on the public would very quickly be put in jail (unless they bought friends, like Bernie), but the Warmist conspirators have stolen and wasted $-billions of public, not private, funds, and they are still walking the streets mouthing their lies. It’s time for serious prosecution.
Starting with Obama, the Fraud Master in Chief, everything these arrogant weasels spout is, 1) Nonsense; and, 2) An outright, dirty lie. As their historic confidence-game unravels, let’s keep this bottom-line reality in mind. Warmists are all crooks.
Why don’t we just admit that the methodology is flawed. There is no way to calculate a global average temperature from a small number of tainted observation stations.
Still one to go … Hanging by a thread are they.
It’s pretty certain now that from the start, ie CO2 can even cause significant greenhouse effect, to all the hyped up outright lies, it’s been a fraud.
And now we are faced with the real problem the end of the Interglacial Warm period is coming to a close.
The following was reported in Feb. 2009.
“Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire or Where Global Warming is Really Coming From”
Life Extension News Volume 12, No. 1, Feb. 2009
http://www.life-enhancement.com/article_template.asp?ID=2086
According to a report in Environment & Climate News,(1) James Hansen, astronomer and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has been caught doctoring temperature data from California “to make a long-term cooling trend look like a warming trend.” The article explains that the temperature history (as reported by the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) for Santa Rosa, California) was examined by California meteorologist Anthony Watts and found to show a long-term decline, especially since the 1930’s. Watts then examined the temperature history for the same town as reported by GISS; the GISS report was completely different, reporting a long-term increase in Santa Rosa temperature. “USHCN reports a decline of nearly one-half degree Celsius during the twentieth century, while GISS reports a temperature increase of one-half a degree.”(1)
The article goes on to explain that the USHCN measures temperature by “taking daily readings from an immobile temperature station,” while GISS collects the USHCN temperature readings and then subjects them to adjustments (using methods which Hansen will not reveal), allegedly to correct for artificial influences such as land-use changes. The urban heat island effect (as Santa Rosa’s population increased from slightly more than 10,000 in 1905 to about 158,000 today) would have been expected to result in warmer temperatures (unrelated to global influences) and, hence, to adjust for the urban heat island effect would require the long-term temperature record should be adjusted downward, not upward. Yet, GISS is adjusting the raw temperature data upward instead of downward.
In the article on the facing page,(2) it described how “[i]n 2007, statistical scientists showed GISS had been artificially inflating U.S. temperatures by 0.15 degrees Celsius since the year 2000.” Furthermore, “[i]n 2008 statistical scientists showed GISS had falsely reported October 2008 was the warmest October on record when, in fact, it was a quite normal temperature month.” NASA later admitted that the “Warmest October” claim had been wrong.(3)
References
(1) Taylor JM. GISS, Hansen Caught Doctoring More Data. Environment & Climate News Feb. 2009
(2) Taylor JM. GISS, Hansen Frequently Report False Warming. Environment & Climate News Feb. 2009
(3) ‘Warmest October’ Claim Was Wrong, NASA Admits. Environment & Climate News Jan. 2009
The average is rising! The planet is warming! WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
There’s one major problem. No calculated number that involves fluctuations will ever be at that average number. It will be above it or below it. However, people are too dumb to realize that. I mean ffs they listen to Al Gore.
What about Russians report that from the meteo stations from Siberia (and sure there are many of them on that huge swath of land) the UN report has cherry-picked only those whose average (due to the location) tend to show warmer than others’ -
So, is #4 a Japanese data set?
Should it prove “reliable,” will the warmists cling to it bitterly like the rest of us supposedly do with guns and bibles?
The fact that there may be slight inconsistencies in these data sets does not mean they are ‘tainted’. It is especially interesting that nowhere is it mentioned that the supposed bias in these data sets is within the measurement uncertainty of the instruments used. Guess what, science is not an exact art, especially not on a global scale. There are always uncertainties involved when it comes to measurements, this does not mean they are ‘tainted’.
Secondly, CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, as far as we know from geological records it is at higher concentrations then it has ever been in our atmosphere, and it is increasing at an accelerating rate. Even if there is no effect on the global mean temperature from it yet (which I highly doubt), it will have an effect soon. We can either accept this fact and deal with it properly, or we can be idiots, ignore it, and drive climate change that could kill millions or billions as well as do irrevocable harm on the biological diversity of Earth.
