The Temperature claims of 2010

By Dr. David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation

Now that the relevant data for the temperature of the Earth’s surface for the past year are available, it is instructive to examine the claims made by some that it was the hottest year ever, and claims made by others that it was in second place.

One way of looking at the year’s data we have used before is to see how the individual months fare. This is only one way of interpreting the data, there are others, but this way will show if any record temperature is a result of a general yearlong rise or just a few exceptional months.

These five temperature databases I examine give the monthly temperature to thousandths of a degree which is superfluous. When rounded up to a more physically sensible 0.1 deg almost all of the differences between the years of the past decade go away, but that is another story, and not the subject of this post.

2010 was an El Nino year. Before I examine the monthly temperature for the year I thought it would be instructive to see what an El Nino year looks like. In this case the strongest El Nino on record.

1998

Data from Hadcrut3 produced by the Climatic Research Unit.

January; (at the time the warmest on record) cooler than 07, 04, 03, 02.

February; warmest on record.

March; (at the time the warmest on record) cooler than 10, 02.

April; warmest on record.

May; warmest on record.

June; warmest on record.

July; warmest on record.

August; warmest on record.

September; (at the time the warmest on record) cooler than 09, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01.

October; (at the time cooler than 97) cooler than 09, 08, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 97.

November; (at the time cooler than 97) cooler than 10, 09, 08, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 97.

December; (at the time cooler than 97) cooler than 06, 03, 97.

 

The data shows just how exceptional was 1998 (and 1997). Nine months broke a record, and the other three were close. The warm Spring is typical of El Nino.

The subsequent warm decade has altered things somewhat. We see that even for the hottest year on record, by most global temperature datasets, half of the months of the year were unexceptional in the context of the recent (and warmest) decade. 1998 now has the top 4 of the warmest months on record, and another entry in the top ten. Curiously, in the top ten warmest months, only two are after 2002 (Jan 07 in 6th place and March 10 in 10th.)

For comparison consider a non-El Nino year.

 

2003

January; cooler that 07, 02.

February; cooler than 10, 07, 06, 04, 02, 99, 98.

March; cooler than 10, 08, 07, 05, 04, 02, 01, 98.

April; cooler than 10, 07, 05, 04, 02, 01, 00, 98.

May; cooler than 10, 05, 02, 98.

June; cooler than 10, 09, 05, 02, 98.

July; cooler than 10, 09, 06, 05, 02, 98.

August; 09,98.

September; warmest on record.

October; warmest on record.

November; 10, 09, 08, 05, 04, 01, 97.

December; cooler than 97.

 

The differences are clear.

Moving onto 2010 there are five temperature databases to examine.

 

Dataset: Crut3v

 

January; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 00, 99.

February; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 03, 01, 00.

March; warmest on record.

April; cooler than 07, 05.

May; cooler than 03, 98.

June; warmest on record.

July; cooler than 06, 05, 98.

August; cooler than 09, 01, 98.

September; cooler than 09, 07, 05.

October; cooler than 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 98.

November; cooler than 05, 04.

December; cooler than 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 99, 98, 97, 96, 94, 93, 90, 89, 88, 87, 81, 79, 39,1852.

 

Note: Two record months, though not statistically significant.  El Nino warmth in Spring. La Nina cooling later in the year.

2010 overall; cooler than 2005, 1998.

 

Dataset: Hadcrut3 from CRU

 

January; cooler than 07, 04, 03, 02.

February; cooler than 07, 02, 99, 98.

March; cooler than 02.

April; cooler than 98.

May; cooler than 98.

June; cooler than 98.

July; cooler than 05, 98.

August; cooler than 06, 05, 03, 01, 98.

September; cooler than 09, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 98,97.

October; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 05, 04, 03, 98, 97.

November; cooler than 09, 06, 05, 04, 01, 97.

December; cooler than 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 99, 98, 97, 92, 87, 79.

 

Note: No single month broke a record. Warm Spring evidence of El Nino.

2010 overall; cooler than 2005, 1998, equivalent to 2003.

 

“Met Office” Hadcrut3

(the Met Office also has a database it calls Hadcrut3 which it calculates a different way from CRU)

 

Jan; cooler that 07, 04, 03, 02, 98.

Feb; cooler than 07, 04, 02, 99, 98.

March; cooler than 02.

April; cooler than 98.

May; cooler than 98.

June; cooler than 98.

July; cooler than 98.

August; cooler than 09, 06, 05, 03, 01, 98.

September; cooler than 09, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 98.

October; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 05, 04, 03, 98.

November; cooler than 05, 04, 01.

December; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 99, 98, 97.

 

Note 5 warm months in the Northern Hemisphere Spring – sign of a strong El Nino. No single month broke a record.

2010 overall; cooler than 1998.

 

Dataset: NOAA

 

January; cooler than 07, 03, 02.

February; cooler than 04, 02, 99, 98.

March; warmest on record.

April; warmest on record.

May; warmest on record.

June; cooler than 05.

July; cooler than 05, 98.

August; cooler than 09, 06, 05, 03,02.

September; cooler than 09, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 98.

October; cooler than 09, 08, 06. 05, 04, 03, 02.

November; cooler than 04.

December; cooler than 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 99, 98, 97, 94, 90, 87, 82, 79.

 

Note: Three record months, though not statistically significant. Evidence of El Nino warmth in Spring.

The NOAA Press Release said 2010 tied with 2005. However, the quoted errors are +/- 0.07 which means that 2010 is statistically equivalent to 09,08,07,06,05,04,03,02,01,98.

Note that in the NOAA dataset 2010 is 2nd warmest land temperature and 3rd warmest ocean temperature.

 

Dataset: NasaGiss

 

January; cooler than 07, 05, 02.

February; cooler than 98.

March; cooler than 02.

April; warmest on record.

May; cooler 98.

June; cooler than 09, 05, 98.

July; cooler than 09, 08, 07, 05, 02, 01, 98.

August; cooler than 09, 01, 98.

