NOAA: Warmest June Ever! Caveat: We Made It Up (Corrected)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) claimed that this past June was the warmest ever in its temperature records, which go back to 1880. The global average temperature in June was 61.1 degrees, or 1.22 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees. At face value, this appears to be consistent with the theory that global warming is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. But face value can be deceiving, and the value is not what it appears to be.
In fact, the claim that June 2010 was the warmest on record has no value at all.
NOAA gets its temperature data from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. They calculate the average temperature of the Earth using data from land-based thermometers and ocean buoy and ship measurements of water temperature. However, there is a major problem with how GISS measures temperature in a very large region — the Arctic.
The problem is that they don’t have any thermometers there. So they make it up. No, really!
Despite this lack of arctic temperature data, GISS shows that this June the area north of eighty degrees latitude was up to four degrees warmer than the long-term average. You must be asking: how can GISS show any temperature readings at all north of eighty degrees if they don’t have any data? Really, I’m not kidding — they make it up.
GISS uses measured temperature data from lower latitudes and then extrapolates them to the Arctic. Using this method, any readings warmer than average in the lower latitudes are pushed into the Arctic by a smoothing technique. GISS uses a 1,200 kilometer smoothing for its data, meaning that the temperature reading for one thermometer is used as the temperature for a 1,200 kilometer box in all directions from that location. Where there are more thermometers, the boxes overlap, and the readings of one thermometer are averaged with others around them. This reduces the effect of each individual thermometer.
But in data-sparse regions, the value of one thermometer takes on a much greater value.
In the case of the Arctic that one thermometer and the few that are on the fringe of the Arctic are used to calculate the average temperature of everything north of eighty degrees. When one uses a 250-degree smoothing factor for the data from GISS, the truth is suddenly and shockingly revealed: they don’t have any thermometers north of eighty degrees and very few north of sixty degrees. The 1,200 kilometer smoothing floods the Arctic with assumed temperature readings that don’t actually exist.
But it’s just one region that’s always terribly cold. That couldn’t have driven the June averages much higher, right?
Dr. James Hansen is the director of GISS. He has stated: (See correction below.)
The 12-month running mean global temperature in the GISS analysis has reached a new record in 2010. The main factor is our estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.
Without the very warm Arctic temperatures, June 2010 is nowhere near the warmest ever.
The evidence comes right from the source, with Dr. Hansen’s statement. But news outlets generally don’t know this, and assume that claims coming from NOAA must be true. In broadcasting there is an old saying: “Why let the truth stand in the way of a good story?”
Correction:
We at PJM try very hard to ensure the accuracy of pieces we publish. When we want back and looked for a citation for the quote from Dr Hansen, it appears to have been misquoted; Dr Hansen’s original summary reads as follows:
(1) insight into why the GISS analysis yields 2005 as the warmest calendar year, while the HadCRUT analysis has 1998 as the warmest year. The main factor is our inclusion of estimated temperature change for the Arctic region. We note that SST change cannot be used as a measure of surface air temperature change in regions of sea ice, and that surface air temperature change is the quantity of interest both for its practical importance to humans and for comparison with the results that are usually reported in global climate model studies.
(2) 12-month (and n×12-month) running mean temperatures provide more information than the usual graphs with calendar-year mean temperature. The 12-month running mean fully removes the annual cycle, which exists even in temperature anomaly time series. The magnitude and duration of global temperature effects of volcanoes and the Southern Oscillation can be seen much more clearly in a 12-month running mean graph such as Figure 10.
(3) the 12-month running mean global temperature in the GISS analysis has reached a new record in 2010. The new record temperature in 2010 is particularly meaningful because it occurs when the recent minimum of solar irradiance (Frohlich, 2006; data at http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant) is having its maximum cooling effect. At the time of this writing (May 2010) the tropical Pacific Ocean has changed from El Nino conditions to ENSO-neutral and is likely headed into the cool La Nina phase of the Southern Oscillation. The 12-month running mean global temperature (Figure 9b) may continue to rise for a few more months before the ENSO change causes the next decline. It is likely that global temperature for calendar year 2010 will exceed the 2005 record, but that is not certain if a deep La Nina develops quickly.
(Emphasis indicates the sentences that were included in the quotation.)
While the conclusion that GISS data adjustments account for a large part of the warming indicated still seem warranted, this misquotation clearly implies something Dr Hansen did not say. PJM apologizes to Dr Hansen and to our readers for the error.
“They made it up”. Here is their own account of what they did.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0803.pdf
They extrapolated. They checked the reliability of this method by seeing whether extrapolating gave a good guess for the temperature that had been actually measured at a particular station. It did. They quantified how good the guessing method was. They tested it against decades of temperature data from all over the world. The method did a pretty good job.
It makes sense too. If I’m getting a temperature of X degrees above normal at Ice Station Zebra, or Y degrees above normal at the edge of the Sahara, and if the temperatures to the south of my last station are merely normal or even below normal, I have to think maybe warmer than normal air from the North explains that reading.
There I go, extrapolating.
It’s part of ordinary human reasoning. Done with number crunching and attention to detail, it’s also good science.
Art Horn’s article doesn’t credit NOAA or GISS with having done this sort of evidence-based guessing. He says they’re making their numbers up, which is a little bit true but misses the point. Most of our numbers come from sampling of some sort. Even if we had thermometers every hundred yards across the whole earth, we’d still have to extrapolate to arrive at a guess for what the temperatures were in between thermometers.
It’s easy to disregard the hard work of getting decent statistics without spending the nation into bankruptcy gathering data. Have a little respect, Art. Read their articles, hard going though they’ll be, and then give an honest account of where they got their “June was hot” claim.
Doug:
Understand your point about reasoned extrapolation, and kudos for not resorting to name calling like #3 BC (seriously BC, why don’t you just call people poopyheads as a response).
The key point that I take away is how can the NOAA make a declaritive statement that June hottest month without ACTUAL data? They could make a statement that they think June is the hottest month based on extrapolation, but the NOAA did not make clear to the reporters (it is in one of the documents you linked to, so thanks for that). Why can’t NOAA flood the area with thermometers to get ACTUAL data?
For those who are arguing via the appeal to expert using Hansen, come on. This guy is a propagandist and believes in man-made global warming as a religon. Do you really believe that if Hansen came across data that didn’t fit his religon, he would publish it? His whole identity is comprised of man-made global warming.
“It’s easy to disregard the hard work of getting decent statistics without spending the nation into bankruptcy gathering data. ”
So instead let’s spend the nation into bankruptcy on a multi-trillion dollar cap and trade scheme which cripples the nation’s economy based on dubious statistics. Interpolation is one thing, but extrapolation is fraught with uncertanties. Why in the world can’t they put a couple of thermometers up there in order to be sure, especially since that is where Hansen seems to be claiming the warming is coming from.
Doug, the biggest issue here is simply empirical: does this estimate correspond to observations?
It turns out there are several methods of measuring temperature in the Arctic, and there are in fact a number of weather stations with thermometers that aren’t included (for whatever reason) in the GISS data. When those are measured, it turns out that this has been the coldest winter on record north of 80°N.
This in fact fits with a curiosity that we’ve noted before at PJM: there are a number of examples now of regional temperatures in GISS and GHCN data that show strong warming, but where the warming signal disappears or even becomes a cooling signal depending on the selection of measurement stations. In fact, in one example (around Darwin, Australia), Willis Eschenbach found:
When the observed warming depends almost entirely on estimates, and the estimates turn out to go the opposite direction of the data, well, you have to decide: depend on the appeal to NASA’s authority, or the actual data?
Charlie .. do you think the global warming drones really care about the truth?
if they did I doubt there would be any discussion about man made global warming since there is no evidence of it and plenty of evidence that it is not.
just last week I was talking with some colleagues who were with me in Gabon. One of the people was from South Africa and he had not heard of climategate or that the whole warming thing was a collusion of corrupt scientists.
really need to get wider audiences.
As an engineer, I use computer models on a daily basis. It is a given that as the distance between data points increases, the less accurate the interpolated or extrapolated data will be. Especially if data points outside the subject area are used to “push” a number into the subject area rather than having data on both sides The beauty of modern computers is that they will report this inaccurate data to five decimal places if you want, giving it a patina of credibility. This is nothing more than a snow job.
Sorry about the name. I’ve been posting here some and didn’t want to change it. I hope it doesn’t confuse anyone…..
I’m sorry doug but you really fail to get the big picture. Their are many reasons why the models and “extrapolations” are useless. Lets start with some basics.
1. A model assumes everything that is put into it is correct with no other factors. We know very little about weather or climate so all models fail.
2. Its been shown time and time again that their is massive quality control issues with NOAA, CRU, GISS and countless other proxy, historic, etc temp reocrds.
3. NEVER has a model be “checked for reliability”. All models have failed so all models until they show the correct temps both past and present(which has never happened) are useless.
4. “Extrapolations” have never been “checked for reliability” because they can’t be. Their is no data on the north OR south pole regions. They is no way to check unless you assume that the north and south poles are warm like the equator. If you assume the north and south poles are warm like topical rains forests(aka what giss has done) then yes you can “check the reliability” of the “extrapolations” pretty easy. Do you really think climate and weather at the poles is similar to climate and weather near the equator?
Many other sources contradict GISS data on this. Being that most GISS data doesn’t even meet GISS standards for collection(and these other sources just happen to be thrown out because they don’t produce the proper data). Any snake oil salesman can come up with a scientific reason why you can’t disprove his snake oils benefits… science is easy to fake if your not willing to look at the big picture and throw standards out the window and replace them with “standards”.
Art,
You’re a kind man referring to James Hansen as ‘Dr. Hansen’. I haven’t any respect for Mr. Hansen and the hokum he employs to justify his voodoo-like ‘science’. The country possessing ~15% actual unemployment and this kooky astronomer in charge of NASA’s meteorological rodeo makes it all the more bizarre.
Antarctica has numerous remote weather stations to extrapolate somewhat accurate data. Antarctica is far more harsh, unforgiving than the Arctic. Not to mention these same remote stations need to be dug out, by hand, every Austral Summer to maintain their mostly accurate weather data.
For the Arctic to lack such elementary instrumentation speaks volumes of NOAA and NASA.
For the Arctic to use data ~750 miles upstream and proclaim this as the ‘mean temperature’ encompassing that area is junk science at best.
Then again, NOAA uses only ~1% of the U.S. meteorological stations to come to other ‘warming’ scenarios..
*Sigh*…. Still nothing says “nutcase” quicker than a modern right winger or conservative talking about science. There are reasons why the Tea Party is considered an extremist movement made up of highly confused people, no matter how “popular” and widespread it becomes.
Oh please.
You outed yourself as a complete fraud when it comes to critical thinking and understanding of the scientific process. For those who don’t know, you decided that you, an enlightened progressive, would show how much smarter you were over another ‘conservative nutcase’ on matters of science when he criticized your pop star president. Who happened to be a nationally recognized and respected physicist, Dr Frank Tipler. Your Pavlovian reaction to that criticism revealed that you couldn’t even track his article from start to finish and you made an utter jack@$$ of yourself trying to shoot it down.
Why would anyone capable of understanding the world as it exists outside of a Cambridge coffee house, whether physical science or the purely prosaic, take you seriously at this point?
BC,
As a liberal, you make such a boringly predictable comment. You do not discuss the topic, nor provide evidence or reasoning of any kind. Instead, you engage in juvenile, hateful, derogatory name calling.
Cheap, hate filled name calling seems to be the main (if not the only) manner in which liberals communicate these days. Not only does it not help make their case, but it tempts the listener (or reader) to write them off as ignorant, irrational, irresponsible people. One stops listening to anything they say, on any topic.
Wil wrote:
Cheap, hate filled name calling seems to be the main (if not the only) manner in which liberals communicate these days.
Setting aside for a moment the issue of (alleged) global warming, there is a reason why today’s leftists and “progressives” always resort to such fallacious arguments as smears, name-calling and ad hominem.
The reason is that their two cherished ideas — socialism (in some shape, form or fashion) as a domestic policy and pacifism as an international policy — were thoroughly refuted by the events of the 20th century.
Socialism did not bring prosperity to the masses as its advocates claimed it would — rather, in places where it was practiced fully and consistently, it brought mass death by starvation to the masses. See, for instance, the histories of the U.S.S.R., communist China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Likewise, pacifism did not bring about world peace as was promised by its advocates — instead, it invited the horrific aggressions of two world wars and one “cold war” which saw the deaths of millions of innocents and the enslavement of still millions more under communism.
Thus, with their two beloved ideas so thoroughly discredited and debunked — but their irrational hatred of capitalism and freedom fully intact — the left is reduced to lame fallacies like ad hominem.
Such “arguments“ is all today‘s left has to offer. That’s why people like “BC” resort to this stuff in most discussions of the issues. He has no logical arguments FOR his positions, so he is reduced to arguing AGAINST the character of his opponents. It’s a sign of complete intellectual bankruptcy.
The counterpoint to the ad hominem attacks which are the main offensive tactic of those on the left is the tactic intially used by Alger Hiss. When exposed, rather reluctantly by Whittaker Chambers, Hiss’s first instinct was to start listing the people he knew, the degrees he had and the institutions he went to. Though 30 years later I could not follow the logic of this argument, those at the time of the same class seemed impressed. Somehow the schools Hiss went to and the degrees he got did not insulate him from being guilty, and the weight and self doubt problems that Chambers had did not insulate him from being a true hero who wrote like a dream.
BC is not a liberal. Calling him that does an injustice to the meaning of the word. He is a leftist! In other words, his world views and opinions are based solely on feelings and misplaced idealism. Leftists will stop at nothing to assure that we are forced to live our lives in a manner consistent with the teachings of their secular prophets. After all, we unwashed masses aren’t enlightened enough to know how to live our lives without a little authoritarian persuasion. At least BC is coherent enough not to try to argue his opinion based on the facts. All he’s got is name calling! That’s more than I can say for Doug.
Withering. Absolutely withering. Who can possibly stand up against such an onslaught of wit? (And the “sigh” bookended by meaningless asterisks lets us know that we’re facing the most fearsome of creatures: the know-it-all 12-year-old.) Your job here is clearly done. Fire up the XBOX and rip open the Cheetos your mom bought you. You’ve earned it.