Dear Whitey:
Your statement:
“as far as we know from geological records it (C02) is at higher concentrations then it has ever been in our atmosphere, and it is increasing at an accelerating rate. Even if there is no effect on the global mean temperature from it yet”
Is factaully incorrect. C02 was 470% higher in the Jurassic Period and 1800% in the Cambrian Period-further most C02 reconstructions show that the current level (383 ppm) is among the lowest levels for C02 in Earth’s History…not our (human) history, Earth’s History->please see attached graph.
“There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.”
Climate during the Carboniferous Period
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/environmental-issues/55210-co2-once-1000x-higher-than-today-during-ice-age-5.html
“nowhere is it mentioned that the supposed bias in these data sets is within the measurement uncertainty of the instruments used.”
Nonsense. If you’re going to argue statistics, you have to keep up with this conversation.
Re: #17 Whitey
Hey, Blood !
What hood you hang in, bro ?
1) The undocumented ‘adjustments’ to the observed temperature readings are GREATER than the warmists computed “temperature rise”. The “corrections” are greater than the recorded changes.
2) The major Greenhouse Gas in the atmosphere is WATER VAPOR. CO2 comprises 387 ppmv (0.0387%). Less that 4 parts in TEN THOUSAND. 95% of CO2 emmisions are NATURAL (non-anthropogenic), in any case.
3) Phil Jones, head of the East Anglia CRU (Climate Research Unit) has recently stated that there has been NO statistically significant global temperature rise in the last 15 years. He is one of the key figures in the pro-global warming debate and in the UN’s IPPC report on global warming.
This email is not only incriminating of Phil Jones fixing the CRU dataset but also shows Phil Jones “conspiring” with the NCDC to “raise global temps from 2000 onwards” [see "other issues" item 1]:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/03/another-awful-email-from-phil-jones.html
Well, we continue to say I told you so … but until all these fraudsters are sued they will just keep up the fraud because billions of dollars are at stake and even T. Boone Pickens is in on the trough feed.
@ 3: JohnR;
Come on now, ClimateNinja can work much faster than the “30 years” you claim!
But lets face it, there is MUCH to uncover! I started tracking as hobbyist back in early ’80s – I was racing dirtbikes out in out SoCal deserts, and notices tons of negative commentary starting to flow from the enviro-extremist communities.
But that was just at a local level. But they, as a whole, ended up with huge influence and impact to UN, CRU, NASA, NOAA, AlGore, and many more. Some blended over to these agencies; IE: James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Mann…
They’ve had 30+ years of practice at this ludicrous game, we need to uncover them all and ensure the LIARS never work in a related field again!
ClimateNinja is going to need a good crash course in our filth of enviro-extremists… But he can still clean it up much quicker than it took them to develop it.
@Whitey ‘Secondly, CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, as far as we know from geological records it is at higher concentrations then it has ever been in our atmosphere,’
1, it’s not that “strong”
2, Check the geological records again please.
‘ and it is increasing at an accelerating rate.’
2 ppm per year.
‘ Even if there is no effect on the global mean temperature from it yet (which I highly doubt), it will have an effect soon. We can either accept this fact and deal with it properly,’
1, you can’t prove it. You’ve never been in a greenhouse where up the co2 levels to far beyond your imaginary dangerous effects? The most obvious effect is bigger cucumbers and higher crop yields.
‘ or we can be idiots, ignore it, and drive climate change that could kill millions or billions as well as do irrevocable harm on the biological diversity of Earth.’
If you haven’t noticed it yet, the climate is ever shifting, and life adapts. That has been going on for some four billion years. And besides if you put all your money in one basket for something you can’t prove, that’s not dangerous but necessary to life and helps feed people by giving bigger crop yields, and for something that won’t have an affect on climate at all. Do you even know that what you want to do is putting all your money to reduce 3.4% of 3.6% by 20-80% before 2050 even though IPCC and the scaremongers themselves have stated global warming will continue for several hundred years to thousands of years still, i.e. until we pretty much reach the next ice age at which point the likes of you will be complaining about the no crops and cold weather because of all the i c e! :p
The climatescam is a pyramid trick. It took some time to set this sting up. But now that they finally got the big business, top politicians and stockmarket wizzards to go all in, those guys want their money back. Guess who they expect to cover their losses?