September; cooler than 09, 06, 05, 03, 98.

October; cooler than 05, 03.

November; warmest on record.

December; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 05, 04, 03, 01, 99, 97.

 

Note: Evidence of warm El Nino Spring. Record warmest months not statistically significant.

According to NasaGiss 2010 set a record with only two record months.

NASA Press Release said 2010 tied with 2005 which at a temperature anomaly of 0.63 was 0.01 above 2005. The Press Release went on to say that 1998 was in third place with 09,07,06,03 and 02. However, the reality is that 1998 and the other years are statistically equivalent being spread over a range of 0.03 deg C within the errors of 2010 and 2005. NasaGiss is thus statistically equivalent to no change since 1998 (note that in 2005 NasaGiss announced that 2005 was a dead heat with 1998. In 2007 they put 1998 behind 2005.)

Many press reports said that 2010 was a near-record breaking year despite the cooling influence of a La Nina later in the year. What was omitted however was mention of the fact that the reason why the year was marginally warmer than previous years was because of the warming El Nino.

Contrary to press reports the evidence is that 2010 was a year no different from all of the years 2001-2009 with the exception of a moderate to strong El Nino that elevated temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere’s Spring, and a cooling La Nina later in the year. The standstill seen in global temperatures since 2001 continues.

Finally, the temperature anomalies for the past 13 years.

 

Year Met Office Hadcrut CRU Hadcrut CRUTem Giss NOAA
2010 0.50 0.47 0.71 0.63 0.62
2009 0.44 0.44 0.64 0.58 0.56
2008 0.31 0.33 0.53 0.44 0.48
2007 0.40 0.40 0.68 0.58 0.55
2006 0.43 0.43 0.67 0.55 0.56
2005 0.47 0.47 0.75 0.62 0.62
2004 0.43 0.44 0.61 0.48 0.54
2003 0.47 0.47 0.65 0.55 0.58
2002 0.46 0.46 0.66 0.56 0.58
2001 0.40 0.41 0.55 0.47 0.52
2000 0.24 0.28 0.36 0.33 0.39
1999 0.26 0.30 0.49 0.32 0.42
1998 0.52 0.53 0.82 0.56 0.60

 

Note; Met Office Hadcrut, CRU Hadcrut and CRUTem are all with respect to 1961–90. Giss is 1951-80. NOAA 1901-2000.

Met Office Hadcrut

Cru Hadcrut

CruTem

Giss

Noaa

Feedback: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.org

About these ads

85 thoughts on “The Temperature claims of 2010

  1. How much more can the man-made global warming crowd take before they cry Uncle!? Some people just have to learn the hard way.

    Video in link.
    “ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry is asking residents to turn their thermostats down to help the state curb its current natural gas shortage.

    Berry is asking residents to turn their thermostats down 10 degrees and wear heavier clothing to ease the state’s gas problems.

    Around 7 a.m. Thursday, the city of Albuquerque was notified of statewide gas pressure issues, Berry said. The gas company said there was a potential to have 10,000-20,000 homes without gas because of the pressure issues.”

    http://www.koat.com/r/26731189/detail.html

  2. people will believe what they want to be true, or what they are afraid might be true — from the Sword of Truth, Terry Goodkind

  3. Why is it big news that today’s temperatures are a few hundreths or tenths of a degree warmer than last year or last decade, when the GISP2 ice core temperature data shows the Medieval Period about a 1,000 years ago 1.2C higher than today, the Roman Period 2,100 years ago 2.4C higher than today, and the Minoan Period 3,300 years ago 3.0C higher than today (Alley, JQSR, 19, 213-226). In fact, for about 46% of the time during the last 600,000,000 years, temperatures were at 22C, about 5.5C higher than today (PALEOTEMP). Why are some scientists myopic about hundreths or tenths of a degC for the last few years/decades? The trend for thousands of years is clear – we are getting colder.

  4. No matter how any data set is sliced or diced for any particular year, the argument that the year is the warmest/coolest is meaningful only in the context of temperature variations over supra-centennial scales in an UNADULTERATED time-series. None of the series cited here fits that description, nor does that of the much-too-brief satellite monitoring. Thus we are left with sensationalization of natural variablity as seen through the prism of the data biases and uncertainties. Inasmuch as year-to year variability of individual months is even greater than yearly averages, that problem is only exacerbated by undue attention to monthly records.

  5. There is a plateau. Clearly, it has not been enough to terrify the American people. The English are another matter. Can Hansen keep his finger off the scale? I think that good old rad-liberal over-reach will pop the old temperature right on up to another plateau. Get ready for a record setting year.

    Please note that with all of the power of the US government behind him, all Hansen can manage is .1 degree per decade. What amazes me is that anyone takes this foolishness seriously. Of course, maybe he will push it up to .2 or .3 degrees. Why not? Only he and minions have access to the data and, for that reason, there is nothing to lose.

  6. OUCH !!!!

    Way to many numbers for me to follow/keep track of !!

    This is what I come away with:

    “These five temperature databases I examine give the monthly temperature to thousandths of a degree which is superfluous. When rounded up to a more physically sensible 0.1 deg almost all of the differences between the years of the past decade go away, …..”

    Not to mention whatever superfluous adjustments are made !!!

    Good post !!

  7. I wonder if this Dr David Whitehouse is the noted astronomer and former BBC science correspondent.

  8. Well you have to distinguish between “feeling warm” and “being warm” as in a higher temperature range.

    So you’ve had a nice hot day (locally) and plenty of sun, and a good bit of humifity, and around sundown clouds start to condense at higher altitudes; and you have a nice balmy night.

    So you do your morning calisthenics, and then set off to work. The sun has just risen over the horizon, and already you feel overly warm. But what does the Thermometer say; is it really warm, or do you just feel warm.

    When the humidity is up, you are going to feel warm regardless of whether the temperature is high or not. You body is trying to get rid of excess heat after your big breakfast and quick workout; but because of the humidity, your evaporative cooling system just doesn’t work.