Just keep pretending that the GW “deniers” have no science (None! Not a scrap!) and perhaps one of your doomsday predictions will actually come true someday. Or do you even require vindication in the real world?
Vindication is not sweet. What is predicted is that the arctic sea ice will wane, with a majority of the arctic being open water in late summer. We’re right on track on that prediction, or maybe events are outpacing our predictions.
Warmer waters to the North of Greenland can’t help keep that icebox cool. And sure enough, Greenland is losing ice. A chunk of glacier about the size of Manhattan is even now drifting off to sea. The bulk of the icecap is predicted to melt,
[and the process is already under way, see
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1301713/The-crack-roof-world-Yes-global-warming-real--deeply-worrying.html#ixzz0wCtGTuw8
]
and that will raise sea levels by a couple of meters. So what? So, many millions of people get their living from farming rice on land that lies less than that far above today’s sea level.
Warmer temperatures mean more extreme heat events. Maybe you’ve read about the forest fires choking Moscow? They also mean a faster hydrologic cycle, i.e. more rain. Maybe you’ve read about the flooding in Pakistan? And China? The death toll is in the thousands, and the Indus river is 15 miles wide in some stretches. Maybe you’ve read about soaring wheat prices? Falling rice yields? Rice likes warm weather, to a point. Same with wheat. But both crops can only take so much.
It’s impossible to take satisfaction in this kind of vindication. But it’s dangerous to close your eyes to the implications of these events. This is, sadly, just the beginning. Some years will be nice. Many years will fall within the range of what we’ve called normal. A few will even be cold. But many, too many for our own good, will be extremely hot.
Doug,
Your argument about Arctic sea ice is a few years old. Remember when sea ice extent in summer 2007 was the ‘lowest ever recorded’? Well, we come to find out that ‘ever’ meant since 1979, not such a tremendously long track record! No such measurements were possible before the satelites were placed in orbit. And what has happened since 2007? The annual minimum coverage or artic sea ice has increased each year. Your discussion conspicuously avoids discussion of Antarctic sea ice. Maybe that’s because minimum coverage is now the greatest ‘ever’ recorded! That’s Ok. Disregard inconveinient information if you must preserve your beliefs!
I don’t know what predictions you are talking about? But every one of the guesses from your revered government science agencies has been wrong. Maybe you should check on some actual observations rather than basing your opinion on someone’s predictions or the output from an overly simplified computer model. You could start by looking at current sea ice extent data available from a number of different sources on the internet. Then you might get a better grasp on reality.
Regarding sea level rise, the melting of floating sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise. Only melting of terrestrial ice will raise sea level. However, satelite data indicate that the volume of ice in Greenland is increasing! And FYI glaciers are hydrologic systems just like rivers. The rate of flow at the toe of the glacier is as much a result of the amount of previous years accumulation of precipitation as it is result of the current temperature. And just as large rivers flow into the sea at a delta, tidewater glaciers calve icebergs where they oultlet the sea. Once again, you are fixated on the ‘predictions’.
You are also confused about the plight of the poor peoples who live and farm close to the current sea level. If you understood human geography and fluvial geomorpholgy, you might realize that the vast majority of these poor disenfrachised folk live on the surfaces of active river deltas (i.e. New Orleans). The problem with these deltas are several fold. They attract human settlement because of fertile soil and access to fresh water and transportation. However, once settled, the delta must be protected from flooding by building dams and/or channelizing the river. Once this is done, the process of annual flood related overbank sedimentation which builds up the surface and keeps the elevation of the delta just above sea level is stopped. What is not stopped is the constant consolidation of the pile of loose silt and sand (of which the delta itself is made) under its own weight. So without any sea level rise whatsoever, these poor folk will end up under water any way.
You have not parroted anything new. All of the points you make are stale, are misrepresentations or are outright lies. At least you are consistent with your convenient misattribution of the significance of random weather events in the climate system. Your awarness of these ‘more frequent events’ couldn’t have anything to do with the only recently available media saturation related world weather events. It couldn’t be a matter of perception, could it?
In the future, it would be wise to confine the rendering of opinions to matters that you know something about. Otherwise you will just continue to look silly!
Unlike most things on earth, solid water (a.k.a. frozen water or ice) occupies more volume than liquid water. Therefore when floating ice melts, the water levels in the seas/oceans actually decrease.
Terrestrial ice melt, theorhetically, would produce more water into our streams, rivers and oceans. However, how many times during a drought or water shortage to you notice local streams and rivers flowing full or overflowing it’s banks? What about areas already claiming to have lost snowcaps on mountains due to global warming? Have there been changes to the water levels?
I’m not a scientist, but I doubt melting mountain icecaps, polar caps, or icecubes accidentally dropped overboard from a Carnival Cruise have any effect on the sea levels. If it’s such a concern, why did Algore just purchase a beach front house in California?
Using models to form a hypothesis is one thing. But the hypothesis (global warming) must be proven true or false with actual data. Actual temperature data doesn’t support the GW theories, so they choose not to use it.
Dude,
Icebergs sometimes calve. It does not mean the sky is falling.
The Greenland iceberg has been identified by scientists as part of a normal cycle – it snows inland, the iceberg flows and eventually hits the ocean, the warmer water melts it from underneath, and eventually part falls off.
Speaking of Greenland, scientists have apparently forgotten why it was called GREENland – its southern end used to be green, not covered with ice. The Vikings grew grapes there. Climates change. That’s nature.
You’re not doing your cause – assuming you actually have one – any good by your tone, your lack of supporting evidence and logic. If you really believe the Left is correct, or at least the Right is all wrong (or, worse, just a bunch of nutcases with no case), you’d do better to emulate Doug at #1′s method.
Of course, if all you want is attention, you’ve achieved that this time. But, given your style, is there any reason anyone – on any point of the political compass – should take you seriously?
If all you want is to vent your contempt for those with views contrary to your own, well I’m with you. I loathe Progressives as much as you hate right-wingers. Good luck to you if that’s all you’ve got, though.
The scientific method is well laid out and well publicised. If there is so much good evidence of human caused global warming, why don’t the people making the claims follow the scientific method in making their claims? Why are they trying to keep everything but their conclusions secret?
.
Science is “open source”, not proprietory. “Show the source code”.
So a temp at 70 degrees will be extrapolated to the pole? Fantastic.
Just to be on the safe side lets spend 5-6 trillion dollars changing to wind energy.
Ruebacca assumes:
“So a temp at 70 degrees will be extrapolated to the pole? Fantastic.”
“For surface interpolation of the gridded data a kriging algorithm was used, plotting all data in a polar projection map.”
-http://www.climate4you.com/Polar%20temperatures.htm#Data%20source
-There is this thing called google, so you can look up the source of the data….
>>Data Details
To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from three sources: weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world; satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer program, which is available for public download from the GISS website. The program calculates trends in temperature anomalies — not absolute temperatures — but changes relative to the average temperature for the same month during the period of 1951-1980.<<
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
So are you saying we should impoverish the nation or not? Dump all are coal based electricity and diesel based transportation infrastructure? We can’t run steel mills on wind power and Spain has shown you can’t run a competitive economy on it ether.
Atmospheric scientists have been claiming the difference between 300ppm and 500pmm CO2 is the end of civilization. As a profession you deserve your ridicule on policy grounds.
I am an Organic Chemist. The difference between .03% CO2 and .05% CO2 to the heat capacity of a system is zilch. Non-polar inert gases don’t hold heat. CO2 has a strong IR band but it is nothing compare to the O-H band. 5-10% water vapor controls temp on the planet not .03% CO2.
How about CO2 forming acid in our oceans. lol H2CO3 is an acid in name only, the conjugate base is baking soda. H2CO3 is not going to dissolve any coral, lime stone formed in the ocean is resistant to HCl. Ever spit (HCl) on a sea shell(limestone)? Did it dissolve? Mercury in the new light bulbs is poison. Mercury never decays and should not be used in the home. Like lead paint or lead gasoline it should be band.
The policy changes coming from atmospheric scientists are all bs.
“So are you saying we should impoverish the nation or not?”
-Humans evolved to cope with changes to our climate in the past. So perhaps climate change was a good thing. But in today’s overpopulated world, will humans be able to cope? This is something even the Pentagon takes seriously. Will it ruin our economy to think in terms of changing our energy sources? I don’t know, but common sense dictates that a finite source of energy will have to be addressed one day, so why not start now?
“….water vapor controls temp on the planet not .03% CO2.”
-So how would you explain John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges’ 2001 abstract showing a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2& CH4 absorb. Empirical evidence shows warming is occurring. While water vapor content remains fairly constant during this period of observed warming, it is the other greenhouse gasses that have substantially increased.
David W. Walters,
People won’t be able to cope with climate change? Are you serious? Is that your argument?
Empicial data wasn’t used, unless you mean real computer models were observed. The raw data shows a cooling, while the homoginized data inputted into the models show warming.
Teleprompter,
A 1m rise in SL will put New Orleans, Venice, many Dutch cities under sea just to name a few. I wouldn’t want to live in S. Florida either. But that’s no problem, right?
“Empicial data wasn’t used…..”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
“Changes in the Earth’s greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect….”
-It was a direct measurement.
I guess it has come to the point where all of these so called ‘unbiased’ ‘unaffiliated’ “scientific” organizations are all UN mouthpieces. I just came back from 6 months in europe where they have been saying in many nations it was less than normal temperatures. Here at home for august it is one of the coolest I have experienced since 1970. There are fewer hot days than I can remember and only a couple above 100. Where historically we get six weeks or so above 100 degrees. And fall is in the air.
As I sit here in a sweater this morning fully aware that such observations are far from scientific, I can say that it has been cooler here in the San Francisco Bay area this summer based on the fact that my home and truck both lack air conditioning. Last year, I found myself lamenting those situations noticeably more often than I have this year. BUT weather isn’t climate as we’ve been repeatedly reminded when the observable conditions fail to support warming.
The assumption made in the following quote is false. “At face value, this appears to be consistent with the theory that global warming is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.”
There is no evidence which credibly supports a theory that carbon dioxide or other direct residuals of the combustion of petroleum products over the past century is a primary cause of global warming. Those making that claim frequently have other objectives in mind, including among others personal accretions of power, money, fame, and influence (C.F., Al Gore). The past century is but a nanosecond in the history of the planet. Oh, and did I mention the hubris involved in declaring that the current climate is the “best possible for mankind?”
Periodic warming and cooling of the Earth has been ongoing throughout the planet’s history and continues today. Causes include and are not necessarily limited to changes in the planet’s tilt, changes in the sun’s radiation, tectonic plate movement, changes in ocean currents, volcanic activity, possible meteor strikes, and so on. In fact, we have oil on this planet because it was much hotter and wetter on vast expanses of its surface in the Cretaceous and Jurassic eras.
You nicely describe the anthropomorphic egotism which surrounds much of the climate change ( or whatever you want to call it) debate as well as much environmental debate. Humans believe that nothing should change in their lifetime. No animal should go extinct! We will just ignore the fact that over 99% of all species on earth have become extinct long before man existed. And we will also ignore the fact that for the vast history of the earth, the climate has been much warmer than it is today. Long term perspective has never been mankind’s strong point.
Art Horn suggests:
“At face value, this appears to be consistent with the theory that global warming is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. But face value can be deceiving, and the value is not what it appears to be.
In fact, the claim that June 2010 was the warmest on record has no value at all.”
-Art, you’d be on to something if conditions on the ground actually matched what you seem to be implying. But all the evidence points to the fact that the polar region IS actually warming. If it isn’t as Mr. Horn suggests, why is the polar ice cap shrinking not only in extent but in thickness? Just as there are global warming skeptics, there were round earth skeptics in 1492, and a few even remained after Columbus returned.
A good TV weatherman Mr. Horn may be, and his weather merit badge is certainly commendable. But a climatologist, no. I’ll stick with Dr. James Hansen, thank you.
But all the evidence points to the fact that the polar region IS actually warming. If it isn’t as Mr. Horn suggests, why is the polar ice cap shrinking not only in extent but in thickness?
David, this doesn’t correspond with observation.
charlie,
Is this peer reviewed study or simply a blog? There is a difference you know. Mr. Watts impressive graphs show mostly seasonal differences in sea ice. Gee, wouldn’t you expect to see a seasonal change in sea ice? However there is little no data shown that goes back farther than 2006. How is that going to illustrate the demise of the polar sea ice? The only multi-year data is of Antarctica, not the polar region.
There is also a difference between a meteorologist and a climatologist. Anthony Watts and the author of this article, Art Horn both hold undergraduate degrees in meteorology. Meteorology is the day to day changes in our atmosphere.
Climatology is the science that deals with detecting the patterns and trends of weather on 30 year trends usually. Both of these guys (Watts & Horn) are way out of their league, they are not climatologists. It shows, since there seems to be no peer reviewed articles or studies authored by these two. Perhaps it is because they have no standing? Remember, most of these studies are performed by PHD’s, not TV weathermen……
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives/image_select.html
-Charlie, look at the sea ice extent for 1980 and compare it to 2009. See any difference? In 1980, the entire north coast of Alaska was ice bound, whereas now it is ice FREE.
David Walters asserted:
Both of these guys (Watts & Horn) are way out of their league, they are not climatologists. It shows, since there seems to be no peer reviewed articles or studies authored by these two.
The “Climategate” e-mails clearly reveal the manner in which the “peer review” process is biased and controlled by gate keepers that prevent the publication of any papers critical of global warming.
So your “argument from authority” — a logically shaky argument to begin with — is completely invalidated.
Michael Smith asserts:
“So your “argument from authority” — a logically shaky argument to begin with — is completely invalidated.”
-Referring to“Climategate” e-mails? The idea that there was even a “Climategate” has been invalidated. Claims of evidence-tampering proved to be untrue. Again, here is visual proof from 1980-2010.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives/image_select.html
Use September (-it’s the month of least ice from summer melt) and compare Sept. 1980 with Sept. 2009. So, you’d rather believe an X-TV weather man. But before you do, look at the data yourself. The physical evidence invalidates the two TV weather men.