Lets see WE have double the population of the world from 3 billion in the 70′s to almost 7 billion today. WE had major droughts all around the world. WE may be losing the bee and if that happens we have no bees to pollinate the food we eat. The bats are disappearing and they eat their body weight in mosquitos daily which means malaria will become a problem world wide, WE use GMO’s seeds which are full of pesticides which we eat and wonder why we in the US have so many health problems (Even the animals at zoos will not eat GMO produce), We wonder why asthma has increased when you look at the sky you can’t even see the mountains it is so smoggy, WE are losing 150 species daily
to extinction (if we destroy the ecosystem we destory ourselves), WE have millions of tons of plastics floating in the Pacific and Alantic oceans which are killing marine life, birds and plankton which 70% of our oxygen comes from. We kill the plankton we kill any species on this planet that requires oxygen to breath that includes humans. WE humans worldwide have created mass deforestion which causes droughts and erosion of the soil. No water we don’t survive. It is time WE choose to be good stewarts of this little planet since we are a global world today. We do not have another island to go to like they did on Easter Island. When we pull the right sting on the spider web it collapses and we are about to pull the right string whether it be global warming, over population, deforestion, killing the plankton in the oceans from plastics, we are close. So wake up and do what you can to help save this little planet.
I have not read the other comments – so I hope I am not repeating comments here. If my memory serves me correctly; was not the Japanese Meteorological Association the body that reported to the Japanese government (sometime last year) that “believing in AGW was like believing in fairy tales”? If so, then it would seem that all the data sets that “support” AGW are corrupted. While the only uncorrupted (and independant) data set shows that AGW does not exist! Or do I have that wrong?
The LIA ended, temperatures increased by approx 0.5C per century. If the planet hasn’t already reached its optimum temperature, we may see another ~0.5C this century.
Solar influence varies, mostly controlled by cloud, aerosols and ozone. The planet responds with warming and cooling, accelerated due to deforestation.
While there is ice at both poles we are in an ice age with brief, unstable interglacial warmer periods of ~11000 years. We are overdue a return to advancing glaciation, this interglacial started about 12000 years ago.
The eco fascists (EU/UN etc) want to control energy use and destroy democracy, CO2 emission criminalization being a part of the scheme. Why? SFA to do with climate.
http://green-agenda.com may have some answers.
Wow, Owl! Okay, I’ll cede that overpopulation especially in under-developed Third World nations is a problem and a growing problem. But 1. Bees!!! The African bee is taking over the better polinating European bee but eco-scientist are not acting on stopping this so ask them. 2. Bats?? New to me. But perhaps allowing limited use of DDT again would help in Third World nations. 3. Asthma is a problem but not only in smoggy cities but in the Mid-West as well. Cause and effect still, to me, not determined. 4. Evolution to blame about losing some species. Darwin at its best. 5. Cede also the use of plastics and ocean trash hurting us; but you’ll have to talk to Mexico, China, India, Africa nations about it-not the US. 6. Again Third World nations not becoming modern and using the tools at hand to eleviate deforestation, desalination techniques and to become more eco-friendly, etc. Go talk to them.
You make it seem like it’s all our fault. And that is just pure rubbish-excuse the pun.
@owl ‘It is time WE choose to be good stewarts of this little planet since we are a global world today.’
Wow, really? People have been saying the same thing for several hundred years actually, but up until the sixties is was mostly about making sure future generation also had enough trees to harvest and land to farm.
Since the late sixties every kind of green muppets have been crying their eyes dry about it but more in the sense of anti-meat and anti-dairy, anti-anti-bug-and-mold-stuff, to save the animals (the cure ones anyway), and bugs nobody really did know they existed so therefor they’re prolly on the verge of extinction and must be saved, the world will end by ice, by drought, by sea, by storms, by weird looking lsd induced aliens. And of course the CO2 scare, and the methane scare (but do not include the rise fields), et cetera et al.
And how many people died as a result of a ban of DDT? And how dangerous is DDT now as compared with the scaremongers info back in the day?