    The subjective feeling of warmth, is no indication of increased temperatures. It is almost a certainty that the early morning Temperature is well down from what it was the night before at sundown, yet you still think it is hot.

  9. This is issue is the perfect example of the way language is used to influence
    people’s thinking … hot! hotter!! hottest!! … as if we are all about to burst into
    flames. Sadly, the sceptical lobby concedes ground to the Warmists, by debating
    whether 2010 was the ‘hottest’ year, which acquiesces to the linguistic chicanery.

    Translate all these various findings to absolute temperatures: nothing ‘hot’
    at all about them !!

  10. Dr. David Whitehouse,

    Thank you for your calm reasonable presentation of the past 13 years of Earth surface temperatures ending in 2010 for the major data sets.

    From the data my understanding is that 2010 was not the warmest.

    John

  11. I have no idea (except for political ideologies and scientific grants) why we should be worried about warming temperatures anyway. As any farmer and fisherman can tell you, warmer weather and higher CO2 has given us far more benefits over the last 12 years with regards to improved yields and quality of primary produce.
    Our quality of life is also much better when it is warmer, which is why there are so many ‘grey nomads’ traveling the north in OZ during winter, and people moving to Queensland. Even Florida and Spain where Northern Hemisphere nomads retire, seem much too cold the last couple of winters.
    I live in the tropics, and the warmer weather (resulting from warmer East Indian Ocean temps) has been a huge benefit, with many more ‘good’ wet seasons than the past, despite little change in long term temperature averages.

  12. Hope you like the current temperatures. All the warmists want us to live with the heat from the late 70’s, which according to UAH we are at now.

  13. There is an old saying that if you have a clock, you can tell what time it is. If you have two clocks, you’re not really sure of the time. With five or six clocks (or thermometers) you are even less sure of the time (or temperature.)

    So, the holders of multiple measurement devices tend to drift off and allow their biases to govern their opinion of actual values.

    Dr. Whitehouse has come closest I’ve seen to coming up with probable actuals.

  14. Here’s a quick hypothetical question;

    Why shouldn’t the AGW proponents simply say whatever they wish? What are the actual negative consequences for doing so, when they’ll still have legions of followers hanging on every word?

    This post is about science, and math, and the attempt to pin down some facts as best we can. But the AGW debate doesn’t particularly seem to revolve around science, math, or facts.

    I think the backlash in 2-3 years will be of epic proportions.

  15. The whole notion of “warmest year” strikes me as irrelevant. Somebody didn’t suddenly turn up the furnace (sun) so if the insolation didn’t change the temperature increase that was seen in the atmosphere and the sea surface came from the oceanic heat sink. At the end of the year if the temperature was lower then the heat went “somewhere” and there are only two places it could go: radiated away or reabsorbed into the oceanic heat sink. Hence the real question is what was the total heat content of the atmosphere/aquasphere at the beginning of the year and what was it at the end. If it was equal to or less than the heat at the beginning then the temps in between are irrelevant. All that would have been measured by temperature is “noise” with heat being transferred from one sink in the system to another or radiated away.

  16. It is irrelevant to claim the transitional months (spring and fall) are “warmer” or “cooler” than “normal”. If the winter is warmer, with a normal summer, spring MUST also be warmer because it has less temperature difference to go. (it’s not physically possible for there to be a cooler than normal spring after a warmer than normal winter). The only months in the Northern Hemesphere that count for any trend is Summer Tmax-Tmin, and Winter Tmax-Tmin.

  17. to thousandths of a degree which is superfluous. When rounded up to a more physically sensible 0.1 deg

    If you round everything up from top to bottom in the process you can make several years ‘hottest ever’. Or, if you start with few rounding ups and incrementally add more rounding ups year by year you can, conceivably, create continual warming. If you are an environmental activist with access to the data it is possible you would do this.

  18. Temperature is, as Temperature does. 
    Forest Gump Misquote.
    When 100 year events recur annually, when unprecedented morphs into “not for ages” isn’t it time to call halt to modern science?
    When, if and maybe, perhaps and likely are elevated to the ranks of data isn’t it time we just started blaming witches again?
    I’d say no but only if we redefine Science as to what it once was. Data, observation and hypothesis. Not digital curve fitting, not simplistic single variable extrapolations, not even self-flagellating fantasies that transport us to exotic locations on other peoples money.
    Just cold and ascetic logic.
    If UHI was but a trifling third decimal point adjustment then why bother gathering the firewood?
    If trees are proven to behave badly post-1960 then why should we seek to trust them before then?
    If we want Science to survive then it’s time for genuine Scientists to point the finger of guilt to those who have sailed under a false flag!

  19. This is what “skeptics” look like when they are desperate. The world is warming. The past decade was the hotted on record. 2010 was, on average, tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record. DW’s bizarre data twisting is irrelevant, although he may well be able to start a new career as a contortionist.

  20. Has anyone compiled how many stations were used in each of the years in question (since 1880 or so I think NASA said), How many in 2010 are the same as a hundred years ago, and how may of the stations in each year are “infills”, in other words, estimates?

  21. Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
    February 3, 2011 at 4:50 pm
    Why is it big news that today’s temperatures are a few hundreths or tenths of a degree warmer than last year or last decade
    ================================================
    Charles, odds are that today’s temperatures are colder….

    Facts are:
    Old glass thermometers can account for all of the recorded warming – glass shrinks
    UHI is adjusted up, not down
    Stations have been dropped
    Past historical temps have been adjusted down
    Recent temperatures have been adjusted up

    With all that adjusting, and still admitting temps have flat lined, actually decreased, in over a decade…

    ….odds are that temps have actually gone down

  22. These sorts of “global” temperature 10th of a degree comparisons are a bit irrelevant when the Central England temperature record (the longest available) from 1659 shows that 2010 was the 2nd COLDEST in the record and the same as it was in 1659 when there was no man-made CO2 levels to speak of.