Well David, I am afraid I can’t give any credence to your “invalidation” of Climate gate. When the investigation determines that nothing was wrong because all AGW proponents destroy their data and refuse to show their work or models that all is well.
That is just hocus pocus. If all was well they would not hesitate to show their data and openly debate their results.
The entire world should be furious at climate “scientists” it their theories accidentally are correct because their pathetic practices have destroyed their credibility.
Well Michael,
I guess you got me there. “If all was well they would not hesitate to show their data and openly debate their results.”
-Now who isn’t getting the data? If it’s industry sponsored hacks, I guess they have good reason, since it is kinda like warfare.
“The entire world should be furious at climate “scientists” it their theories accidentally are correct because their pathetic practices have destroyed their credibility.”
Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist at George Mason University whines because no one likes him. I guess he is thought of as a “sell-out” in climate circles because working for the Cato Institute makes him David H Koch’s boy. But I’m sure he is well paid to minimize the danger posed by AGW. No, the pathetic practices are those of the deniers and the think tanks that funnel money to them. No, I guess Mann et al didn’t want to share their data with him. A “pathetic practice”? Hardly, when that data will be used against you in unscientific ways to promote an industry view.
David, if you read the article linked, you’d find that it has extensive citations. Please refer to the article first.
As to the specific sea ice extent point, there is a long term cyclicity of sea ice. If you refer to the long term sea ice anomaly, you’ll find a couple of things: first, that current sea ice has regressed to the mean in the last year, so the assertion that there has been a permanent change is questionable; and second, that sea ice is accreting more quickly now (as would be suggested by the cold temperatures) than in the recent past. This would suggest that by this time next year, the anomaly may well be on the other side of the mean.
Charlie Martin,
“….you’d find that it has extensive citations…”
-Really? We are talking about Anthony Watt’s article, aren’t we? Because all it is is a blog with a whole bunch of people refuting what is claimed by Watts.
“…..so the assertion that there has been a permanent change is questionable”
-Charlie, the assertion is that there is a trend, not a permanent change. You can’t show permanent change with 30 years worth of data. But science deals with the interconnectedness of these trends. Polar ice thinning/reduction, earlier melting of lakes and rives in the northern hemisphere, the movement of wildlife ranges farther north, along with other empirical data, taken as a whole convince the overwhelming majority of LEADING scientist in this field that the effects of global warming can now be observed.
To be sure this is not the conclusion that Exxon/Mobile wants to hear. I notice that both Watts and Horn are associated with Heartland Institute, which is in part funded by Exxon/Mobile. The difference between a scientist and an industry hack is that science is guided by empirical data, whereas industry hacks cherry pick the data to fit the conclusion they are paid to reach.
“The difference between a scientist and an industry hack is that science is guided by empirical data, whereas industry hacks cherry pick the data to fit the conclusion they are paid to reach.” Well said. Global warming scientists that cherry pick or homogenize data to create charts and graphs showing global warming are all hacks.
Algore (cap and trade software) and NBC (owned by GE with millions invested in solar and wind technology) have a lot to gain by claiming the earth has a fever. All these government funded scientists that get grant money to make charts and graphs will lose their careers if global warming is nationally/globally (officially) considered a fraud. They’re all hacks trying to get rich by expoliting America and receiving US tax dollars.
Teleprompter’
“The difference between a scientist and an industry hack is that science is guided by empirical data, whereas industry hacks cherry pick the data to fit the conclusion they are paid to reach.” -Me
” Well said. Global warming scientists that cherry pick or homogenize data to create charts and graphs showing global warming are all hacks.”-you
-First, what was “cherry picked”? And Al Gore and NBC aren’t climatologists. Did NBC pay for Michael Mann? As to hacks, anyone working for The Heritage Foundation is suspect. This is quite like the Tobacco Industries attack on the link between smoking and cancer. The denier community has many paid hacks. Not all, but there are many paid by the likes of the Heritage Foundation and David Koch.
and the photos from the 50′s of an ice-free North Pole, complete with US submarine on the surface indicate that any melting we have now is NOT unique.
David, read article first, then come back.
-Well I did Charlie! Steve ain’t half bad, a bit geeky, but that comes with the territory, right? Steve seems to be interested in sea ice right now. I’m talking of trends over 30 years or more. The extent of Arctic sea ice has been available from ship and other scientific observations since at least 1953, and from weekly satellite observations since 1972. All data shows that arctic sea ice is growing thinner, and loosing its extent in area. Why is this? Steve doesn’t exactly address this Charlie.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/134770main_sea_ice2003to2005average_lg.jpg
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/134769main_sea_ice1979to1981average_lg.jpg
-Compare the two high res NASA photos and see for yourself. It’s shrinking.
In that case, Charlie, the observed data must clearly be wrong, because of course David’s underlying theories just can’t be wrong. I mean, the man’s self-esteem is at stake, and that’s surely more important than any mere observed data.
/sarc off
-This ain’t no theory. Look at the two photos. The trend is toward shrinking, as predicted by AGW.
David Walters asserts:
-This ain’t no theory. Look at the two photos. The trend is toward shrinking, as predicted by AGW.
Of course the ice is shrinking. We are in an “interglacial” — the period between ice ages. Interglacials are all characterized by massive global warming and rising sea levels — along with shrinking glaciers and shrinking ice caps responding to rising water temperatures.
So a gradual reduction in Arctic ice and glaciers is no surprise — and proves absolutely nothing whatsoever about the validity of alleged human-caused global warming.
“So a gradual reduction in Arctic ice and glaciers is no surprise — and proves absolutely nothing whatsoever about the validity of alleged human-caused global warming.” -Anonymous
-Actually, natural or man made climate change occurs abruptly as shown in the data.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1
-And an abrupt change is what we are experiencing now. Abrupt changes are what leads to extinctions. Abrupt changes of the climate will have societal effects as well. Even the Pentagon is taking climate change seriously in their strategic planning. But even IF it were not man made, would it not be appropriate to make preparations now?
http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/company_news/default.aspx
-Munich Re is. It is one of the world’s leading reinsurer. I guess they see a future of claims…..
NOAA and NASA/GISS do lots of other tricks as well. They selectively delete surface stations located in higher latitudes, higher altitudes and those in rural areas. They keep the stations located at airports and in urban areas that supper from the urban heat island effect. They adjust historical records downward to make recent warming more pronounced. Anything to forward their agenda. They are utterly corrupt.
“NOAA and NASA/GISS do lots of other tricks as well. They selectively delete surface stations located in higher latitudes, higher altitudes and those in rural areas. They keep the stations located at airports and in urban areas that supper from the urban heat island effect.”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/page2.html
-The data and its explanations are readily available to ANYONE who wishes to see them.
I suppose that is is easy to want to believe something without studying it in depth. Reading science journals is not exactly fun, but if you truly want to understand the issue it is a must. Depend on Art Horn at your own risk. He isn’t exactly an unbiased expert.
David Walters asserted:
The data and its explanations are readily available to ANYONE who wishes to see them.
Non sequitur. It does not follow from the fact that SOME explanations for adjustments are posted on a GISS website that this necessarily means that ALL the explanations are posted. Nor does it follow from the fact that SOME explanations are posted that this is the procedure they actually follow.
GISS is run by James Hanson. Hanson is on record in an English court of law that he is in favor of the destruction the private property of utility companies — destruction to be accomplished by any “concerned citizenry” without due process of law or any involvment of government — if said destruction will stop CO2 emissions.
Given that he is willing to resort to physical destruction to stop global warming, there can be little doubt about his willingness to resort to data manipulation to make his case stronger than it otherwise would be.
As long as creatures like Hansen are “managing” the data, it will have little credibility with me.
Michael Smith,
I posted the link to show Dr. Hansen’s reply to criticism of his methods that Dr. Dave cited in #8. His methods are held up to scrutiny by any one who has valid arguments. That GISS is run by James Hanson does not preclude ANY scientist in climatology or associated fields from refuting Dr. Hansen’s work by publishing something that will disprove his premise. That’s how a young scientist can make a name for themselves, that’s how science works. The notion that there is a “gate keeper” guarding against contrary data is just wrong. However, to publish in a peer-reviewed setting does require a level of skill and education in the field which your study addresses. No, Watts and Horn have no standing since they are not experts in that field. They are meteorologists. I’m not even quite sure Watts even holds a BS degree in meteorology.
I’m sorry Dr. Hansen’s ideas offend you. Perhaps he knows something you don’t. In any case I doubt anything I or anyone else say would convince you of his credibility. Keep on seeking you facts from industry hacks funded by Exxon/Mobile and others. I’m sure that knowledge will serve you well!
Wow the ignorance of this “Keep on seeking you facts from industry hacks funded by Exxon/Mobile and others.” is beyond belief…. you understand most major businesses(GE which owned a news network that ran pro-global propaganda for years near 24/7) support global warming including many oil companies? You understand that over 50 BILLION dollars is spent “proving” global warming vs a minor 10 Million disproving it over the course of 1998-2008?
The big money has always been supporting global warming… ALWAYS. You tinfoil hat conspiracy nutters need to wake up and smell the crap your wallowing in. You are nothing but a hack spreading propaganda… what next the 5 jew banks responsible for anti-global warming propaganda… or maybe just all the jews are plotting against you. Your a joke and a fool who reads anything from an “approved” source and spits it out as if you got your words from god himself as you dance and prance around your computer as your earlier “believers” danced and pranced around a bonfire.
robotech master,
“Your a joke and a fool who reads anything from an “approved” source and spits it out as if you got your words from god himself as you dance and prance around your computer as your earlier “believers” danced and pranced around a bonfire.”
-Oh my, are we testy! The mental image is too much though….I’m not exactly a “prancer”. But what is this “approved source” you speak of? In matters of science, it is peer-reviewed research based on observed data. Should I base my knowledge on a TV weatherman? “-Don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows…..”
“The big money has always been supporting global warming… ALWAYS.”
-Not always, but there has been movement since the Pentagon wrote strategic plans based on the facts as they exist on global warming and it’s global consequences.
“The quadrennial defense review, prepared by the Pentagon to update Congress on its security vision, will direct military planners to keep track of the latest climate science, and to factor global warming into their long term strategic planning.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/pentagon-ranks-global-warming-destabilising-force
Oh, no! The mental image of generals and their full bird’s prancing around their computers…..(laughing)
But seriously, though the pentagon isn’t perfect, they got this one right.
-
Lol you and the rest of your cultist got your god disproved with a simple paper…
http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf
to quote
“We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.”
To make it simpler… they took all the data Mann used and applied real math to it and not only completely debunked the hockey stick but show that if Manns numbers are correct that we have yet to reach any new record temps for the last 300 years or so.
As to the pentagon your kidding right? Do you even know the date on the paper? Clearly not… you tin foil hat conspiracy nutters just can’t deal with the fact your doomsday cultism is wrong.
robotech master,
You funny guy!
A lot of papers have come out, one other by a statistician. They too were debunked. However, as late as 2006, Mann was validated AGAIN by The National Acedemy of Science…..
”The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence …..Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”
-The National Academy of Science released a report way back in 2006 which totally validated Mann’s hockey stick.
“http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676#toc”
This is it? I read their paper (McShane & Wyner) and what amazes me is that as far as I can tell by looking at the graph of recent temperatures (the past 30 years), it still shows a decided RISE in temperatures. In their conclusion they even admit as much. I find it interesting that so much effort goes into attempting to debunk the ol Hockey Stick. It must be because of Al Gore. (-I hate him too, but don’t tell my fellow tin hat devotees!)
Why is it so hard to admit it IS getting warmer. The only question is how warm.
“Why is it so hard to admit it IS getting warmer.”
lol dude you really are so far beyond any sense its amazing. First I don’t care if its warming or not… warming doesn’t provide human caused global warming. 2nd the National Academy of Science if you bothered to read the report never went through and confirmed anything… they skimmed his work and said we can’t find any spelling errors so its ok… also you do understand that Mann printed another study in 2008 to correct all the flaws in the first study because they were so glaring that most high school students could point them out.
Now once again i know you didn’t read or understand the study I posted. The study assume Mann data was correct. If you both to look at the graph according to Mann own data it was warmer then it was today… PERIOD END OF STORY. Which means that the current “record” temps are only recent records and the earth has been warmer before… thus once again showing that global warming could be nature…. once again USING Mann data…data that has been shown to be heavily edited and made solely to push a warming agenda.
Why can’t you admit that the warming now is nature?
Calm down robotech master
“If you both to look at the graph according to Mann own data it was warmer then it was today… PERIOD END OF STORY.”
uh, i looked at the graph…..the trend is upward. In other words the right end of the graph (as you’re looking at it) is not finished, Each year new data comes in which may or may not show ever increasing warming that is trending. So it isn’t END OF STORY. As steep as this trend is running, the past warming, which you claim is higher than today’s, will pale in comparison.
In their conclusion, “The fundamental problem is that there is a limited amount of proxy data which dates back to 1000AD; what is available is weakly predictive of global annual temperatures……
……As can be seen in Fig. 15, our estimate of the run up in temperature in the 1990′s has a much smaller slope than the actual temperature series.”
-As Fig. 15 shows, the model is fit on 1850-1998AD. This is merely a trick to allow the model to show a smaller amount of warming than is observed. Even with that statistical trick, the TREND is still upward!
Dr. Hansen is deviating from the party line, it’s “Climate Change(TM)” now, not “Global Warming(TM)”. And he lies, in other words, dog bites man.
BC – Okay, we get it. You live in/near St. Louis which apparently is the center of not only yours but mankind’s universe.
I recall you’d used for ‘validity’ a STL weatherman’s supporting AGW. Okay, STL has spoken, I will therefore give up rational thought.
This board discusses bunk NOAA data (oxymoron) and you bring up Tea Party rants. HEY! (Snapping my fingers in front of your doe-eyed face) Stay on topic. hahaha
BC – Some ‘Science 101′ for you due to your obvious lack in said background: Never theorize before POSSESSING data. The result is TWISTING facts to suit theory. Rather than theory SUITING fact.
The fact of the matter is 80N experienced its coldest Summer to date and temperatures have dropped below freezing ahead of the typical date. As well as the melting period being the shortest on record. Though Anthony Watts’s, wattsupwiththat.com will display the DATA for you..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/15/sea-ice-news-18/#more-23480
I also enjoy Christopher Monckton’s http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ site as well.