GMT, geez, do you even understand that most of what people have been eating for the last 12 000 years has been subjected to genetical manipulation both direct and indirect. Look at rice or wheat that is farmed today compared to old relics of wild rice and wild wheat 8000 years old. Think roses which people have genetically manipulated for ages only because it’s, pretty much, just fun. Dogs. Cats. Cows. Birds. …. I’m sorry to be the one that have to tell you this, but everything you eat today, even the stuff you might be growing yourself in your own garden has been subjected to manipulation through the ages, and most of wouldn’t yield all that much on industrial scale if not for pesticides and extra nutrients and anti-mold-crap and the like.
‘We do not have another island to go to like they did on Easter Island.’
Did the people die or did they move and learn from previous mistakes?
And for all the scare of the sixties and seventies. The droughts the floods, the starvation, deforestation, et cetera et al. People manage to go from 3 to close to 7 billion in less then 50 years. And if you didn’t know it, apparently, the forests of south america, middle america, south east asia, siberia, canada, middle america, europe, seem to be doing just fine since people started to plant trees again. Oh, and apparently even parts of Sahara have been getting green for the last few years.
Why is it that for all your, green muppets, screaming and shouting, did it take you 30 years before you even considered doing something…. but of course it’s now considered financially lucrative, imagine that, that it took an unseemingly amount of money before you actually started doing something.
The saddest part of all this Global Warming nonsense is that some people are actually committing suicide over this hoax, aside from stealing money from countries and people in general it should be treated as a crime. If you or I were to knowingly lie about any issue that caused someone to take their own life I am sure there would be criminal charges brought over the matter. The same needs to apply here as well.
Ann Coulter has really neat quote on the mindset of the global warming climatologists, “…promoting ‘global warming’ makes climatologists feel like they’re saving the world, rather than studying water vapor.”
A constant ache in your Uncle Bert’s arthritic left knee is evidence of global warming. A massive fraud is being perpetrated on almost everyone on Earth and our fearless jouralistic watchdogs could care less. Nothing to see here just move along.
Several decades from now, it might be a hundred years, people will look back at our current ‘Enviromentalists’ as they do the alchemists in the dark ages. It is so amusing how so called educated people beleive in such a hoax !!!
#23: “It is time WE choose to be good stewarts…”
OK, Owl, which Stewart do you want to be? Patrick Stewart? Rod Stewart? Tony Stewart? Al Stewart? I was thinking I could be Jackie Stewart. He seems like a good Stewart.
Anyone who uses the word “planet” in a non-astronomical sense deserves endless ridicule.
You make a lot of statements without any backup proof.
“we know that NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) passed no one’s test for credibility.”
Can you substantiate that statement? And I don’t mean circumstantially: by actual analysis of the data as you say you are doing. Please indicate what is wrong with the data _without_resorting_to_quotes_from_people,_either_pro_or_against_. Facts, please.
All greenhouse gases worldwide make up 2 percent of the atmosphere. Only 3.6 percent of these greenhouse gases is CO2. So the atmosphere is less than one-tenth of one percent CO2. Even using the warmists models, if everyone adhered to the economy killing Kyoto Protocol of 1997, the affect on the temperature today – 13 years later – would not be measurable.
In any case, “the planet” does not need saving. It would be just fine even if the atmosphere became 50% CO2 next week. It’s inhabitants however are often made to suffer at the hands of government and organizations of deluded, power-hungry control freaks.
VicDiesel: You’ll probably have to just continue to be in denial because the Japanese scientists who have discovered how their temperaturedata was used, the Russians who have made it clear how the Hadley CRU ignored most of its reliable data – in favor of more southerly area data, which was in fact less reliable. These guys are not likely to bother to show up to convince you. Neither are the New Zealanders who have the same complaints. But you could go to Anthony Watts website, (WattsUpWithThat) because his website discusses all kinds of problems with surface station temp recording – even if not “homogenized”. Somehow I doubt you’ll bother. Sitting on you butte and waiting for people to bring you affidavits aint’ gonna happen. They’re busy enough already.
Secondly, CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, as far as we know from geological records it is at higher concentrations then it has ever been in our atmosphere,
Ever? Seriously?
I get so tired of that “ever” assertion from warmist arguments. Are you guys all Creationist, or what? How far back do you go with your “ever” argumant?
“But you could go to Anthony Watts website, ”
Did that. I also googled for him. He’s a weatherman, making tons of elementary errors. Everyone whose data he cites explains why he’s misinterpreting them.
Now kindly come up with some facts that have been substantiated, and I don’t mean in the blogosphere. Or do I just have to take your word for it?