  23. The leaders of the warm conjecture depend for their leadership status on their claims remaining at the centre of the orthodox doctrine. When and if they or their supporters accept the facts of global temperatures their status, research grants and jobs at the top of academe will be undermined and liable to vanish.

    Just imagine how it would feel to face ignominy and loss on that scale. Its that rather than the statistical significance of 0.1˚C, or belief in dodgy tree-rings that stands in the way of a facts-based view of climate.

  24. Sunspot cycle undercutting the Dalton Minimum but no word from the news media or government at all about it. Why? Because if it gets out, they lose money and the global warming debacle is done. If the sun doesn’t come to life soon we could very well be heading into another little ice age over the next 50 or so years.

  25. “rob m says:
    February 3, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    How would yearly temp data compare if one used data from Oct 1 to Sept 30?”

    I have not calculated that, but it would be easy enough to do by taking the 12 values and dividing by 12. Then it depends on which data set you use. There are just too many Hadcrut3 for my liking. Could they not give different data sets different names so there is no constant confusion as to which one is meant? But as for your question, the following shows 1998 to have a value of 0.548.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

    This compares to a much lower value of 0.475 for 2010. However the value from September 1, 1997 to August 31, 1998 is 0.577. So if anyone wants to claim that a different 12 month period other than January 1 to December 31 is warmest, then two can play this game.

  26. Mike says: “The past decade was the [hottest] on record. 2010 was, on average, tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record.

    This is an artefact of the short record. Had the record been longer by, say, 4,000 years, then we would be saying that 2005 and 2010 are nowhere near the warmest, which were over 3,000 years ago.

    It appears that the natural temperature cycles have already started to head downwards again, and that no amount of CO2 can override them. If we cannot find alternative ways of warming the planet, then we had better prepare for cooler times.

  27. It would be more useful to know what the energy budget was over those 13 years. Did the planet gain or lose net energy?

  28. Here is a little chuckle just in from the “Windmill State”, Texas:

    MEXICO CITY — Mexico said Thursday it was temporarily suspending an offer to provide electricity to Texas to help the U.S. state weather an ice storm that forced rolling blackouts, because of severe cold in Mexico’s own territory.
    Mexico’s Federal Electricity Commission had said Wednesday it had agreed to transmit 280 megawatts of electricity to Texas.
    But on Thursday, the commission said it was temporarily suspending the transfer because below-freezing temperatures in northern Mexico had affected the generating capacity of some its own plants, causing a reduction of about 1,000 megawatts in generation.

    We are in for some serious irony in the years ahead. The “Team” will get to the end of their temperature “adjustment” rope any time soon.

  29. Even temperatures in the great El Nino year of 1998 are not outside the normal range so Null Hypothesis applies, “that in the absence of evidence of change it has to be assumed that there has been no change.”

  30. We will see what comes of crops around the globe. Maybe a better measure of climate than the constant minipulation of data crunching statistical bias.

  31. Opinions requested:

    Back over at the recent BBC article, the esteemed Prof. Phil Jones’ “statistically-significant” line is being thrashed out. Again. The non-statistically-significant period was 1995 to 2009.

    “barry” says the warming trend for 1995 to 2010 is statistically-significant, and provides a link to a blog post providing “proof” here. I will not dignify that post with the reposting of the URL here for reasons I’ll give below.

    I can follow that post enough to see the careful selection of a significance test, fitting of models to tweak out statistical significance from the models, and also that the author must think more decimal places makes the results more impressive thus the whole concept of “significant digits” may be freely ignored. It’s the sort of “numerological fog” that a more statistically well-versed person like E.M. Smith or Willis Eschenbach could blow away in under five minutes, which is where the “opinions requested” comes in, if whomever is willing to check doesn’t mind giving that site a hit.

    It’s one I hadn’t been aware of, “Brave New Climate,” like if something had really changed from our Bored Old Climate. “Consider the source” is in full effect. The “blogroll” features pro-(C)AGW sites known for simple misdirection to deceit and “mis-truths” to just-avoiding-being-legally-actionable libel and slander. But no WUWT, Climate Depot, Climate Audit, etc. You know the routine: the science is settled, there’s an overwhelming scientific consensus, so why mention the opposition, if there was any scientifically-credible opposition that could be mentioned, or opposition not funded by Big Oil and Big Pollution.

    Clicking the mundane-looking “Sceptics” link up top reveals (highlighting added):

    In this series, I aim to teach you to recognise the recycled denialism that is rife in the public arena these days. (…)
    ——
    Related posts addressing recycled denialist talking points

    Thus I will not dignify that post with a traceable reposting of the address, and consign that site to my list of Places Not Worth Visiting as they are not interested in a balanced presentation let alone the real (scientific, statistical, or otherwise) truth.

  32. George E. Smith said
    “…When the humidity is up, you are going to feel warm regardless of whether the temperature is high or not. You body is trying to get rid of excess heat after your big breakfast and quick workout; but because of the humidity, your evaporative cooling system just doesn’t work.

    The subjective feeling of warmth, is no indication of increased temperatures. It is almost a certainty that the early morning Temperature is well down from what it was the night before at sundown, yet you still think it is hot.”
    ———————————–

    Without disagreeing with the general thrust of your comment, I would take issue with your observation that high humidity will make you feel warmer in all circumstances.
    Perspiration is obviously a cooling mechanism, but it doesn’t occur until it’s necessary.
    It may be that living in California has spoiled you (you do, don’t you?) but since we only have Global Warming and not, regrettaby, Canadian Warming, many of us have to rely on vigourous activity to induce sweating.
    Below the perspiration threshold ( a lamentably protracted period in these climes) all we need to do to avoid overheating is step outside, remove one layer of down-filled clothing or dilate the blood vessels close to the surface of our skin. The efficacy of this last measure is greatly enhanced with the ingestion of ethanol.
    It’s my contention that we humans are not immediately sensitive to atmospheric humidity, although, with prolonged exposure to very dry air, mucous membrane of lips and nose may feel effects.
    We don’t have nerve endings that can differentiate one atmospheric gas from another, and even liquid water at the same temperature as our skin is only detected as mild pressure.
    It’s common to hear people declare, as they step into a toasty, wood-heated house from outside conditions of 5C and 90% humidity, how humid it is inside, because their glasses fog up.