As for commenter David W. Walters, go ahead and stick with Astronomer/Mathematician James Hansen. Hansen needs as many kool-aid drinkers as he can muster. ‘Ol man Hansen’s soundbytes are Richard Pryor-like. Our office loves ‘em!
paul_unalaska-
“As for commenter David W. Walters, go ahead and stick with Astronomer/Mathematician James Hansen.”
-Actually Dr. Hansen is just one of HUNDREDS of qualified scientist researching climate and debunking people such as Anthony Watts. Dr. Walt Meier Research Scientist at NSIDC visits Watts’ “Watts Up With That?” He even was interviewed on Watt’s blog.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/21/nsidc-s-dr-walt-meier-answers-10-questions/
-Read it, it is very interesting.
-This also from Watt’s blog: “sea water temperature anomalies” as of yesterday from R. Gates in the comments section:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
“It is the water temps that drive the ice loss this time of year, though I know many readers here really believe everything you say, and that’s fine, but the DMI temps are not that critical and IMO your characterization of the general state of Arctic Sea ice is far off the mark. Eariler this season you were trying to compare 2010 to 2006, and look where that’s gone. Next, you were trying to compare it to 2005, and look where that’s gone. Of course, 2009 is the next mark on your target, and it looks like there is a very good chance now that 2010 extent will certainly be be lower than 2009. Of course that will mean that there will not be a third year in a row of a “recovery”, but I suppose that the AGW skeptics will have to start talking about a “Recovery Spiral” -R. Gates
-Seems like R. Gates doesn’t have as high opinion of Steve’s polar ice assessments.
I want to thank Charlie Martin for turning me on to “Sea Ice News”. -A treasure trove of information supporting thinning sea ice!
Doug, If I entertained using a station 750 miles upstream for my ‘smoothed over data’ – I’d have a review board on me and a disciplinary hearing, pronto. The likelihood of being in the unemployment line almost certain.
Yet, NASA and NOAA, 2 Government entities with unlimited-like resources employs this notion and passes it off as ‘fact’?
750 miles. The gumption to submit this fiction to the public is a smack in the face of climate sciences.
Here’s another eyebrow-raiser at http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7479-us-government-in-massive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced
The account at http://www.climatechangefraud is shrill, unbalanced and over-the-top, but they do show some Michigan State University data where parts of Lake Michigan reached 400 degrees fahrenheit! Impossible to say if the data displayed here were a genuine mistake or not. A mistake seems most likely to me. Apparently these data did appear on a Michigan State University website and it doesn’t inspire confidence in other stuff they might present. It certainly puts new meaning into the phrase “barbecue weather”.
For what it is worth, in southern New England, it has been our hottest spring-early summer ever, if you believe the people who keep the records. The jet stream has stayed north, leaving parts of Canada consistently cooler and us the hottest ever. Everything bloomed and blossomed much earlier than usual and crops came in early too. All this proves is that we are having a hot, hot period of weather, but believe that many part so this country and Europe are having record heat as well.
Obviously, the way NOAA and NASA/GISS smooth their data is a complicated process, that to some degree has to be taken on faith/trust by lay people. All deniers and many skeptics simply don’t trust them, and I certainly don’t know enough to make a call. I do know that Mr Horn will usually not make any points which do not in some way call into question the whole AGW deal, so I take his articles with a grain of salt as well.
Skeptics (and the email brouha) certainly have made in-roads in reducing the number of people who believe in AGW, which is probably a good thing in that the scientists need to have their feet held to the fire to produce convincing data. They also need to acknowledge publicly when the latest batch of data does not show warming, but the emails show that crew in a bunker mentality. I can’t imagine why.
Dwight, I, too, live in Southern New England, just south of Boston.
But apparently we live on different planets…
On my planet, we’ve used out A/C maybe 15 days. Here, in mid Aug., it’s cool in the mornings and we had one heat wave (defined as 3 consecutive days above 90′) in July.
I can say without reservation that it’s been the coolest summer I can remember in 40 yrs.
And although other parts of the country are reporting hot weather, it’s not outside the norm by much, but the other areas of the globe that are experiencing cooling is.
And the fires in Russia are the result of political decisions by Putin to pass the responsibility of fire-fighting on to the local gov’t bodies and away from Moscow. (I know you didn’t mention it, but someone else did and I’m replying here is all)
Yeah, I’m not sure what planet you live on. I live in Stoughton, MA and we have had our a/c on from 8:30 am for the rest of the day for more than thirty days in the last two months. TODAY is cool, as yesterday was, the first two days the a/c has not been on in weeks. In four or five of those nights, the A/C stayed on all night in the bedroom, because the outside air was too warm to cool us. Where do you live?
Dwight, I apologize if the “planet” comment seemed insulting…it was meant in good humor.
But I live in Norwell.
It’s been cool here. Like I said, the coolest summer I can remember. This August, so far, has been damn near cold some nights. Tonight, for instance, I’ll have to turn off the fans and shut the windows. Last night, however, was a typical August night, but they’re few and far between.
I can’t explain the differences in observed weather, being less than 10 mi. apart, but it is curious!
‘All this proves is that we are having a hot, hot period of weather, but believe that many part so this country and Europe are having record heat as well.’
And many parts of this country and Europe record cool summer weather also.
The jet stream is going through a periodic poorly understood process where it is not cycling north and south as often as it normally does. What this does is create low pressure ‘bends’ in the jet stream where southern air is captured for longer than normal periods of time causing longer than normal hot spells on one side of the bend. At the same time, for every stationary bend there is a corresponding cell behind it (or in front if the bend is a north to south bend) capturing Canadian air for longer periods of time. If from New England, you’d swear the US were having a hotter than average summer, Ohio Valley cooler, Great plains hotter, and Pacific cooler. Next time it happens, it will be reversed.
This is one reason why you do not take a season’s temperature variations as evidence of climate change. Why the jet stream does this every few years and in different permutations is poorly understood, but well documented.
It’s called – weather.
And having re-read the article, I don’t know if Horn is claiming that the reason the data show the hottest June ever is because of the Arctic 4 degree fudge, or that all the recorded temperatures really are the hottest ever (since 1880), but that does not justify saying that the arctic is 4 degrees hotter, because we just can’t tell.
But it does make for great headlines……….
That’s the biggest load of DERP I’ve read in a while.
Here’s an idea – just report the actual temperatures measured and show the trends that you can actually prove. Then if all the measurements show increases, report those facts, not estimates. Extrapolations can be vey misleading. For example, the temperature right now in the back of my house (in the shade) is 75 degrees. In the front (in the sun) it is 80 degrees. That must mean that across the street it is 85 degrees, and two blocks away it must be 100! A mile away it must be boiling! There – I proved global warming. Or, the temperature on earth is about 70, on the sun it is 5,000, so on the moon it must be at least 200 degrees!
This is exactly what I was talking about! Way to go, Joe.
Models don’t prove anything. Interpolated or extrapolated data are nothing more than WAG’s with a passing relationship to reality.
When interpolating or extrapolating data, ANY errors in the existing data are exacerbated. The further you push the data, the worse it gets.
Kind of like a few years ago when all the ice at 90º North disappeared. “Polar ice cap melting!” screamed the Clan of the Algores.
But it was a high pressure region stalled over eastern Siberia, producing winds all summer that pushed most of that sea ice into a ginormulous pile on NW Greenland and thereabouts, plus quite a bit all the way out through the Fram Straits. You could look it up.
I collect weather data for NOAA. We have just had the coldest and wettest June since records started being kept. Major flooding and millions in damage to roads and bridges.
Just up the hill 500 feet away is a National Forest remote weather station (RAWS) – and consistently it measures a degree or two above the data from my instruments. It also measures less rain. Either one of two things are happening, either human error on my part (I’m not a scientist, just a volunteer) or the remote station has not been calibrated.
TLM – In regards to ‘..not being calibrated’ – I provide a myriad of aviation and marine meteorological information to our customers.
NOAA’s NBDC (National Buoy Data Center) ‘data’ is so often erroneous, incomplete for the Atlantic theater in regards to the ship routes I provided -my company had to go about other means to find valid information.
Then again, expecting a Federal conglomorate to get Techs on a regular basis to calibrate/troubleshoot these buoys.. fuhget about it.
We know where their thermometers are.
Yes, we do, and if Alan Watts’ survey was correct, for the surface stations, an egregious percentage of them were out of order or compromised (had heat effects near them). If Paul is correct, then it calls into question the ocean measurement data.
At this point, I’d rather see my tax money go into actually servicing and calibrating the instruments than into a legislator’s pay. Then at least we’d know their accuracy. We can debate their methods all day long, but in the end, there’s a very real probability that their data is not accurate, and that they are extrapolating from compromised data sets, and also extrapolating through regions they have no way of determining their error. That last part really bothers me- if there are no stations, there is no possibility of error measurement in the extrapolation. You can make an equation say what you want it to, especailly if you don’t have to check it against real data – so how do we even have the chance to say they are right or wrong?
Regarding the numerous comments by David W.- referring to Watts, there is a lot to be said for university degrees, and a lot to be said for a lifetime of subject matter study and extreme interest, not to mention innate skills and intelligence and a willingness to do the footwork. It was a non-climatologist (McIntyre) who debunked Mann’s hockey stick and brought about the Wegman (spelling?) investigation and report. Watt’s actually tracked down a good number of data collecting stations to see what their condition was and if they met currently guidlines for accurate data collecting.
There are also Ph.D. level climatologists who are skeptics. Dr. Lindzen of MIT comes to mind. Oh- and since you call out Ph.D. qualifications- how many of those guys are ph.d. level statisticians and/or software engineers? I only ask since they make extensive use of statistics and their own computer code to analyze their data (NOAA should have some on staff, but a lot of the NGO reports were generated by people who didn’t)
Also, peer review isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Long ago I was in engineering, and I saw a numerous articles that were not really well written or well researched. Remember, all of Mann’s hs articles were peer reviewed, and that process was shot to pieces by the Wegman report. Peer-reviewers are human and subject to human flaws – passing articles because their own research (and funding) depend on it being accepted, or they might like the person, or they might have political motivations or even a particular belief that they think needs to be re-enforced, or they don’t understand the subject matter or methods, or aren’t concerned about whether the statistics are right, etc, etc, etc.
As for Dr. Hansen’s influence on published data- you bet your butt there is a gate keeper as to what data is used and what reports are written. If reports have to go by his desk, or the office of his admin team, you can bet that they tow the party/adminstation line when it comes to revisions and public releases. If you don’t think that’s possible, and likely probable, then I have some lovely waterfront property to sell you.
And one more thing regarding Dr. Hansen, skeptics, et. al- if you really pay attention to most skeptics (the ones who take the time to write thoughtfully), their skepticism isn’t that the earth might be warming- as noted in a previous comment, climatologists and paleoclimatologists have known for years about the cycles- they question how much impact CO2 really has given all the other impacts on our climate, which directly questions what our governments should, or should not do. There is evidence of a strong impact by solar cycles…should we build a vast mirror in space? It makes as much sense as cap-and-trade (and would actually have a real impact).
I’m an AGW skeptic, but I do acknowledge that yes, by golly, climate change does, in fact, happen. Some of the ice-caps are shrinking (some appear to be growing), and glaciers are receding, but (surprise) we’re still in an inter-glacial period. You know, that time between ice-ages. This is, of course, modern-man’s first one really in which we have global communication and high-tech measurments. So we have no real data history, nor even a very good observational one (people seemed to be more concerned with things like eating or avoiding the plague in the last little bump of one we had), and yet we are making vast assumptions about what it should be like.
From what I’ve read, the temperature increases are consistent with what climatology predicts for an interglacial warming, especially after debunking Mann. The accelerating receding of glaciers is common sense (ice melts faster when the rock underneath it is exposed, puddles form on it, or particulate matter accumulates on it, etc).
If we want to get futher into it, we can talk about the vast amount of deforestation that has occured, or the repopulation of tree species (ie, pulp pine for paper and wood, instead of a wider variety of oak, maple and other deciduous species) which seriously impacts water tables and cycles, and how that affects ground temperatures and local weather cycles. We can also bring up the sheer amount of change we’ve made to ground water sources through hydro-electric damns, urbanization (and it’s attendant heat effects), farming, and the strange web of laws about water rights in the western US.
So, I guess to sum it up- why I’m skeptical of our government and the reports it’s released?
a) Political hacks and the admitted ambitions of people like Dr. Hansen being a position to dictate what the reports say.
b) Outdated or neglected infrastructure being used to generate data sets, which are further filled in with interpolations/extrapolations.
c) A flawed peer review process on the part of the climatology community that had the greatest impact in generating public perception of AGW.
d) Complete neglect of any of the many factors that actually contribute to mass changes in weather, which collectively could change climate.
e) Reports generated using suspect data sets and possibly vast extrapolation, and in some cases, without the ability to determine error percentages
f) The sheer fact that it’s all pinned on one gas that is just barely a minor player in the entire system of greenhouse gasses. That, right there, trips all my b.s. meters (well, that and Al Gore was involved and made a butt-load of money off it).
We have a highly non-linear system, and we’re not sure we even know all the variables or even if we have the definitions of the ones we do know correct (such as the impact of solar radiation cycles), and were making predictions with models that force curve-fits, make numerous extrapolations, and have not been shown to forecast with anything resembling logical accuracy. Yet by statistical curve-fitting (of suspect data sets), smoothing and interpolation we can definitively and without a doubt say GW is accelerating and it’s all because of CO2 ? Really?
“It was a non-climatologist (McIntyre) who debunked Mann’s hockey stick and brought about the Wegman (spelling?) investigation and report.”
The National Academy of Science released a report way back in 2006 which totally validated Mann’s hockey stick.
“http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676#toc”
-”The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence …..Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”
Also, far from debunking Mann’s hockey stick, the National Research Council Report validated Mann. Particularly, they found:
“…..it can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.”
The hockey stick part of the graph would be what they are talking about.
Dr. Edward Wegman’s proxy analysis was almost verbatim into Donald Rapp’s text book Assessing Climate Change. It’s also known as plagerism. He was exposed by Deep Blogger a while back, So he isn’t some one you’d want to base your data on.