#35 Mike G — All greenhouse gases worldwide make up 2 percent of the atmosphere. Only 3.6 percent of these greenhouse gases is CO2. So the atmosphere is less than one-tenth of one percent CO2.
Google Arrhenius; he’s he guy who calculated the basic GHG physics about 100+ years back. His estimates show doubling CO2 from the percentage during his day ought to increase temps by 2 degrees C. Don’t be so quick to make assumptions unless you wrote a physics text recently that somehow overturns all modern understanding, of course.
#38 vicdiesel — Did that. I also googled for him. He’s a weatherman, making tons of elementary errors. Everyone whose data he cites explains why he’s misinterpreting them.
The Watts site regularly hosts posts from the likes of Spencer, Pielke, Mosher, reprints of various articles, and so on. His work is referenced in peer reviewed papers. You’re little more than another pretentious twit who thinks he can dismiss Watts with the snobbish/boorish “just a weatherman” putdown… as if you yourself have a paper, a site, or even active synapses. The term “ignoranus” was invented for those like you (and yes I spelled it as intended.)
Anyone know if Japan has a FOIA? then what Japan can do something different.
Here’s an interesting debate on a relatively new forum that could do with some input from informed freethinkers…..
http://www.rationalskepticssociety.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=170
Tough guy / writer Norman Mailer once said of a male actor who criticized him (can’t remember who) that “acting is not a very manly profession”. It captures it perfectly. These are already insecure people. Then they get all this fame and money and should feel better about themselves but deep inside they know they are only acting like a tough guy, acting like a soldier, acting like someone who survived real adversity. We have put these people on a pedestal but what they do is not very inspiring compared to the real thing.
So out comes drivel like this in an attempt to seem more relevant and to be part of a “real” cause along with all the fake ones. If the key to understanding politics is “follow the money” , it is “follow the insecure ego” for Hollywood.
39. G.L. Alston: “Don’t be so quick to make assumptions unless you wrote physics text recently that somehow overturns all modern understanding”
I have not written a physics text book but I have read a lot of them. This hasn’t much to do with physics except at the molecular level. It is a complex systems modeling problem that even modern methods cannot properly handle. So let’s suck trillions of dollars out of otherwise free societies and give it to your crowd to pass around as they see fit based on a 100 year old model of greenhouse gases that has not proven to be accurate since it was proposed.
And what’s with the nasty streak dude? Must be quite annoying to have someone call you on your scam.
Can someone explain this graph to me, please?
http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/figmapt_e.html?season=Winter&date=2010
@44. Rob: The graph is impossible to explain without more information. It says “Departure from normal temperatures for Dec-Jan-Feb 2009-2010″ – shown over most of Canada. But what is it that departs from normal, the peak temperature, the average temperature, the mean temperature? How was the temperature data collected? What do they mean by “normal” and on what data is that based? Also, it looks like if they expanded the map to all of North America there would be a lot of offsetting “cooler than normal” sections.
You need to know all of these things and more before you could decide if a) it fairly represents reality and b) it is statistically significant enough to indicate a change in the average versus just part of a normal distribution that you find such data sets.
As far as I can tell it is a marketing slide from Environment Canada whose self proclaimed purpose is to “lead the way in implementing the federal government’s environmental agenda.” Believers in AGW are really susceptible to this kind of thing – nice colors, curves and tables followed by dire predictions. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Couple of responses:
Rich Z: Not really sure who Blood is. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else (or that was meant for someone else).
1) Can we get someone to post a peer-reviewed paper from a known scientific journal either discounting this data, or at least giving a rigerous statistical analysis on this supposed ‘unaccounted adjustment’. I’ve yet to see a paper actually claiming any inconsistencies. Until I actually see a peer review paper stating that, I’m not likely to believe what has become simple partisan hackery.
2) I never stated that the CO2 was the most important greenhouse gas, mearly that it was an important one. For those that don’t know, Earth’s atmosphere is ~78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen (Both of which do nothing as far as planetary heat retention), and ~1% everything else. Water vapor has a greater concentration within the atmosphere, ~0.247% as opposed to 0.0387% of CO2 (~6.5 times the contration of CO2), and is the largest greenhouse gas by both contentraion and radiative forcing, making up somewhere between ~40% and 70% of the total greenhouse effect. HOWEVER, CO2 makes up between 10% and 30% of the greenhouse effect, therefore it is still a strong contributor to the overall greenhouse effect. And As DandyTroll noted, the increase in CO2 concentration is ~2ppm right now, and this rate is increasing (due to increased CO2 emissions from primarily developing countries like China, India, etc). If we imagine it stays at 2ppm per year for 20 years, CO2 concentrations have increased 10%, increasing the overall greenhouse effect by 1% to 3% overall. Increased greenhouse effect = Increased temperature, plain and simple.