  33. Paul Martin Feb 3rd 5:12pm-
    “I wonder if this Dr David Whitehouse is the noted astronomer and former BBC science correspondent.”

    Yes he is. From the GWPF Academic Advisory Council webpage –
    Dr David Whitehouse
    David Whitehouse, who has a doctorate in astrophysics, was successively BBC Science Correspondent and Science Editor BBC News Online. He is the author of a number of books on solar system astronomy and the history of astronomy.

  34. The idea that there is a valid concept to the notion that there is a valid gobal temperature must be challenged. And the idea that we know what it is to hundredths of a degree is sheer hubris.

    As for the notiion that we have a worthwhile sea surface temperature component for any of these data sets…These are historically derived from people throwing buckets from a ship and then eventually getting round to shoving a thermometer in the water that was subsequently sitting round on the shiops deck…

    Much of the raw data being used by the modellers does not bear scrutiny.

    tonyb

  35. The public doesn’t understand data sets, but quickly figures out how many times the driveway fills with snow.

    Our blue-bird winters in SWFL have turned to overcast fog, near everyday … the Gulf is below normal.

  36. Yes this is the Dr David Whitehouse, science PhD, who used to be the BBC science correspondent in the days when it mattered that science correspondents knew something about science.

    Nowadays the BBC no longer regards this as important – Roger Harrabin’s degree was in English and David Shukman’s was in Geography. But they both believe in global warming, and that’s what matters.

  37. PeterT says:
    February 3, 2011 at 8:56 pm
    “2010 was an El Nino year.”

    Really????

    ABSOLUTELY. Don’t forget the system lag.

  38. The warmest year on record thing gets two reactions out of me.

    1. Well, its been warming up for several centuries now, its SUPPOSED to be the warmest. Unless of course the warming has ceased and we’re at a peak which would be signified by a decade or so of flat temps followed by… an ice age! panic! panic! Its the 1970’s again!

    2. Its the warmest by how much? Let’s scale that down to something humans can relate to. Let’s say it is late spring and the warmest day got to a high of 20 degrees. Then the next day it was even warmer, 20.1 degrees. And the day after that, even WARMER, 20.13 degrees. OH MY GOSH! And then the next day… 20.134 degrees, catastrophe! Warmest day so far by 00.004 degrees! Can’t you people see what’s happening here? Are you stupid? Don’t you know what all those decimal places MEAN? We might be at FOUR decimal places in just one more day! Yes! We could hit 20.1344 degrees within the next 24 hours! Do we have to get to FIVE decimal places before you oil company bought propogandists with all your error bars and statistics and demands for actual measurements and actual science finaly get the message? Have you not seen what is happening to the decimal places? They are increasing by one a day! We’re all gonna die! The death rate could very well hit 1.000000 per person! Why can you morons not see what is happening here? Decimal places ARE science you blithering idiots!

    sarc/off

    OK, I feel much better now.

  39. @Tim, who says: February 3, 2011 at 6:47 pm

    “Here’s a quick hypothetical question;

    Why shouldn’t the AGW proponents simply say whatever they wish? What are the actual negative consequences for doing so, when they’ll still have legions of followers hanging on every word?

    “This post is about science, and math, and the attempt to pin down some facts as best we can. But the AGW debate doesn’t particularly seem to revolve around science, math, or facts.”

    Tim, the negative consequences for allowing the CAGW proponents to continue their programmes unchallenged will soon be felt in yours and everybody else’s pockets. You (should) know that the UK Government is committed to spending the equivalent of TWO Olympic Games PER YEAR for the next 30 years or so purely on the say-so of these proponents.

    So you see, doing nothing is not an option. And that’s not a hypothetical position.

  40. “Finally, the temperature anomalies for the past 13 years”
    should be like this after rounding:

    Year–Met Office Hadcrut– CRUHadcrut– CRUTem–Giss– NOAA.

    2010–0.5–0.5–0.7–0.6–0.6.

    2009–0.4–0.4–0.6–0.6–0.6.

    2008–0.3–0.3–0.5–0.4–0.5.

    2007–0.4–0.4–0.7–0.6–0.6.

    2006–0.4–0.4–0.7–0.6–0.6.

    2005–0.4–0.5–0.8–0.6–0.6.

    2004–0.4–0.4–0.6–0.5–0.5.

    2003–0.5–0.5–0.6–0.6–0.6.

    2002–0.5–0.5–0.7–0.6–0.6.

    2001–0.4–0.4–0.5–0.5–0.5.

    2000–0.2–0.3–0.4–0.3–0.4.

    1999–0.3–0.3–0.5–0.3–0.4.

    1998–0.5–0.5–0.8–0.6–0.6.

    Do these numbers say there has been no global warming since 1998?
    Note some unusual higher values (e.g., 0.7 and 0.8) under CRUTem.

  41. Scientific hypotheses are falsified if predictions turn out to be untrue. The AGW hypotheses thru the 1990s were for continued warming, shadowing the Keeling CO2 concentration curve. Global temperatures have in fact (source, P Jones) been flat since 1995, with unsurprisingly quite a lot of noise. Arguing about whether this or that peak is 0.01 degree hotter than 1998 is completely irrelevant. As Nigel Lawson (no fool) said a year ago, imagine the furore had world population stopped rising in 1995.
    The fact is, the AGW hypotheses have been shown to be false. Simple as that.

  42. My own view is that any slight warming stopped after 1998 and that the plateau in temperatures that followed are a sign of a swing in climate regime which will result in a cooling world for the next 30y or so.