“There are also Ph.D. level climatologists who are skeptics.”
-Well we have one, and yes, there are a few more. The key word here is FEW. Again, the huge majority of climate scientist support the established facts of global warming.
However, you do bring up one important fact.
“I’m an AGW skeptic, but I do acknowledge that yes, by golly, climate change does, in fact, happen.”
-But just not due to CO2 emissions, right?
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges, abstract of Jan. 2001-
“Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”
-Empirical evidence of AGW.
Oh, David W. Walter, you are good. I do want to hear your thoughts on a paper if or when it is published by McShane and Wyner in the Annals of Applied Statistics. The paper is described as a direct and serious rebuttal to the proxy reconstructions of Mann.
“I do want to hear your thoughts on a paper if or when it is published by McShane and Wyner in the Annals of Applied Statistics. The paper is described as a direct and serious rebuttal to the proxy reconstructions of Mann.”
robotech master was kind enough to share McShane and Wyner’s paper.
The conclusion on pg.41 states:
“Nevertheless, the temperatures of the last few decades have been relatively warm compared to many of the thousand year temperature curves sampled from the posterior distribution of our model.”
-They still validate warming, Fig. 15 on pg. 34 clearly shows it. It is smaller than Mann’s, but it is still a significant rise. But it’s merely a model. What about what is observed in nature?
David Walters is once again being highly misleading.
1) He claims that, The National Academy of Science released a report way back in 2006 which totally validated Mann’s hockey stick.
But in fact, this National Academy of Science report that Walters quotes is ambivalent and inconsistent. It both accepts Mann’s claims as “plausible” — and of course this is what Walters is going to quote, and nothing more — and in other areas agrees completely with McIntyre’s criticisms of Mann’s work, criticisms which make Mann’s claims highly implausible.
For instance, concerning McIntyre’s primary criticisms of Mann’s work, the report said this:
Some of these criticisms are more relevant than others, but taken together, they are an important aspect of a more general finding of this committee, which is that uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated. Methods for evaluation of uncertainties are discussed in Chapter 9.
So here they are clearly agreeing that Mann has underestimated the uncertainty of his temperature reconstructions. This is not a trivial point — Mann and his supporters have described his findings as “settled science” and have declared that “the debate is over”. But if Mann doesn’t even know the actual level of uncertainty in his data, such claims are completely unjustified — and the science is anything but “settled”. Does that sound to you like a “total validation” of Mann’s hockey stick?
For a more complete examination of the inconsistent nature of this National Academy of Science report — and to see what the report completely failed to address or mention — go here: http://climateaudit.org/2006/06/22/nas-panel-report/
2) Walters also claims that “the National Research Council Report validated Mann.” But the National Research Council Report is also inconsistent. One of McIntyre’s primary criticisms of Mann’s work is that it depends very heavily on one particular kind of tree rings — those from “strip-bark pines“. The National Research Council had this to say about strip bark pines (from page 64 of the report, available here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.PDF )
The possibility that increasing tree ring widths in modern times might be driven by
increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, rather than increasing
temperatures, was first proposed by LaMarche et al. (1984) for bristlecone pines (Pinus longaeva) in the White Mountains of California. In old age, these trees can assume a “stripbark”form, . . . Such trees are sensitive to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Graybill and Idso 1993), possibly because of greater water-use efficiency (Knapp et al. 2001, Bunn et al. 2003) or different carbon partitioning among tree parts (Tang et al. 1999). . . .While ‘strip-bark’ samples should be avoided for temperature reconstructions, attention should also be paid to the confounding effects of anthropogenic nitrogen deposition (Vitousek et al. 1997), since the nutrient conditions of the soil determine wood growth response to increased atmospheric CO2 (Kostiainen et al. 2004).
So here the National Research Council is agreeing that strip bark pines are responding to factors other than temperatures and hence should not be used in temperature reconstructions. Yet it is precisely such trees that Mann originally relied on to get his hockey stick graph — a point completely ignored by the report. Does it sound to you like this report “validated Mann”?
In other sections of the report, they also completely agree with McIntyre’s criticism that Mann’s statistical methodology can create hockey sticks from random data:
Spurious Principal Components: McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) [actually McIntyre and McKitrick 2005a] demonstrated that under some conditions, the leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike appearance, which could then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based reconstruction. To see how this can happen, suppose that instead of proxy climate data, one simply used a random sample of autocorrelated time series that did not contain a coherent signal. If these simulated proxies are standardized as anomalies with respect to a calibration period and used to form principal components, the first component tends to exhibit a trend, even though the proxies themselves have no common trend. Essentially, the first component tends to capture those proxies that, by chance, show different values between the calibration period and the remainder of the data. If this component is used by itself or in conjunction with a small number of unaffected components to perform reconstruction, the resulting temperature reconstruction may exhibit a trend, even though the individual proxies do not. Figure 9-2 shows the result of a simple simulation along the lines of McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) (the computer code appears in Appendix B)….
There are numerous other areas of the report where they agree with McIntyre and McKitrick.
Go here for more on this report (also called the North Report):
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/
3) Walters also asserts: Dr. Edward Wegman’s proxy analysis was almost verbatim into Donald Rapp’s text book Assessing Climate Change. It’s also known as plagerism.
This is an egregiously false and misleading claim. An introductory section of Wegman’s report — a section that just gives basic background information on the general science of tree ring studies, so as to acquaint laypeople with the field in general — a section not even written by Wegman — THAT section appears to be a copy of what is in a textbook. And why shouldn’t it be? It’s just general background information. It is not something presented as an analysis of Mann’s work or the hockey stick graph. Granted, the person who put that section together should have properly cited the material — but in no way, shape or form did Wegman ever claim that he authored the material in this section of the report.
The section of the report where Wegman validates and confirms the analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick is solely Wegaman’s own work — not a reproduction of a textbook. So the claim that Wegman is a plagiarist is totally false — it’s nothing but a cheap ad hominem attack by those desperate to evade the fact that this expert in statistics has agreed with McIntyre and McKitrick’s refutation of Mann’s work.
For more on the Wegman report, see here:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/
David Walters is either seriously misleading and extremely disingenuous or simply uniformed of the full, total facts regarding these reports.
McShane and Wyner and others in trying to refute Mann still keep showing the observed data (recorded temps) matching the proxy generated model. Why is that?
Ha. I’m a metrologist (Christopher knows, the rest of you may have to look it up) and so most of the commentary I wrote but didn’t yet post dealt with principles of metrology, the integrity of raw data sets, the concept of a measurement value being accompanied by a documented estimate of uncertainty, the necessity of regular calibration, proper application of statistical methods, etc.
The evidence that glaciers have receded is beyond question so there is warming. We also know that periodic variations in weather exist. But to suggest that suddenly mankind’s CO2 emissions are now primarily responsible for the glaciers continued recession can only be an article of faith. It’s safe to assume that if the raw data supported that scenario, the dog wouldn’t have been allowed to eat it but instead it would have been made publicly available and the opponents of AGW would be allowed to publish and lecture without proponents resorting to threats or name-calling. Unfortunately, the estimated 4 trillion dollars riding on this farce has far more influence on the issue than scientific method, actual data, or other evidence.
Do you think we’d still be arguing if the research funds were evenly distributed amongst researchers both pro and con in the first place?
gnubi,
-How about John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges’ abstract of 2001. It shows a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb, using IRIS and IMG satellite data. This would amount to “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
More scamming from the Agencies of Government. Or perhaps we should call them tenured lifetime liars. (I am not a scientist’s butt…)
Here is a simple question for all of the computer modeling scientists to answer. Seriously … How many people have ever lived ? By the time you give me the answer the number has changed . Plus you can never give me the correct answer. You can only give me what the International Society of Professional Ex-estimators calls a w-a-g. A wild ass guess. Its used in construction estimating all the time.
Client, ” well how much will all that cost?” Builder, ‘Let me check with my estimator and I’ll give you the number.”
A lot of the big time ex estimators are in the Liberal Democratic Party ranks and a few Universities as we speak.
That number incidentally turns out to be what you want it to be . The real number won’t be known until the project is finished. And that keeps going up the minute the sucker swallows the bai… er, gets the contract to sign.
This reminds me of when I worked research vessels. We’d be way out in the blue deep where few go. We’d send in weather obs to NOAA and the next day we’d get the same info back as our forecast. Not the forecaster’s fault, he could only work with the data he had. We’d get the surface analysis map and our ob would be the only one within hundreds of miles. With only one ob, there was no way to validate the info, nor could they really tell where to draw the lines.
“The problem is that they don’t have any thermometers there.”
It’s not a problem for me. I just ignore them.
No data? Get back to me when you have some.
End of problem.
The article talks about the “large” area of the Arctic, but then only complains about missing measurements north of 80 degrees. The area north of 80 degrees is about 0.7% of the total area of the Earth vs 4% for the Arctic Circle. So unless this tiny area was dramatically cooler than in the past (unlikely, given all the stories about Arctic ice melting), the impact of the averaging would be minimal on the overall result.
-Good point.
Assessing the Claims of David W. Walters
I do hope all those interested in the truth about global warming will take the time to read this rather long comment.
In his comment of August 15, 2010 8:59 pm, David W. Walters asserted that the meaning of a new research paper on climate reconstruction methods could be accurately described as follows:
robotech master was kind enough to share McShane and Wyner’s paper.
The conclusion on pg.41 states:
“Nevertheless, the temperatures of the last few decades have been relatively warm compared to many of the thousand year temperature curves sampled from the posterior distribution of our model.”
-They still validate warming, Fig. 15 on pg. 34 clearly shows it.
Here is the actual, full conclusion of the study from page 41 (emphasis added):
6. Conclusion. Research on multi-proxy temperature reconstructions
of the earth’s temperature is now entering its second decade. While the
literature is large, there has been very little collaboration with university-level,
professional statisticians (Wegman et al., 2006; Wegman, 2006). Our
paper is an effort to apply some modern statistical methods to these problems.
While our results agree with the climate scientists findings in some
respects, our methods of estimating model uncertainty and accuracy are in
sharp disagreement.
On the one hand, we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a
”long-handled” hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends
to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data. The fundamental problem is
that there is a limited amount of proxy data which dates back to 1000 AD;
what is available is weakly predictive of global annual temperature. Our
backcasting methods, which track quite closely the methods applied most
recently in Mann (2008) to the same data, are unable to catch the sharp run
up in temperatures recorded in the 1990s, even in-sample. As can be seen
in Figure 15, our estimate of the run up in temperature in the 1990s has
a much smaller slope than the actual temperature series. Furthermore, the
lower frame of Figure 18 clearly reveals that the proxy model is not at all
able to track the high gradient segment. Consequently, the long flat handle
of the hockey stick is best understood to be a feature of regression and less
a reflection of our knowledge of the truth. Nevertheless, the temperatures
of the last few decades have been relatively warm compared to many of the
thousand year temperature curves sampled from the posterior distribution
of our model.
Our main contribution is our efforts to seriously grapple with the uncertainty
involved in paleoclimatological reconstructions. Regression of high
dimensional time series is always a complex problem with many traps. In
our case, the particular challenges include (i) a short sequence of training
data, (ii) more predictors than observations, (iii) a very weak signal, and
(iv) response and predictor variables which are both strongly autocorrelated.
The final point is particularly troublesome: since the data is not easily
modeled by a simple autoregressive process it follows that the number of
42 truly independent observations (i.e., the effective sample size) may be just
too small for accurate reconstruction.
Climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxybased
reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models.
We have shown that time dependence in the temperature series is sufficiently
strong to permit complex sequences of random numbers to forecast
out-of-sample reasonably well fairly frequently (see, for example, Figure
9). Furthermore, even proxy based models with approximately the same
amount of reconstructive skill (Figures 11,12, and 13), produce strikingly
dissimilar historical backcasts: some of these look like hockey sticks but
most do not (Figure 14).
Natural climate variability is not well understood and is probably quite
large. It is not clear that the proxies currently used to predict temperature
are even predictive of it at the scale of several decades let alone over many
centuries. Nonetheless, paleoclimatoligical reconstructions constitute only
one source of evidence in the AGW debate.
Our work stands entirely on the shoulders of those environmental scientists
who labored untold years to assemble the vast network of natural
proxies. Although we assume the reliability of their data for our purposes
here, there still remains a considerable number of outstanding questions
that can only be answered with a free and open inquiry and a great deal of
replication.
End………………………………………………………………………………………..
Folks, David Walters has taken one sentence completely out of context from the full conclusion and presented it as if it the paper “validates” the claims of global warming proponents. It most certainly does NOT.
Global warming proponents — those who push the validity of the “hockey stick graphs” — do not merely claim that the earth has warmed over the last century. Rather, they claim that it has warmed dramatically versus the past 1000 years — warmed in an unprecedented manner versus the past 1000 years, which are depicted as the long, flat blade of the hockey stick graph, a nearly 1000 year long period of allegedly very cool and stable temperatures. Further, global warming proponents claim that this conclusion can be known with great certainty based on the proxy reconstructions done by Michael Mann and others.
The conclusions of the study above refute — not validate — those claims.
1) The study’s reconstructions of the data — the figure 15 referred to by Walters — shows only half the warming displayed by the hockey stick graph shown in figure 17. Finding only half the warming as the hockey stick is hardly “validating” it.
2) Still more damning is the fact that the proper confidence limits to be placed on this data — shown in figure 16 — demonstrates that it is impossible to conclude that modern warming is “unprecedented”. On page 37, the study states,
Given their ample width (the width of properly calculated uncertainty bands), it is difficult to say that recent warming is an extraordinary event compared to the last1,000 years. For example, according to our uncertainty bands, it is possible that it was as warm in the year 1200 AD as it is today.
3) The study notes that the “the long flat handle of the hockey stick is best understood to be a feature of regression” — meaning that it’s a “feature” of the statistical methodology used to manipulate the data, and not an actual reflection of reality.
4) The final thing to understand about this study is that it accepts, at face value, the validity of the proxy data used to produce the hockey stick. As the conclusion says, “We assume the reliability of their data for our purposes here”. That’s fine, because this study only assessed the statistical methods used to generate the hockey stick graph, not the raw data.