3) Where do you get your number of 95% from? I’ve seen different estimates that put non-anthropogenic emissions at significantly lower levels (50%). We also know from short term geological records and early atmospheric measurements that the overall CO2 concentration has increased 100ppm since the start of the industrial era, yet there was little variation (as in <20 ppm) for hundreads of years before it. This suggests (but doesn't require, I'll admit) that Earth was in a stable equilibrium before man made CO2 emissions began to add in.
4) Phil Jones may have made that statement. To be completely honest, I've never read that but this isn't my area of scientific research. But again, as I said, bring me a peer reviewed paper that shows by measurement and statistical analysis that there is no temperature increase, and I'll begin to believe you.
Now, DandyTroll
1) See Point 2 above.
2) I appologize, my wording on my first comment was too vague. I should have stated in local geological history, say since the last 3 ice ages. There are theories of course that CO2 concentrations were significantly higher in both early developmental periods on Earth, as well as the periods when the dinosaurs were alive. Both periods, might I also note, are theoriezed to have a significantly higher average planetary temperature. Also, during the last 2 ice ages, CO2 concentrations were ~180ppm (+- 5ppm), and we had a drastically lower average planetary temperature, ~8 to 12 C cooler.
3) You agree that the CO2 concentrations are increasing, correct? And you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, correct? Therefore, if CO2 is increasing, the overall greenhouse effect will also increase. If the greenhouse effect is increasing, then the average planetary temperature will also increase. Its basic science, so unless you wish to reject all of our current understanding on radiative transfer, then we can prove it. And if you do wish to reject it, then you aren't making a scientifically based arguement, and there is no point dicussing it with you.
4) Of course climate change has been happening for billions of years, and life does adapt, WHEN IT IS GIVEN TIME TO. What we are doing is shortening the time that the climate changes over, giving life less time to adapt. Evolution needs time, especially in larger species.
5) Climate change is not vital to life. The increase in crop yields in some areas by higher average temperatures could be negated or even reversed by increased desertification (which has been recorded in the Sahara and Gobi deserts). Also, do you know how many people on this planet are living in flood plain regions? Even small changes in sea level could put many large sections of land (especially in Florida and Louisiana) under water. Higher sea levels will also increase the size of tides and storm surges, making damaging weather events like Hurrican Katrina more common.
6) The money spent to reduce overall CO2 emissions is going to be spent driving industries that will be important to long term sustainable energy use, such as solar or wind power. So unless you happen to be someone in the employ or pocket of the oil, coal, or natural gas industries, you probably have less to worry about then you think.
8) The likes of me won't be complaining at the next ice age. Because I'll be dead. I hope.
And that is a wall of text right there….
Why do AGW people keep repeating the same talking points even though the “science” behind it has been called into question so thoroughly? Replace “will” with “might” in the #46 argument as befitting the state of AGW “science” and then ask if any rational person would want to entrust the boobs in charge of this scam with trillions of dollars to reshuffle the world economy.
We deniers don’t want anything from AGWers except to be left alone. You want money and control from us – so it is up to you to provide unassailable proof that you are right. You have done a pretty bad job of that so far. We shouldn’t have to disprove your half-baked theories and, in any case, even if your story was compelling, I trust the ability of nature and free people to adapt way more than I trust central planners to manage anything complex.
‘course Watts’ and D’Aleo’s boneheaded a priori reasoning that removing colder stations must increase a trend that is computed from anomalies, has been taken apart multiply by individuals who have looked at the code (logic) or who have run the algorithm
‘course “fudge factor” was a throwaway comment from a factorial analysis that has not been demonstrated to influence the output of HadCRUT
‘course the error bars being too wide is the only known effect of the only known flaw found in HadCRUT
‘course
* NASA GISTEMP is inferior to HadCRUT because of A and B
* HadCRUT is alleged to be fatally flawed due to C
* therefore NASA GISTEMP is fatally flawed
is an error in logic
‘course
* NASA GISTEMP and HadCRUT are called independent analyses by virtue of being created by different groups using different methods
* NASA uses HadCRUT in other work
* therefore they are not independent analyses
is another error
That’s zero out of four, unless you’re a CEI employee.