    The coincidence of this climate oscillation with a very quiet sun makes me worry that we are heading towards another LIA. Should temperature drop a couple of degrees Celsius the NH won’t be a nice place to be! Hope I’m wrong…

  43. The bottom line is that the IPCC cabal cannot prove its AGW hypothesis because it is not being tested for faults. The modelling parameters increasingly look like something Goebbels would endorse. The question marks keep stacking up. The cabal believes it is not necessary to address the lack of public confidence in its hypothesis. So Jones, Hansen and co keep “adjusting” the data. How much longer before the science community starts demanding the restoration of its credibility, as the climate science fiasco is affecting trust in the other disciplines. The sceptics would go away if the hypothesis could be proven.

  44. This analysis shows that 1998 was more of an outlier relative to earlier years than 2010 was.

    Given that most records show 2010 as at least matching 1998 then the analysis damages the “No warming” position rather than reinforces it. For every month hotter ones can only be found in the 2000s or late 90s. Why not the early 90s, 80s or 70s?

  45. It is simply an attempt at deception to speak of ‘record temperatures’ in the hope and expectation than most people will take that to mean that science does not know of a hotter time in human history. Fossil records, ice records and the sediment records are no less sources of knowledge than thermometers.

    Shame on those that practice such deception.

  46. I suppose it’s understandable, but I can’t help thinking that all this talk about records, whether warm or cold, can be very misleading. Surely the bast way is to get the data, draw a graph and stare at it, and decide what the trends are.
    Let’s assume that Phil Jones is right and that, as he is said to have stated in a BBC interview, there has been no statistically warming since 1995. If it’s effectively been flat for the last fifteen years then, by definition, we’re still more or less at the top. We know that climate and weather never changes in nice tidy straight lines, and there is a huge amount of short-term variability. Because we’re still near the top, random variations can still easily set new records.
    But if you look at the graphs you can see it’s meaningless. Even if the recent short term change due to el Nino did set new records (and, overall, it probably didn’t) the graphs still show that the trend is still flat or even slightly negative. And of course now global temperatures are starting to plunge, as shown by the recent satellite data.
    My advice, for what it’s worth: forget about records and look at the graphs.
    Chris

  47. sharper00 says: February 4, 2011 at 3:07 am

    This analysis shows that 1998 was more of an outlier relative to earlier years than 2010 was.

    Actually they are both outlier years. From my perspective there was warming through 2005 and since then cooling. The outlier years only make it appear flatter at the top of the cycle than it really was. Of course, the cycle is fairly minuscule overall … it’s amazing that anyone thinks a couple tenths of a degree is anything to get excited about.

  48. The author used the word ‘superfluous’ in his third paragraph. I would have said either ‘unscientific’ or ‘nonsensical’.

  49. scientific convention (SI) dictates that numbers are round to the nearest even number. thus 1.5, becomes 2; and 2.5 also becomes 2. As many are rounded up as are rounded down in an evenly balanced set of distributed data. In Banking, it means that no-one can ‘game’ the system to make money they shouldn’t have.

  50. Mike says:
    February 3, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    The world is warming. … 2010 was, on average, tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record.
    ——————–
    Got to love this, the world is warming using no change over five years with the intervening years being cooler to emphasize it. :-)

    Up is down, warm is cold, snow is AGW

  51. Sharperoo,
    Your analysis only holds up if you accept the homogenization that NOAA, HadCrut, and GISS use in their temperature databases. Past temps consistently get adjusted downward, while temps in recent years get adjusted upward.

    In any event,even HadCrut shows little if any warming since 1998.

  52. @ climatebeagle

    Well spotted! “The world is warming.” It is as hot as it was 10 years ago. “We are at a peak.” So, it is as hot as it was 10 years ago, maybe 15. By what definition is that ‘warming’? Can I define ‘cooling’ in a similar manner?

    “Warming” to me, means a steady increase in temperature. I certainly know the CO2 is going up, maybe from the LIA increase over the past few centuries or from human activities, maybe not. As the ‘warming’ (evident in the many temperature series) seems to have been from about 1975-1995, a very short time, and it has not apparently warmed during 1995-2011, then either the definition of ‘warming’ has morphed into ‘continuing to be warmer that is used to be recently’ or someone is fibbing.

    Someone above asked why it was not as warm in the 80’s. Well, we don’t really know, do we, because the urban temperatures have been so misused and massaged we can’t actually tell. An interesting alternative question is, “Why hasn’t continuing urbanisation and UHI been able to deliver a continuing warming signal given the positive bias available to climate scientists?” Surely with an advantage like that, we should be seeing bigger numbers from them each year? Taking away the bias and manipulation of temperatures past and present, would we see any warming at all? Is it continuing?

    It seems the main support for a warming world is from the lip-and-tongue modulated CO2 expelled from the lungs of a some members of the climate science and enviro-alarm communities.

  53. It is an excellent, cool, rational and clear analysis by Dr Whitehouse.

    Yes he is the former BBC Science correspondent and noted astronomer and writer.

    He was the best BBC Science reported they ever had because he knew what he was talking about, unlike the bluff of Harrabin and Shukman.

    I head, on good authority, that he was ‘creatively dismissed’ from the BBC when radio and TV news merged a while back, because his scientific analysis of news was different from his then TV counterpart with whom he was expected to work.

    Instead of asking the TV science correspondent to ‘step up’ and match the quality, output, and scientific knowledge of Dr Whitehouse, BBC management decided (in a move worthy of the Soviet Union) to sack the better guy and keep the poorer one as the TV guy was too close to retirement to choose. In fact he did retire a few months after Dr Whitehouse left.

    That’s what I heard from a friend in the BBC. I wonder if the truth will ever come out.

  54. The anomolies between the 5 sets of temperature “anomolies” looks to be somthing of a an anomoly!

    I support Dr Whitehouse’s view that temperatures cannot be measured to 3 decimal places of accuracy (i.e. 5 figures on the degF/C scale), outside of laboratory control conditions.