But those who are familiar with the work of McIntyre, McKitrick and others who’ve examined the hockey stick know they’ve discovered that the entire hockey stick shape of the graph comes from only a couple of the proxies — a couple of tree ring series, such as “strip bark” pines from one particular location, a type of tree that the National Research Council says “”strip-bark’ samples should be avoided for temperature reconstructions”.
But these same faulty proxies get used over and over again. David Walters and other global warming proponents make the claim that the errors in the original hockey stick graph “don’t matter” because the graph has been “independently replicated” by other researchers. What they hide from you is that without exception, all of these “independent replications” use the same, faulty proxies as did the original graph — that’s how they get the same result.
And here is another thing these global warmers won’t tell you. In many cases, there have been more than one set of tree ring data collected of a certain type or from a certain region. Some of these tree ring series do show the 20th century to be much warmer than past centuries — but other tree ring series show either no recent warming or even show it was warmer in the past than today. But the hockey stick graphs put out by the global warming proponents always use only the tree rings series that support their conclusion — while ignoring completely the tree ring series that refute their conclusion.
You may from such facts judge the veracity of global warming proponents for your self.
I will leave you with one more quote from the study:
We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random
series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.
Frankly, Mr. Walters lost me when he claimed that climategate had been proven to be nothing. That’s the sure sign of an activist. A serious person wouldn’t have been so glib.
Michael Smith,
McShane and Wyner’s paper is another in a line of attempts to discredit Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick”. They say:
“While our results agree with the climate scientists findings in some
respects, our methods of estimating model uncertainty and accuracy are in
sharp disagreement.”
-What is the disagreement here? It is the proxy data used to reconstruct past climates.
“We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature.”
The only professionals who seem to come up with data refuting Mann’s original work has been statisticians or economists, not climate scientist. Perhaps the climatologists are not smart enough. Yet the proxy data backs up recent observable data. So why does the proxy data work in one instance, but not in another?
David W. Walters you really really need to do some research on stuff your talking about because you look like a complete idiot.
Mann’s “original work” is based solely in the field of statistics… SOLELY. Most models and predictions in “climate science” are based SOLELY on statistics… the reason statisticians are finding errors is because Mann SUCKS at statistics… which means all the models and predictions being made are a joke and full of fail.
You really don’t even seem to grasp basic concepts such as math… plus i’ll put out to you since you don’t seem to understand that climate science is based in main 2 fields… PHYSICS and MATH. The fact that you discount math experts means you can claiming that climate science as a whole is completely fake…
“The fact that you discount math experts means you can claiming that climate science as a whole is completely fake…”
-And you’d be putting words in my mouth. I can read a graph. What the proxy data shows as adjusted by McShane and Wyner
is a past trend that IS higher than Mann’s, but with present trends heading up, the present warming WILL eclispe the past medieval warming.
The math isn’t on your side if the statistics are skewed …..The paper is light on the specifics on exactly which proxy data they’ve used. I’m assuming he uses Mann’s data. The problem with that is that since Mann wrote his follow up in 2006, even more proxy data has emerged that is being used. Did he use any bore hole data from around the world? I don’t know what kind of forcing they used.
There was however a grand political statement that covered 3 pages, and this makes this paper suspect.
I am sure this paper is a hit on this site as well as with the denier community. Time will tell, but that’s the problem. For if we wait another 10 years for the empirical data to disprove McShane & Wyner, well then they have earned their money anyway, right?
“-And you’d be putting words in my mouth.”
No I’m just repeating what you stated.
“I can read a graph. What the proxy data shows as adjusted by McShane and Wyner
is a past trend that IS higher than Mann’s, but with present trends heading up, the present warming WILL eclispe the past medieval warming.”
You must be a creationist if you believe the world only came into being where that graph stops… IT WILL NOT ECLIPSE PAST WARMING ANY TIME SOON. Both the roman and medieval warm periods were warmer… the graph only covers the end of the medieval warm period… as you can’t seem to see it keeps going up…
“The math isn’t on your side if the statistics are skewed …..The paper is light on the specifics on exactly which proxy data they’ve used. I’m assuming he uses Mann’s data. The problem with that is that since Mann wrote his follow up in 2006, even more proxy data has emerged that is being used. Did he use any bore hole data from around the world? I don’t know what kind of forcing they used.”
You really aren’t bright are you… READ THE PAPER… the paper is based on Mann 2008 not Mann 98/99… READ THE FRICKING PAPER.
“There was however a grand political statement that covered 3 pages, and this makes this paper suspect.”
Anything dealing with global warming is either political or religious in nature… none of it is science.
“I am sure this paper is a hit on this site as well as with the denier community. Time will tell, but that’s the problem. For if we wait another 10 years for the empirical data to disprove McShane & Wyner, well then they have earned their money anyway, right?”
lol love it just because were denying you eco-nazis another chance to cause the holocaust no need to get bent…
First of all, this has not yet been published, so as of yet no one has replicated what they claim in their paper.
So any claims one way or the other are premature. there could well be some fatal flaws to these two statisticians methods, since they are not climatologists…..in other words, they just may suck at climatology. So all you deniers, don’t jump the gun with glee just yet. I’m certainly no expert, but my guess is that they may have problems with calibrating to the instrument temp. curve. That is why their curve is wrong. We’ll just have to see. But again, I am honored you take so much offense with me.
I am familiar with drug development trials. Almost all involve a statistician at some point and they are considered an integral part of the process. After the data is in, a common question is when is the statistician going to be finished? The medical researchers recognize that accurate statistical analysis is crucial to their science and that to get such analysis you need a statistician. When are the climatologists going to recognize this as well?
“statistical analysis is crucial to their science and that to get such analysis you need a statistician. When are the climatologists going to recognize this as well?”
-No climate scientist will pass a good statistical analysis. Perhaps McShane & Wyner can teach climatologists some statistics. But the proxy data Mann used, (did McShane & Wyner use the same? -i’m not sure) has been augmented by additional proxies since then. We’ll just have to wait until someone runs their data and replicates their results.
But as long as Mann’s work has been out their, the hockey stick, sticks in some denier’s sides. One thing I can say with certainty is that present sea levels of coastal North Carolina are higher now than any time in the past 1,000yrs. It may be longer than that. That in itself shows that warming was not greater in the past two millennium as some would like to believe. This is what the hockey stick predicts!
David Walters asserts:
One thing I can say with certainty is that present sea levels of coastal North Carolina are higher now than any time in the past 1,000yrs. It may be longer than that. That in itself shows that warming was not greater in the past two millennium as some would like to believe. This is what the hockey stick predicts!
We are in an “interglacial” — the period between ice ages. Interglacials are characterized by massive global warming and rising sea levels. The temperature changes in an interglacial are not rock-steady from start to finish, but, rather, show ups and downs with an overall trend up. Sea levels, which respond much more slowly, show a much steadier increase and do not necessarily respond to every up and down in temperature that lasts only a century or two.
For instance, if you look at a graph of sea level rise over time, you will see that it was rising steadily prior to the great increase in CO2 emissions that began in the U.S. and around the world after the end of World War II in 1945. See here for example:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Visual-depictions-of-Sea-Level-Rise.html
Thus, the fact that the sea level in North Carolina is higher now than 1000 years ago proves nothing whatsoever about the theory of man-caused global warming and does nothing whatsoever to validate the “hockey stick” graph.
Michael Smith,
“the fact that the sea level in North Carolina is higher now than 1000 years ago proves nothing whatsoever about the theory of man-caused global warming and does nothing whatsoever to validate the “hockey stick” graph.”
-Yet if the medieval warming was warmer than it was today, wouldn’t there be evidence in the stratigraphic record of a similar rise?
David W. Walters claimed:
Yet the proxy data backs up recent observable data.
That claim is false in two ways:
1) Some of the proxy data — even including proxies used in the “hockey stick” graph — most definitely does NOT back up the recent observations. Some tree ring studies crucial to the hockey stick fail to replicate the late 20th century warming. In fact, the whole “hide the decline” scandal in the Climategate e-mails involved a tactic for “hiding the decline” in the proxy data — not in the observations.
When Phil Jones said he was using “Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline”, he was referring to the fact that when Mann created his hockey stick for a Nature article, he truncated some of the tree ring data — simply stopped showing it after about 1950 — in order to hide the fact that from that point forward, the tree ring data actually went DOWN when the instrument record went up.
This phenomena is well-known in the community of people who do tree-ring studies — they call it “the divergence problem”. Mann and Jones effort to “hide this decline” is motivated by the fact that if one shows this decline on the “hockey stick“ graph, it raises one very obvious question:
“If this proxy is not responding to the warming of the second half of the 20th century, how do you know it also did not fail to respond to similar warming in the medieval warm period?”
In other words, the divergence problem raises the very real possibility that trees are lousy thermometers, probably because their growth is affected by so many things in addition to temperature, such as rainfall, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, etc.
2) There are many tree ring series that do NOT show modern warming at all — and they are simply ignored by people like Michael Mann and Phil Jones. For instance, one crucial tree ring study used by Mann was done by Graybill using the notorious strip-bark pines from Sheep Mountain. A new study done of trees from the same area shows substantially different results — instead of getting a big rise in tree ring widths in the 20th century, the tree rings in the new study show essentially no warming at all. This data is simply ignored by the Manns and Jones of the world.
See here for more:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/31/more-mystery-at-sheep-mountain/
See here for another example of a tree ring study that does not agree with a study used to make “hockey stick” graph and which is, accordingly simply ignored:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/19/re-visiting-the-yamal-substitution/
Michael Smith,
Your complaint:
“Some of the proxy data — even including proxies used in the “hockey stick” graph — most definitely does NOT back up the recent observations.”
While this may SEEM damning, the key word you used is SOME.
-An independent assessment of Mann’s hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in 2007, I beleive.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
Read it for yourself….it confirms the Hockey Stick.
Since Mann’s Hockey Stick, many independent reconstructions of past temperatures have been made. Different varieties of proxy data and a number of different methodologies were tried. All find the same result. The last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). One set of proxies may well be a poor subject to extract data. As they say, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. Scientific methodology demands supporting data. This puts to rest your red herring argument…“If this proxy is not responding to the warming of the second half of the 20th century, how do you know it also did not fail to respond to similar warming in the medieval warm period?”
It is easy for professional doubters to cast dispersions on research. What a serious minded person needs to do if they are a TRUE skeptic (-and skeptic is the linchpin of the scientific method) will read the subject matter, NOT what others say about the data. Go to “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years”. It is a treasure trove of information on how this science works…..
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=41
David Walters asserts:
Read it for yourself….it confirms the Hockey Stick.
Wrong again.
Before I bother responding, I have a question — several actually.
Why do you fail to defend — or even comment on — any of these “such and such completely validated the hockey stick” claims that you put forth — after I refute them?
Why do you simply ignore what I post, pretend the whole exchange of comments never occurred, and move on to the next “such and such completely validated the hockey stick” claim?
Why is it — for instance — that after I point out a very OBVIOUS problem with the proxy data — namely, the “divergence problem”, which even the promoters of tree ring studies agree is a problem — a problem that was serious enough that it lead Michael Mann and Phil Jones to deceptively “hide the decline” on their graphs — why do you ignore this evidence and simply move on to some other alleged piece of evidence?
Do you labor under the illusion that if you pretend the evidence I provide doesn’t exist, that I and others will go along with your pretence and no longer cite that evidence?
Your argumentative technique seems to be “the dance” — make a claim, link to evidence you alleged proves it — then, when it is shown why your alleged evidence is not valid, simply drop the matter and switch to another claim and another piece of evidence. Rinse and repeat.
The Whal and Amman paper you link to does not in any way refute McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism of the “hockey stick”. To the contrary, as statistics expert Wegman said in his testimony to the U.S. Congress during their investigation of the “hockey stick”:
“. . . when using the same proxies as and the same methodology as MM (McIntyre and McKitrick), Wahl and Ammann essentially reproduce the MM curves. Thus, far from disproving the MM work, they reinforce the MM work.”
To wade through the whole “hockey stick” story takes a lot of time. One reason it does so is because Michael Mann, who produced the first hockey stick and several successors, refuses to this day to release a complete, detailed description of his statistical methodologies and computer programs. (Ask yourself why.)
Thus, to analyze his results, a great deal of time is spent merely trying to figure out how he got his results — and figuring how to emulate those results. And the same tactic — the refusal to release details and code — is practiced by all of Mann’s supporters.
To those who wish to wade through the details of why and how Wahl and Ammann’s article actually supports and confirms McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticisms of the “hockey stick”, I provide links to a series of articles.
Go to these links for the complete story:
http://climateaudit.org/2005/05/15/wahl-ammann-more-early-returns/
http://climateaudit.org/2005/05/15/wahl-and-amman-more/
http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/10/reconciling-to-wahl-and-ammann/
http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/06/well-well-look-what-the-cat-dragged-in/
http://climateaudit.org/2005/05/17/wahl-and-ammann-first-verification-statistics/
For those who don’t want to bother with all of this, I will give you a link to one common-sense, layperson-oriented article by McKitrick that sums up the arguments in terms any reasonable person can understand. It is a good starting point in trying to understand the “hockey stick” debate:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
David Walters also asserted:
Since Mann’s Hockey Stick, many independent reconstructions of past temperatures have been made. Different varieties of proxy data and a number of different methodologies were tried. All find the same result.
This statement is also completely false.
What McIntyre has shown time and time again is that these allegedly “independent studies” are not independent at all. They all use the same flawed proxies and they all exclude those proxies that don’t support the AGW hypothesis.
The fact that you continue to trot out this claim despite all the evidence I’ve posted against it mere proves that you are irrationally wedded to your positions and not open to facts and reason.
Here is another article demonstrating how these studies are NOT independent:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/01/19/jones-et-al-2009-studies-not-independent/
And then Walters makes this assertion:
As they say, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. Scientific methodology demands supporting data. This puts to rest your red herring argument…“If this proxy is not responding to the warming of the second half of the 20th century, how do you know it also did not fail to respond to similar warming in the medieval warm period?”
