By Joe D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow
The pressure has been mounting. The public doubt about global warming has been increasing in the past year given Climategate, and how promises of warm snowless winters failed. After cold and snowy winters in 2007/08 and 2008/09, the winter of 2009/10 was the coldest ever in parts of the southeast, and in parts of Siberia and the coldest since 1977/78 or 1962/63 in many parts of the United States, Europe and Asia. This past December was the second coldest in the entire Central England Temperature record extending back to 1659.
It was the coldest ever December in diverse locations like Ireland, Sweden, and Florida. Reluctantly, alarmists changed their tune and the promise of warm and snowless winters as recent as 4 years ago morphed into global warming means cold and snowy winters.
…
NASA/NOAA homogenization process has been shown to significantly alter the trends in many stations where the siting and rural nature suggest the data is reliable. In fact, adjustments account for virtually all the trend in the data. Unadjusted data for the best sites/rural shows cyclical multi-decadal variations but no net long term trend as former NASA scientist Dr. Ed Long showed here (PDF). He showed however that after adjustment, the rural data trend was made consistent with the urban data set with an artificial warming introduced.
Steve McIntyre demonstrates what NASA GISS has been up to since their Y2K bug:
For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“alarmists changed their tune and the promise of warm and snowless winters as recent as 4 years ago morphed into global warming means cold and snowy winters.”
Can you provide some names and references, please?
If one looks at this graph in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RSS_troposphere_stratosphere_trend.png
it looks like the entire global warming/cooling for the past 30 years is centered around the earth’s magnetic poles.
how can this be explained by co2?
there is no warming in the unadjusted data and the adjustments follow no logical reasoning … pushing rural temperatures DOWN makes no sense …
garbage in …
Once again Joe D’Aleo is right on top of the mischief from NASA and NOAA — which sounds a lot like the mischief at the Met Office as well. What happens when a cyclical temperature trend turns out to be Cyclical and not supportive of your government grant rationale? You “normalize” the data so the trend no longer appears to be cyclical, but manmade. Sooner or later the Congress (or a new administration) is going to understand that the biggest violation of the Data Quality Act is in the temperature data and will (hopefully) force a reissuance of official data that will show cyclicality and not any AGW. At that point, the entire facade of AGW will come apart and everyone will declare the Emporer has no clothes. Which will probably mean a lot of “climate scientists” will either be re-writing their grant applications or looking for new work. At least one can dream, right?
This is excellent work.
Given all of the aggressiveness of “adjustments” which have always been made and the obvious existence of the UHI, why do so many skeptics believe that the planet is actually warming?
This madness won’t stop until these unscientific adjustments are fully exposed through congressional hearings. Calling the 112th congress…….let’s get it rolling!!!
After 26″ of new snow at Breckenridge in the last 24 hours, their total for the year is already 262″, a mere 38″ from their marketing average of 300″ per year, and it’s still January with two weeks till February (normally the 2nd snowiest month of the year, followed by March, the snowiest.) Suzy Chaffee and her global warming commercials about less snow seem rather silly now.
Mark
Their objectives remain unchanged, and we’ll have to accept them willfully or not ….:
http://www.earthsummit2012.org/index.php/assessing-progress-beta
http://www.green-agenda.com/
SPPI is a fake “science” organization. Their Virginia address is only a P.O. box in a shopping center store.
This same organization also is connected to a fake “Evangelical” organizaton whose head sometimes claims to be a minister and sometimes a physicist.
And now Kent Clizbe, who claims to be an ex-CIA operative, is stalking Dr. Michael Mann and offering a milti-million-dollar bounty to rat him out. Kent Clizbe does not speak for the CIA.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2011/01/kooky-kent-clizbe-does-not-speak-for.html
This is getting annoying because many climate scientists have security clearances and cooperate with the CIA on global warming. They have access to national reconnissance systems.
Just think what it could be like if we had sprayed SO2 ( or was it H2SO2?) into the atmosphere to prevent the nonexistent warming as was recently suggested by one US government wonk.
ge0050 says:
January 18, 2011 at 9:46 am
If one looks at this graph in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RSS_troposphere_stratosphere_trend.png
it looks like the entire global warming/cooling for the past 30 years is centered around the earth’s magnetic poles.
how can this be explained by co2?
______
GCM’s have always shown the poles to warm more rapidly than the equator when factoring in the rises in GHG’s. This is the famous (or infamous) “polar amplfication” caused in part by the melting of sea ice which opens up more open water which absorbs more sunlight, causing more warming etc. The N. Pole in particular has been shown to warm faster in the GCM’s than the S. Pole for several reasons. The first being the fact that the S. Pole is a huge continenent covered by a huge slab of ice and thus it will take a lot more warming to melt that ice, but the second reason is the fact that the Southern Ocean acts as a much larger open heat sink taking in the warmth more readily than the relatively closed and smaller Arctic Ocean. The fact that so many AGW skeptics don’t understand the basics of polar amplication or talk endlessly about why the S. Pole is not responding the same way the N. Pole is tells me they haven’t really taken the time to look at the science (or perhaps really don’t care?) as to why all the GCM’s show the poles to warm faster than the lower latitudes (with the N. Pole faster than the S. Pole for reasons given above).
Does no politician (or researcher ) read this blog – the best and most informative science blog bar none. If they did the last six posts – including Peterson – would convince them that cAgw is at best a severe exaggeration and at worst a fraud.