Rob @ 44:
That map is deceptive. What is that blue area over the US? It depicts lower temps. Yes? Snow cover is 200% to 400% of normal over southern NM due to el Nino. Snow cover is 20% to 40% of normal over the Pacific NW due to…….? Again – el Nino. el Nino years bring the polar storm track south and leave the warm Hawaiian current in place to keep the Pac NW warmer than normal.
That same storm track brought 12″ to 14″ of snow a couple of weeks ago to the DFW area. Is that glowball wormening too?
So, try again, Sparky without the deceptive clipping and/or trimming of data and choosing of maps to support a conclusion.
You fools cherry pick data to support stupidity.
Bernie Madoff was a Sunday School Teacher compared to all of the so called scientists who have sold this ponzi scheme to the politicians that used our tax money to fund the deception.
Every one of the people involved with this fraudulent activity needs to serve time on par with that of Bernie and repay the tax payers funds!
We should also boycott companies that supported this deceptive scheme like GE. We need to vote out of office ALL politicians who have or still supporting this fraudulent activity. They have wasted the precious treasury of the USA.
Ragnar: Maybe you could help me with this one?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-blended-mntp&year=2010&month=2&ext=gif
oh, never mind. NCDC data has “been debunked” by Watts and d’Aleo…or has it? I think they got “rebunked” multiple times over. Now apparently Tony had nothing to do with that paper and it was some crazy named “chiefio” who made all the mistakes.
‘Qui bono’, who benefits.
In AGW and Global Warming, we are looking at the wreckage of one of the greatest scams of our new century. Al Gore is on his way to becoming a billionare or going to jail.
Follow the money.
And expose the perps of this fraud.
And shun the useful fools and fellow travelers.
We are talking about $trillions, aggregate.
This had nothing to do with ‘settled science’ it had to do with picking your pocket and stealing your future.
Japanese dataset uses GHCN from 1880 to 2000 so it is not reliable, either. They switched to the CLIMAT after 2001 which is obtained directly from meterological agencies worldwide.
For the sea temperature, they uses COBE.
“Phil Jones may have made that statement. To be completely honest, I’ve never read that but this isn’t my area of scientific research.”
Phil Jones *didn’t* say “there has been NO statistically significant global temperature rise in the last 15 years”. He was asked the question ‘Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?’ He replied: ‘Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.’
Whitney said….
3) You agree that the CO2 concentrations are increasing, correct? And you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, correct? Therefore, if CO2 is increasing, the overall greenhouse effect will also increase. If the greenhouse effect is increasing, then the average planetary temperature will also increase. Its basic science, so unless you wish to reject all of our current understanding on radiative transfer, then we can prove it. And if you do wish to reject it, then you aren’t making a scientifically based arguement, and there is no point dicussing it with you.
Actually, this false. Or I should say might be false. Your premise is only true for a closed system which the Earth is not. Then mix in all the positive and negative feedbacks involved and see what a conundrum we have. You do realize that climate models ONLY have positive feedbacks included, right? And if this was correct, then we would see much higher temperatures than we do today based on CO2 concentrations. Therefore, the models are broken.
I’m not against models, but, when the real life data doesn’t back up the assumptions, it’s back to the drawing board to try a new series of inputs.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming…..
I’d love to know how these evil scientists caused most of the world’s glaciers and the Arctic ice cap to melt. I guess that’s been faked, too.
And we also know form experience that we can do whatever we want to the Earth and it has no impact. So the next step is to get rid of all environmental regulation. Bring back DDT and Agent Orange, dump PCBs wherever you want, and eat all the mercury-laden fish you like. Good luck with that.
Classic!
The Artic ice cap is not melting . It recedes and advances over time just like a lot of things that are balanced in nature.
CO2 is not a pollutant dude – as much as you try to make it one so that you can conjure up images of Pittsburg in the 60′s.
Bring back DDT ? – no because that would bring back the millions of people who died of malaria and that would in turn bring back the overpopulation scams.