That’s a non sequitur. Yes, “scientific methodology” demands supporting data. But it does not follow from this fact that my question about the reliability of the proxies is a “red herring argument”. The mere fact that “supporting data” is required does not automatically and completely eliminate all questions about data reliability. Why would you think that it does?
If the concern over proxy reliability were a mere “red herring”, why did Mann and Jones go to the trouble of trying to dishonestly hide the “divergence problem“? If there is so much “supporting data” as to make the “divergence problem” a non-problem, why not simply site that data rather than trying a “trick” to evade the issue?
Michael Smith wants to know:
“Why do you fail to defend — or even comment on — any of these “such and such completely validated the hockey stick” claims that you put forth — after I refute them?”
-Because competent authorities on the subject have found it beyond scrutiny. Not that I don’t believe you are not competent, it’s just that I think others more competent.
Michael goes futher: “Why is it — for instance — that after I point out a very OBVIOUS problem with the proxy data — namely, the “divergence problem”, which even the promoters of tree ring studies agree is a problem — a problem that was serious enough that it lead Michael Mann and Phil Jones to deceptively “hide the decline” on their graphs — why do you ignore this evidence and simply move on to some other alleged piece of evidence?”
-Note, that all this was taken in to consideration when judgment was passed on the matter. As I stated before, Tree Ring data is just 1 proxy method. Since that time numerous other proxies were use, ALL leading to the same conclusion. So this notion that Mann’s graph fails scrutiny because tree ring proxy data has problems is a one trick pony. It’s already been played, and new acts have been added to the performance. There are a lot of questions to answer here. You’re not the only person I have to answer…..
Michael,
I am trying to keep the discussion of a scientific matter, scientific. The mistaken notion being played by the deniers is that Mann was trying to “hide” or otherwise lie. Is there any proof of this? None! The reason for the deflection is that the deniers have no science to back their claim. Hence they resort to sowing the seeds of doubt by innuendo, obfuscation, deflection, and at times a distortion of the facts.
This deflects the discussion AWAY from being a scientific discussion to a political discussion. I don’t think you want to debate the issue as much as you’d like to discredit me, in the same manner McIntyre requested Mann’s data for political rather than professional reasons. This is the way Alan I. Leshner see’s it (-in reference to the Mann/McIntyre controversy).
“Your letters, however, in their request for highly detailed information regarding not only the scientists’ recent studies but also their life’s work, give me the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding.”
- “Letter to: The Honorable Joe Barton, Chair Committee on Energy and Commerce” by Leshner, Alan I. (PhD. Chief Executive Officer American Association for the Advancement of Science)
What is really astounding is that after the biggest financial collapse was precisely caused by PhDs modelling payment performance on mortgage backed securities which were disastrously wrong, we have another set of PhDs telling us to trust their models on systems that are many orders of magnitude more complex.
In the first case we have fraud for bonuses. In anthropomorphic global warming, it’s fraud for grants. Science has become completely politicized and devoid of ethics.
David Walters,
I would love to see you drop by a real climate news site like wattsupwiththat.com and try to spew there. I know you won’t because I just witnessed your destruction here.
—-
To all the other rational people here, if you this GISS and NOAA are bad, imagine how bad other countries are with their skewing… Considering the amount of global jizya involved in this gaia based wealth distribution scheme, why would anybody trust potential recipient country to provide factual data.
Just saying.
“……drop by a real climate news site like wattsupwiththat.com and try to spew there. I know you won’t because I just witnessed your destruction here.”
-Van, don’t be too sure of your self. But really, “real” climate news, from a TV weatherman? The point is, climate science is under attack by mostly non-climate protagonists. This has been tried several times before and still, The National Academy of Science sanction’s “The Hockey Stick”. When you or Michael Smith come up with credible evidence we’ll see about my “destruction”. At this point it is a bit premature.
Thanx for the invite to “Watts Up With That?”
Ah the Climate Guild of ‘Pal Reviewers’
Everybody knows ensconced cronies run the Climate racket using public cash with strong support from companies like Beyond Petroleum. I’m sure you have the same ‘lifestyle’ maintenance motivations for the continued non-science being perpetrated by your good buddies the ‘Climate Elite’…
btw… If you think WUWT is just some weather man, you have very poor observational skills…
Perhaps you are not allowed to visit the Bane of Consensus in your country…
Ah the Climate Guild of ‘Pal Reviewers’
Everybody knows ensconced cronies run the Climate racket using public cash with strong support from companies like Beyond Petroleum. I’m sure you have the same ‘lifestyle’ maintenance motivations for the continued non-science being perpetrated by your good buddies the ‘Climate Elite’…
btw… If you think WUWT is just some weather man, you have very poor observational skills…
Perhaps you are not allowed to visit the Bane of Consensus in your country…
That the vast majority of climate scientists agree on man made global warming. I guess it does make them “ensconced cronies”. No matter that many of them have to pay their own airfare to reach remote research locations. The Media Research Center received $50,000 to keep publishing anti-global warming propaganda from Exxon/Mobile. It’s all a public relations campaign to cast doubt since so few members of the climatology community doubt the science. So they take a page from the tobacco industry in their fight against the medical science about smoking and lung cancer. As one tobacco company memo noted: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” Doubt is all you have to offer and I must say, you do it as well as Phillip Morris.
Uhhh…”vast majority?” Care to back that up, skippy? I would LOVE to see your source. Leftoid wartmers spout that one all the time with no proof offered except their own glorious word–which we are to accept as some sort of gold standard.
It really shows you have a weak-a$$ed argument when you make a blanket statement like that with absolutely NO citation to back it up. “I’m right because everyone agrees with me!”
David Walters…I’ll give you credit…if nothing else, you are a zealot to the end. Your cause is dying, but at least you’re hanging in there; heck even your high preist Algore is giving up.
Fight the good fight! (snort, guffaw)
>>Uhhh…”vast majority?” Care to back that up, skippy?<<
Uhhh, skippy's not here, but let's see what NASA says…..
"A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming."
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
-3146 Earth Scientists were surveyed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. The results were published in 2009.
"Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
…The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role."
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Temperature-wise, we are nowhere near the level of warmth extant when humanity evolved, and we are far from the level of warmth extant when the dinosaurs lived–a time, I might add, when life flourished.
Until we get to, and past that point I will not worry about ‘global warming’.
Species contractions tended to occur during periods when the planet cooled.
Climate stresses have ended other civilizations. Many of us CAN in fact live our lives. The problem is with those refugees left from drought and rising sea levels.
“Climate stresses have ended other civilizations.”
Perhaps. Exactly how many civilizations ended due to man made global warming? I’ll take a guess: zero.
“Drought and rising sea levels”. Which is is? Will the seas rise and flood the earth or will the heat cause a massive drought?
“Exactly how many civilizations ended due to man made global warming? I’ll take a guess: zero.”
-You are so right. Man made global warming is recent. But there has been long term droughts in the past that have affected civilizations, the Mayans are one example.
“Drought and rising sea levels”. Which is is? Will the seas rise and flood the earth or will the heat cause a massive drought?
-It is not only possible but likely that both can occur. AND, there will be other locations that may be wetter. Climate change doesn’t mean one stratified climate on the earth. Its just that climate zones will shift.
“Man made global warming is recent.”
Not to mention “bogus” as well as totally unprovable or measurable.
Other than that: tight analysis bro. Keep up the mediocre work.
“Climate stresses have ended other civilizations.”
You are absolutely correct, skippy. Such as when the prospering Viking colonies in Greenland, between 800 – 100 AD, were growing corn and wheat (which can’t be done today, as it’s too cold to do it there); but then, it got too freaking COLD, and the sttlements died out.
How ’bout them apples, skippy? It used to be warm enough to grow crops in Greenland, but not now. Huh? It’s almost like it used to be much warmer in 800 – 1000AD than it is now? Musta been all them Viking SUVs running around…
http://www.oswego.edu/~saraydar/331posts/Vikings%20in%20Greenland.pdf
AF_Vet,
“as it’s too cold to do it there(Greenland)…..It used to be warm enough to grow crops in Greenland, but not now. Huh? It’s almost like it used to be much warmer in 800 – 1000AD than it is now?”
-Really? Here’s an article from 2006……
But he could still have a decent harvest. He pulled 20 tons of potatoes from the earth last summer, and his harvests have been growing larger each year. “It’s already staying warm until November now,” says Egede. And if this is what faraway scientists call the greenhouse effect, it’s certainly a welcome phenomenon, as far as Egede as concerned.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html
Seems like Greenlanders have noticed something you haven’t. It IS getting noticeable warmer!
Yes, there are farmers on Greenland now, due to Global Warming, which IS man made btw!
What’ya do in the airforce? I spent a lot of time in C-130′s in making my 88 jumps with the 82nd ABN.
One of my goals is to get to see those Viking ruins, especially Halvasy Church. I also wonder if the ice as it melts is exposing more Viking artifacts. My understanding is that some if the Viking graves are still in permafrost, implying that that particular ground, which is frozen now, was thawed at some point back then.
“implying that that particular ground, which is frozen now, was thawed at some point back then.”
-Based on the article i cite above, it may well be that temps. now are as warm or warmer than 1,000yrs. ago. But it’s an interesting point to bring up; that more habitable land results as frozen places thaw. That was the thread of comments in this article of “Skeptical Science” -The Good, The Bad, The Ugly…..
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Good-The-Bad-and-The-Ugly-Effects-of-Climate-Change.html
-the upshot is that there are both negative and positive implications from global warming.
There are at least four hurdles that need to be met to support the ‘science’ of global warming, and recommend a response:
1. Evidence of synoptic (global-scale) temperature trends upward over time. Data is mixed on this, but show a slight increase, averaged worldwide over the last 100 years or so, since records have been kept. Scientists disagree on the nature and weight of this evidence (see the “Oregon Petition”). Apparently, the GW believers have some doubts as well, hence the change in terms in 2008 from “global warming” to “global climate change”.
2. Evidence that the trend is not part of a cyclic event, i.e. that taken over a longer span of time, temps will continue to rise — not slow — and then begin to decrease. Given our climate data, we cannot know this; we have to extrapolate from tree ring, glacier ice studies, etc.
3. Evidence that human activity is the proximate cause of the increase. Again, this is an unknowable; the closest science can come is correlational data, which does not exactly establish cause and effect.
4. Evidence that civilization can reduce or halt warming at the global scale. See Item 3.
When GW’s most ardent supporters (Al Gore, John Edwards, etc.) have multiple 8000+ sq. ft. homes and daily fly on their private jets, one has to wonder how firm their faith is in what they preach. And when you toss the East Anglia emails into the discussion, an honest searcher of truth can be forgiven for remaining somewhat agnostic.
Concisely put, and overall, I agree, although I think the Gore home is irrelevant. Whether or not he is a hypocrite does not change whether or not there is AGW. But in any case, I think that it is a good idea to have a somewhat higher tax on oil products, which places me in the small minority here, I know, but we are already starting to move back to trucks and SUV’s…and there are a lot of highways and bridges which need repair.
Wildhorses states:
“Data is mixed on this, but show a slight increase, averaged worldwide over the last 100 years or so, since records have been kept.”
-That is if you that the 20th century as one average. If you take it decade by decade, you’ll notice normal conditions as expected, to be followed by a sharp increase in global temps. at the end of the century continuing in to this century. This sharp uptick that the various graphs charting global temps vs. time is not what is expected from normal cycles. And no, there is no doubt associated with the term “climate change”. It merely is used to include all sorts of weather phenomenon, such as catastrophic floods, changes in growing seasons, drought, and yes, even unusual winter snowstorms.
-I won’t rebut you line for line, other than to say that the overwhelming majority of scientists in this field and related fields (Earth Sciences) agree with AGW.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Forgive me if someone has already mentioned Edward Lorenz on this discussion. He of course was the gentleman who articulated the “Butterfly Effect”. He was a mathematician/meteoroligist trying to construct a reliable model for explaining (predicting) weather phenomena. His observation that there were so many variables, and that even the most minor could have a significant effect on weather, led him to conclude that the assumption of initial conditions and of the variables made all along the way made it virtually impossible to predict weather patterns. Lorenz is also the bright mind behind Chaos Theory.
Point is, when the Weather Channel professionals can at long last construct an accurate five-day forecast, I will be open to the experts’ claims of climate change.
BTW, what ever happened to Dr. Heidi Cullen, the All-meteoroligists-who-don’t-subscribe-to-global-warming-should-have-their-credentials-pulled jihadist?
1) What was the average temperature of the Indian Ocean surface, 10 meter and 50 meter depth, 300 years ago, PLUS OR MINUS 0.5 DEGREE F ?
2) What was the average temperature of Antartica, surface, 100 meters above surface, and 1000 meters above surface, 300 years ago, PLUS OR MINUS 0.5 DEGREE F?
3) What was the average temperature of the Grand Canyon, floor, rim and 1000 meter above rim, 300 years ago, PLUS OR MINUS 0.5 DEGREES F?
Answer: NOBODY RECORDED ANYTHING IN THESE LOCATIONS 300 YEARS AGO
There is NO relevant data with which to predict these fantasy 0.1 degrees of increase, BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH DATA!
No one was recording temperature data in sufficient quantity, in sufficient volume, over the last 10,000 years to predict or model ANYTHING.
The only HONEST answer is, WE DONT KNOW SQUAT ABOUT THE CLIMATE, OTHER THAN ICE AGES AND HEAT WAVES HAVE HAPPENED ON EARTH BEFORE MAN.
This nonsense we can MEASURE, let alone PREDICT these impossibly precise 0.1 degree “trends” of the last century is completely false.
Period.
“…….The only HONEST answer is, WE DONT KNOW SQUAT ABOUT THE CLIMATE, OTHER THAN ICE AGES AND HEAT WAVES HAVE HAPPENED ON EARTH BEFORE MAN.”
-That’s exactly what proxy data tells us. In geology class, you’ll learn about the environment of deposition. This is the clues left when the sedimentary rocks are deposited. Clues can also be found in the environment about temperature that can be gleaned from pollen, or from the shells of Foraminifera. Books are written about this stuff. Maybe you get the picture, and if not do some googling. Maybe not, since that’s what probably led you to this site at PJ Media. So take a geology class at your local college.