Yet another nail in the coffin of the stupidest hypothesis in science history.
Where are the MSM investigative journalists – it really feels like a conspiracy of silence.
“GCM’s have always shown the poles to warm more rapidly than the equator”
If you look at the diagram however, it is not the geographic poles that are changing. It is the magnetic poles. This cannot be explained by CO2 as CO2 is not magnetically charged.
This poster has sent prior info from this site to Congressman Ralph Hall, R Texas.
Ralph is committee chair now of the House Science and technology Committee.
I will send and many of you who post here should also send a fax or e-mail to he and other members of the committee, to include the Democrats as they seem more into crossing the isles just now.
contact info
http://ralphhall.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=44§iontree=44
Ralph flew off carriers in the Pacific in WWII , he is not afraid, in fact some say he runs 4 miles a day ever day he has a chance still.
I know him myself. He has the eyes that say no fear.
This Apache knows.
They need to ditch as many urban stations as possible, and rely heavily on rural sites as there is no accurate means to assess for UHI therefore ALL data from theses sites are inevitably corrupt. Of course this wouldn’t suit their agenda so it won’t happen, but in an ideal world where climate scientist are only interested in the truth, it should.
Mark T says:
January 18, 2011 at 10:02 am
“Marketing average”? What a cool term, could be obfuscated and added to the three m’s – mean, median, mode, and markit.
Does anyone know if they do tax returns?
R. Gates says:
“The fact that so many AGW skeptics don’t understand the basics of polar amplication or talk endlessly about why the S. Pole is not responding the same way the N. Pole is tells me they haven’t really taken the time to look at the science (or perhaps really don’t care?) as to why all the GCM’s show the poles to warm faster than the lower latitudes (with the N. Pole faster than the S. Pole for reasons given above).”
No comment re: the data for rural vs non-rural temperatures? Guess those cities don’t produce any heat. Only right we should “adjust” those rural temps to show warming in the name of real science.
R. Gates says:
January 18, 2011 at 10:11 am
ge0050 says:
January 18, 2011 at 9:46 am
If one looks at this graph in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RSS_troposphere_stratosphere_trend.png
it looks like the entire global warming/cooling for the past 30 years is centered around the earth’s magnetic poles.
how can this be explained by co2?
______
GCM’s have always shown the poles to warm more rapidly than the equator when factoring in the rises in GHG’s. This is the famous (or infamous) “polar amplfication” caused in part by the melting of sea ice which opens up more open water which absorbs more sunlight, causing more warming etc.
======================================================
Yes, and if anyone had thought about it for a moment, is fallacy. Right now, the Arctic is moving toward it’s high point of ice/snow coverage. But is still below the baseline. POP QUIZ!!! How much less albedo effect is occurring now as opposed to 30 years ago in the arctic?
Well, none. You have to have light to reflect light. The arctic could be ice free right now and it wouldn’t make a tinker darns worth of difference. The light (heat) shines on the arctic when its at its ebb in terms of ice content. The polar amplification was improperly amplified.
Hansen has stated that terrorism and violence are justified in the pursuit of his public policy preferences. So surely he must also be capable of rationalizing a belief that tampering with data is acceptable so long as it is in the service of (what he perceives to be) the noble cause.
I second Dr T G Watkins the same thing is happening in australia thay are snake oil peddlers
But R Gates you cant have it both ways open water in the south keeps things from warming up but in the north open water warms things up. Which is it? Besides when the major melt that occurred in 2007 NASA made the a point of telling repeatedly that most of what happened up there was because of the wind direction being somewhat unusual.
Ric Werme says:
January 18, 2011 at 10:25 am
Yes. I think if you actually calculate the AMS data (I do not recall where, but I found it all once) the number is significantly lower. Ski resorts tend to pick areas on the mountain – above the base – that point in the direction of the most favorable snowfall totals. While riding up the front lifts at Copper Mountain, for example, even during very snowy periods, you can’t help but notice the opposite facing slope (across I-70) that has nothing on it, both from increased sushine and simply less snowfall.
There’s also the issue of snow to water ratio, which tends to be very high in Colorado, so adding 10″ from March to 10″ from January doesn’t make much sense realistically, but that is beyond the scope of the terminology I used. It is worth noting that this 26″ was a very low ratio snowfall (and hard to ski, I’m pooped today.) Keystone, which you can see from Breckenridge, only got 4″ in the last 24 hours, interestingly enough.
Mark
[trimmed, at writer’s request Robt]
Moderators
Can you please not post my earlier comment but post this comment instead (my observation was posted in the middle of a quoted passage – not after the quoted passage.
Thanks
richard verney says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 18, 2011 at 11:02 am
James Sexton says:
January 18, 2011 at 10:35 am
“…Yes, and if anyone had thought about it for a moment, is fallacy. Right now, the Arctic is moving toward it’s high point of ice/snow coverage. But is still below the baseline. POP QUIZ!!! How much less albedo effect is occurring now as opposed to 30 years ago in the arctic?
Well, none. You have to have light to reflect light. The arctic could be ice free right now and it wouldn’t make a tinker darns worth of difference. The light (heat) shines on the arctic when its at its ebb in terms of ice content. The polar amplification was improperly amplified.”
————————————–
As far as albedo is concerned, it is the areal extent of ice in May, June and July that is most important.