  55. Thousandths of a degree? I can’t quite manage those on my thermometer. I can make a pretty fair guess at halves.

  56. Dr. Whitehouse,

    Please tell me why no temperature record which covers the Arctic has 1998 as the warmest year on record? For a REAL comparison of temperature datasets see the following:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Myth-2-Temperature-records-trends-El-Nino.html

    This includes all major indices (minus the JMA) and includes the reanalysis datasets. Perhaps you should stop cherry picking which datasets you use. Showing Hadleys analysis 3 times despite it being known that they undersample warming regions (see ECWMF) and that their station combination method reduces the actual warmth (see Roman M post).

    Please answer these questions, in fact I would love to hear why Hadley is the darling of the skeptics considering it uses the LEAST amount of data due to the CAM method. I thought you people wanted to see ALL the available data?

  57. Robert,

    Could you be any more hypocritical?? Thirteen years after MBH98, Michael Mann still refuses to disclose his data, methodologies and metadata!

    Using the usual alarmist contingent tactic of projection doesn’t work here on the world’s most viewed climate website. How many posts have you made demanding that Mann must come clean? Not one, I’ll bet. Hypocrisy doesn’t go unnotced here. And please stop linking to the website run by the cartoonist. He’s about as much of a scientific skeptic as Al Gore. Cartoonists are innate propagandists, and Cook is no different.

  58. Just out of curiosity , reference fractions of a degree warming etc , how sensitive are our bodies to tenths of a degree warming or cooling – wouldnt it be rotten if the global warming we are supposed to be having cant actually be felt so we get no benefit from it as regards not having to wear such a thick coat in Winter or need to remove a jumper in Summer !

  59. Back in the summer, some people challenged my statement that the solar cycle had hit a speed bump. Turns out I was right: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/f10.gif

    Looks like the sun’s performance is turning out to be half what NASA’s downward adjusted predictions are, even lower than Leif’s predictions.

  60. On the other hand we have this from John Cook:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Myth-2-Temperature-records-trends-El-Nino.html

    “To answer this question I looked at more than just the traditional Hadley, NASA and NOAA datasets, but also the measurements of the lower troposphere processed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) as well as the 5 major reanalysis datasets which incorporate station data, aircraft data, satellite data, radiosonde data and meteorological weather modeling. In hopes of being able to demonstrate robustness I have compiled data from the 10 different sources, with these, and 2010’s year-end temperature ranking summarized in Table 1.”

    John also gives an excellent graph of the combined 10 data sets with a superimposed correlation function which shows that temperatures are not only increasing, but the rate of increase is increasing.

  61. BarryW, says:
    February 3, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    Hence the real question is what was the total heat content of the atmosphere/aquasphere at the beginning of the year and what was it at the end.

    According to the NOAA NODC OCL OHC page global heat content anomaly for the upper 700 m of oceans changed little during last year. In fourth quarter of 2009 it was 4.571±0.231×10^22 J, while a year later, in fourth quarter of 2010 it was 4.564±0.225×10^22 J. The 7×10^19 J decrease is negligible and is well within the error bounds. Therefore heat content of the climate system was absolutely stationary in this unprecedented year, there was no extra heat “accumulating in the pipeline” whatsoever.

    An annual increase of 10^22 Joule is equivalent to a 0.62 W/m^2 net radiative imbalance at TOA (Top of Atmosphere), which would be 0.26% of average outgoing thermal (or absorbed shortwave) radiation flux. Data measured by the ARGO fleet last year show the radiative balance was practically perfect (within 0.06% of average fluxes).

    And that in a year when water vapor content of the atmosphere (the strongest of greenhouse gases) was said to be well above average. If it’s true either low level cloud cover increased to make up for the difference or fractal dimension of water vapor distribution decreased somewhat making atmospheric IR opacity more or less constant in spite of increasing average humidity. Or both.

  62. robert and Philip Shehan – if you look at closely at Cook’s graph, you will see that if the temperature time series had ended at 1945, it would have looked like “temperatures were not only increasing, but that the rate was also increasing” – all without the help of CO2. The reason Cook is even able to drag his “fitted curve” flatter for longer before exponentially increasing is because of that flat period between 1945 and 1980. However, the observed temperature profile could be explained without CO2: urban warming from 1910 to 1945, “apparent cooling” from 1945 to 1980 because stations moved from cities (urban) to airports (rural), and then urban warming again as development occurred around the airports.

  63. Smokey says:
    February 4, 2011 at 10:47 am
    Could you be any more hypocritical?? Thirteen years after MBH98, Michael Mann still refuses to disclose his data, methodologies and metadata!

    With all due respect Smokey you couldn’t be more incorrect. Mann’s 1998 and 1999 data are on NOAA’s paleoclimate data website (easily found) as well as the majority of the other reconstructions. His methodologies are well known and have been emulated in the literature multiple times. His code for matlab is also readily available. This idea that this stuff is not available right now is an outright distortion of the truth. That graph is over 10 years old. A whole decade has passed and better reconstructions have come about (Moburg et al 2005, Mann et al. 2008 …etc…) please stop rehashing old arguments.

    JR says:
    February 4, 2011 at 8:28 pm,
    Regarding your airport claim see the following:

    http://clearclimatecode.org/airport-warming/

    Regarding Urban warming I draw your attention to :

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm

    Do you know what better explains the warming?

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

    GHG warming + Sulfate Aerosol Cooling + Volcanic Cooling + Feedbacks + Solar Activity

  64. Robert,

    Please reproduce the complete data, metadata, and methodology of MBH98.

    As you know, Mann has refused to provide it. Maybe you can do better.

  65. Robert: interesting link to clearclimatecode about the difference between airports and non-airports. The “airports” temperature curve goes all the way back to 1880. Would you please be so kind as to tell me how many airports there were in operation in 1880?

  66. About this temperature anomaly:

    Just went outside, and I couldn’t tell if it was 39 or 39.1 degrees.

    I doubt if any human could tell the difference in the tenths of a degree they tell us the temp has gone up.