No stone or sediment layer can tell you what the air temperature 100 feet above the stone or sediment layer was, to an accuracy of +/-0.5 degree F, to a time period of a few years. Period.
Yes, you will see/can estimate TRENDS from one extreem to the other, over LONG periods of time (centuries) but no one, NO ONE has any accurate temperature data sets of time before man, with accurate instuments, to compare todays climate “trend” against, simply because they don not exist. Period.
A sun-dial (sediment layer) is not a stopwatch (thermometer), no mater how carefully you try to use it.
Measuring split second data with todays stopwatches, and comparing them to “estimated sundial measurements” from centries ago, AND DELCARING DIFINITIVE OBSERVATIONS OF SPLIT SECOND TRENDS THAT ARE DIFFERENT TODAY THAN CENTURIES AGO….
is
just
not
possibe
Another red herring argument:
“No stone or sediment layer can tell you what the air temperature 100 feet above the stone or sediment layer was, to an accuracy of +/-0.5 degree F, to a time period of a few years. Period.”
-It isn’t necessary to predict temperature to that degree of accuracy to achieve the precision necessary to chart a TREND. A sediment layer may not tell air temperature, but it sure as hell can tell the temperature of water that one species of foraminifera lives in relative to another. This has been the underpinning of paleogeology for a long time.
As I said much earlier, Its a wag. No one can say with certainty what the earths average temperature is right now let alone 50 or 100 years ago . Its a scheme to convince us that a special group of people with the aid of computers can predict weather ( er, climate) events when they can’t tell us what the temperature is right now. Its a wild ass guess and the number keeps changing because it is NOT A STATIC number.IT IS A VARIABLE. Sorry about the shouting.
Arguing with liberals is useless.
Could somebody please shut David W. Walters up? He has hijacked this thread, and bored some of us to the brink of death. His ignorance of Climategate, Satellitegate, Amazongate, etc. is mind-boggling. What an obnoxious blowhard.
Anton,
“His ignorance of Climategate, Satellitegate, Amazongate, etc. is mind-boggling. What an obnoxious blowhard.”
-25. Alan, made the point that Mr. Horn’s article is nothing more than a red herring anyway. And the so-called ****-gates’s you mentioned are as well. The subject IS global warming that is man made, and anything else is merely doubt sowed by professional media consultants to divert attention from the facts to all these red herring arguments.
I look forward to seeing you on future climate related articles here at PJMedia (-among others). Feel free to chime in any time.
You are an ass. The whitewashes to make these scandals into nothing will someday be more infamous than the scandals themselves. These scandals are not red herrings, they are hard evidence of fraudulence.
Anyone who has read the climategate e-mails and the file from the programmer charged with trying to sort out the CRU programs knows full well that everyone involved is guilty of deceit, and that Michael Mann is a crook, not an honorable scientist. Penn State’s investigation–which consisted of appointing colleagues of Mann’s with NO scientific training–to “investigate” claims of wrongdoing will be a laughingstock for generations to come. Given that Penn State receives tens of millions of dollars annually for its fake climate change research, what else would one expect? But, you, along with others involved in the deception, are now involved in an orchestrated campaign to mitigate the damage.
Forget it. I, along with millions of others, actually DID read the CRU e-mails (which you did not), and as a former believer in man made global warming, I will never go back. You and your side lied, and lied, and lied for years, and now you find yourself on the losing side of public opinion. That’s where you belong. You are a liar, a fanatic, and a crackpot.
Anton
Anton,
Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. The way science works is that different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about it. But there are ethical standards governing professionals in the scientific and engineering community. If data is falsified, it is a serious breech, and NO non-partisan committee or investigative council has found what you assert to be true.
Climate scientists are well aware of the politics behind the deniers. That people such as Steve McIntyre, who are more interested in grinding his political ax than the pursuit of knowledge DID gain the enmity of many climate scientists is no big suprise to me. This ongoing political war between the deniers and climate scientists was the reason why Dr. Alan I. Lesher, CEO of American Association for the Advancement of Science wrote The Honerable Joe Barton, Chair Committee on Energy and Commerce the following:
“Your letters, however, in their request for highly detailed information regarding not only the scientists’ recent studies but also their life’s work, give me the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding.”
And this is the point of the leaked e-mails…..it is merely to cast doubt where there is NO science to back up your premise.
“….hat Michael Mann is a crook, not an honorable scientist.”
-Along with all the scientists who did follow up studies supporting Mann? Don’t be silly. Oh, perhaps George Soros is behind all of this and threatens to cut of their research grants if they do not do his bidding. I am sorry you believe in conspiracy theories. It is a free country after all. I’m an ass? Really, grow up.
Climate Change is natural… And if man is helping the earth by warming it, lets just pray it’s enough to postpone or soften the onset of the next ice age…
The fact that there is a CAGW squatter on this thread means the ‘ensconced cronies’ are in desperation mode…
Whomever LEAKED the emails and codes last November has precipitated the fall of a propaganda empire of Gaia proportions…
Thank You…
CLIMATEGATE WHISTLE BLOWER FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Climate change IS natural. But just think for a moment (hypothetically) that if we are in a naturally occurring cool period and we force these natural temperatures upward by man made activities, what will happen when the warm cycle comes?
One thing I didn’t understand in this article: Was NOAA consistent in it’s use of extrapolations across years? In other words, did they do the same corrections in 1995 as they did in 2010, or is this a new technique they are using? (Although I will have to admit I dont know why they would try to extrapolate on data they don’t have. To me it would make more sense to leave it out altogether).
Let’s just assume for a second that global warming is indeed a left wing conspiracy. It seems many posters on this site would gladly agree to that. Can anyone really tell me that it’s good for the environment and our health to burn coal and petroleum products? Hardly. Increased levels of localized ozone, acid rain and poor air quality are all reasons to decrease dependence on fossil fuels. Coal plants are one of the largest producers of mercury and pale in comparison to CFLS.
David W. Walters,
I’ll give you kudos for responding to most who disagree with your claims. Though commenters robotech monster and Michael Smith covered much of what I wish to respond with.. and then some. Albeit your comment on temperature data incorporating ‘satellite data’ for validity.
It’s widely known the sat data pertaining to temperatures can be fudged rather easily. For satellite, like most equipment needs calibration early and often. Sat data’s temp set can be manipulated, or in NASA-speak ‘smoothed’ quite easily. Not an opinion, but a fact.
Secondly, if we are indeed en route to a warming trend rivaling/beating out the medieval period – can we expect a plethora of medieval period England vineyards to be open for business once again? Will Greenland shed its thick ice sheet again? Just curious.
“It’s widely known the sat data pertaining to temperatures can be fudged rather easily. For satellite, like most equipment needs calibration early and often. Sat data’s temp set can be manipulated, or in NASA-speak ’smoothed’ quite easily. Not an opinion, but a fact.”
-I think I spoke about sat. data in reference to measuring the wavelength of radiation sensitive to the various greenhouse gasses (-they all reflect different wavelengths). I don’t know how calibration or a lack thereof will affect something that is not measured absolutely, but measured relatively. That’s the best I can do for now, but I’ll see. But what worries me is the word “fudged” which implies making up data, which is a serious charge. Any professional organization has standards that their members must adhere to.
“The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change”- was the title of a thread in this mornings Skeptical Science. This is exactly the discussion on the comments at the end of the article.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
The truth can be discussed and dissected here now but the real purpose of the bogus information, the headline, went through in June. I recall no media questioning or examination of the data, just a lurid headline followed by overgroomed talking heads declaring us all doomed.
David Walters asks:
McShane and Wyner and others in trying to refute Mann still keep showing the observed data (recorded temps) matching the proxy generated model. Why is that?
You just don’t get it, do you?
Michael Mann and other “hockey stick” creators universally employ one of two methods to insure that the proxy-generated model matches the observed data and gives a “hockey stick”:
They either:
1) Simply ignore and omit proxies that fail to confirm the recent observations. I’ve already given you two examples of this: Mann’s ignoring of Ababneh’s update of the Sheep Mountain bristle-cone pine data. See here: http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/31/more-mystery-at-sheep-mountain/ And Briffa’s ignoring of the Polar Urals tree ring series that utterly disagrees with his Yamal series.
Or:
2)They include many, many proxies that DO NOT match the observed temperature trends along with a few that do — and then use various statisical methods that apply great weight to those proxies that match the observations and very, very little weight to proxies that DO NOT match the observations. See here for details on how this is done:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
If you read that article, you will see that in a Michael Mann proxy reconstruction used to generate a “hockey stick”, a tree ring series that DOES match the observations and hence gives a “hockey stick” is given 390 times the weight of another tree ring study that DOES NOT match the observations thus gives NO “hockey stick”.
So all of these allegedly “independent” studies “stack the deck” with one of two ways of insuring that the proxy-generated model matches the observations and shows a “hockey stick”.
This is pure cherry-picking of data to generate a desired result. And it proves nothing.
Michael,
You need to hurry and tell it to:
* American Association for the Advancement of Science
* American Astronomical Society
* American Chemical Society
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* American Meteorological Society
* American Physical Society
* Australian Coral Reef Society
* Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
* British Antarctic Survey
* Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* Environmental Protection Agency
* European Federation of Geologists
* European Geosciences Union
* European Physical Society
* Federation of American Scientists
* Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
* Geological Society of America
* Geological Society of Australia
* International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
* International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Royal Meteorological Society
* Royal Society of the UK
-These scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”. (-http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm)
Maybe they haven’t heard of the problem with the tree ring proxy data that has you so upset.
David, you know nothing about logic. Argument from “authority” is one of foremost logical fallacies. You are an idiot as well as a liar.
Anton,
“Argument from “authority” is one of foremost logical fallacies”….
The fallacy arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and thus should be exempted from criticism. When such an argument comes from an individual source, yes it is a fallacy. If I were to say global warming is real because Jim Hansen said it is, then I’d be guilty of this fallacy. No one is exempting any of these authorities from criticism. But taken as a whole, representing such a broad consensus on this particular subject, the conclusion to any rational person is that AGW is real. And you would NOT be committing the “authority” fallacy. I guess you’d now retort that they are all a “cabal” or something, right?
They all believed in Piltdown Man, too. And let’s not forget the moon man hoax that a majority of the world’s scientific organizations accepted in the mid 19th century.
You could quote a thousand authorities, and it wouldn’t make them right or you right either. Argument from authority is absurd; so is argument from consensus. Since your side has never presented a single piece of empirical evidence supporting the notion that man-produced CO2 is warming the planet–models and theories are not evidence–and since your side routinely “adjusts” world temperature readings to make them fit the theory, rather than change the theory to fit the readings–it is obvious that you are True Believers, not investigators, with personal interests in the outcome. Could it be that trillion dollar carbon trading flim-flam Gore and Obama are pushing, and from which they and their friends stand to make billions?
As for cabals, I think the term nicely fits many of the organizations and groups on Wall Street–the same ones funding the global warming scare and doing everything in their power to get cap and trade passed because they will make trillions trading a non-existent commodity. If you don’t trillions of dollars can shape science and political policy, you are an even bigger idiot than I suspected.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/i-was-once-a-green-who-believed-in-man-made-global-warming/
“Since your side has never presented a single piece of empirical evidence supporting the notion that man-produced CO2 is warming the planet–models and theories are not evidence…..”–Anton
-Ok, you want studies with empirical data?
-Oxygen levels are falling while the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you’d expect from fossil fuel burning combining the carbon from burning w/ atmospheric oxygen….
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/icdc7/proceedings/abstracts/keeling.rFF328Oral.pdf
-Another consequence of greenhouse warming is that the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) is warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratophere) is cooling…..
http://www.math.nyu.edu/%7Egerber/pages/documents/santer_etal-science-2003.pdf
-If the sun was heating the earth instead of CO2, daytime temps. would be expected to remain relatively higher than nite-time temps. What is found is that the opposite is true, in line with what CO2 induced AGW would bring….
http://www.met.sjsu.edu/%7Ewittaya/journals/diurnalTempRange.pdf
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=706
-A recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes burning fossil fuels….
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5744/2204
- Heat is re-radiating to the earth’s surface. This is confirmed by surface measurements , observing more downward infrared radiation at CO2 wavelengths. the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths….
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
“this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
Anton wrote “Since your side has never presented a single piece of empirical evidence supporting the notion that man-produced CO2 is warming the planet–models and theories are not evidence–”
But here is our catch 22. We know that all glaciers in North America are shrinking and we know there is more CO2 in the atmosphere each year, but, alas, that is just circumstantial evidence. I’m not sure what empirical evidence could be showed if CO2 induced AGW is actually happening.
The jury is still out and the jury certainly could have reasonable doubts, which by the way, does not prove that it is not happening, just that the case has not been proved. A lot of “believer” would prefer to err on the side of caution, a lot of deniers feel the same way; the problem is; they are just cautious about very different things.
Dwight,
“The jury is still out and the jury certainly could have reasonable doubts, which by the way, does not prove that it is not happening, just that the case has not been proved.”
-The jury is out with respect to public opinion about AGW. The science is proven. I’ve stated prior that over 80% of Earth Scientists in general and 97% of climatologists in particular understand the relationship between Co2 and global warming. It would therefore seem to be a public relations issue, and scientists aren’t adept at that.
But it doesn’t matter what the cause is, if we understand the problem and what will result from global warming. Higher sea levels and more extreme weather events are just 2 concerns that will impact society. In light of insurance giant Munich RE’s concern about weather disasters being driven by global warming, it is just prudent to begin to plan ahead, regardless of the cause, either natural or man made. They understand that insurance claims will rise with the change in climate.
My impression of James Hansen is that he (quoting columnist Noel Sheppard) may well play “…ENRON accounting games with climate data”
I have read that Hansen tweaks & exaggerates in the spirit of a holier-than-thou guy saving we the dumb earthlings from ourselves. I’ve also read that NOAA has selectively used weather data, emphasizing that data collected from hotspot weather stations.
Exposes of the activities of recently re-hired East Anglia guy Phil Jones and the angry Michael Mann have torqued the entire “warming” debate.
Any and all claims about AGW and “science” need to be seen with an eye beyond jaundiced.
I do agree – LDL is nothing but unsafe kinds of cholesterol which is certainly not nice for the body.