    And, on another post, Robert says “With all due respect Smokey you couldn’t be more incorrect. Mann’s 1998 and 1999 data are on NOAA’s paleoclimate data website (easily found) as well as the majority of the other reconstructions. His methodologies are well known and have been emulated in the literature multiple times. His code for matlab is also readily available. This idea that this stuff is not available right now is an outright distortion of the truth. That graph is over 10 years old. A whole decade has passed and better reconstructions have come about (Moburg et al 2005, Mann et al. 2008 …etc…) please stop rehashing old arguments.”

    Yet when you ask people if Mann’s use of the Tiljander proxies was correct (knowing there was recent contamination, and using them upside down), they suddenly become very quiet…

  67. Smokey, Cook has not “dragged” the fitted curve and it is not “his”. It is an automated algorithm that best fits all the data, including the hump in the forties and the correlation coefficient of the fit r squared is a very good value of 0.841.

    The CO2 signal did not arise out of the “natural” variations until the 80’s. Climatologists have been able to account for the ups and downs with purely natural factors up until that point. After the 80’s they find they cannot account for the observed temperature rises without including the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    One of the main natural factors is solar radiation, and the following graph (from Cook again) shows how the observed temperatures matched pretty well with solar out putuntil the 80’s and then solar activity dropped but temperatures kept rising.

    It also indicates that solar input alone is a pretty good match to the forties hump without taking into account other natural factors. Cooks site covers numerous other information on factors affecting the observed temperature fits.

  68. henrythethird says:
    February 5, 2011 at 12:50 am
    Just went outside, and I couldn’t tell if it was 39 or 39.1 degrees.
    I doubt if any human could tell the difference in the tenths of a degree they tell us the temp has gone up.

    Really you can’t tell? That’s interesting. A little about my. I am an Inuit from Northern Canada. We can tell pretty well. Where I am originally from was over 3 standard deviations outside of the mean this year. Baffin Bay had winter temperatures over 10 degrees above normal. You wanna know where we notice it? Our lifestyles. Can’t travel on sea ice or the lake ice like we used to even 10 years ago.

    Pertaining to the Tiljander proxy. It makes no large difference in the reconstruction, you can check his supplementary material for evidence of this if you like? You wanna make claims that aren’t supportable, go right ahead. Note Kaufmann also used it wrong but when he fixed it, it didn’t make any difference in his overall reconstruction…

  69. Roger and Philip Shehan:

    This thread is about the above analysis by David Whitehouse. It is NOT about some other analysis on another blog.

    In the extremely unlikely event that you can and do point to some significant error in the analysis by David Whitehouse, then it may be appropriate to discuss alternative analyses. But unless and until you do that then there is not – and there cannot be – any valid reason to consider any other analyses by anybody.

    The facts are that David Whitehouse has provided an analysis which proves that according to each of the established global climate data sets 2010 was NOT the warmest year on record.

    And it is not surprising that you want to change the subject. AGW alarmists always try to avoid inconvenient truths.

    Richard

  70. From Philip Shehan on February 5, 2011 at 5:55 am:

    The CO2 signal did not arise out of the “natural” variations until the 80′s. Climatologists have been able to account for the ups and downs with purely natural factors up until that point. After the 80′s they find they cannot account for the observed temperature rises without including the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    One of the main natural factors is solar radiation, and the following graph (from Cook again) shows how the observed temperatures matched pretty well with solar out putuntil the 80′s and then solar activity dropped but temperatures kept rising.

    This is fascinating. So in a time of a warm Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which lasted from 1977 to (at least) 1998 (Ref. 1, general PDO info), with dropping solar activity, the CO2 signal arose out of the noise (“natural” variability). Such variability would (should?) also include the 1998 Super El Nino, and its impressive rise in global average temperatures (see first graph, Ref.2 ). This would indicate the CO2 signal is very strong indeed.

    The CO2 atmospheric concentrations continued to rise.

    Now the PDO is in a cool phase. More in-depth and recent info at Ref. 3 places the shift to cool phase at 2008. [Note: At the first graph at Ref.3, "PDO Index 1900 – September 2008," you can see the short drop starting around 1998, which is apparently related to the Ref.1 speculation of the warm phase extending to "(at least) 1998."] The esteemed Prof. Phil Jones of UEA-CRU confirmed there was a cooling trend from 2002 to 2009 (eight years) although not statistically-significant, apparently due to the short period. In the article above we can see how 2010 fared, also discussed elsewhere on WUWT, as well as the dropping of ocean heat content. As found at Ref. 3 and mentioned elsewhere, with the shift we have about 25 to 30 years of cooling global temperatures coming.

    At Ref. 3 in the “PDO Links to Climatic Effects” section is found the abstract (and paywall link) to: Tropical Pacific Decadal Variability and Global Warming (Amy J. Bratcher & Benjamin S. Giese, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, Geophysical Research Letters, 29(19), 2002):

    An analysis of ocean surface temperature records show that low frequency changes of tropical Pacific temperature lead global surface air temperature changes by about 4 years. Anomalies of tropical Pacific surface temperature are in turn preceded by subsurface temperature anomalies in the southern tropical Pacific by approximately 7 years. The results suggest that much of the decade to decade variations in global air temperature may be attributed to tropical Pacific decadal variability. The results also suggest that subsurface temperature anomalies in the southern tropical Pacific can be used as a predictor for decadal variations of global surface air temperature. Since the southern tropical Pacific temperature shows a distinct cooling over the last 8 years, the possibility exists that the warming trend in global surface air temperature observed since the late 1970’s may soon weaken.

    The PDO weakened prior to the shift, cooling global surface air temperatures were predicted, they happened.

    Ref. 4 also highlights the importance of the PDO, with its about 60-year total pattern thus about 30-year warm and cool phases. As seen in Ref. 5, the above quoted abstract, and elsewhere (see Ref. 3), the warm phase of the PDO accounted for much of the global warming that was seen.

    And now, the mighty CO2 signal, detectable above the noise in the 1990’s which included above the PDO, when the solar activity was dropping… Where did it go? The PDO shifted, the planet is cooling, and the mighty CO2 signal that was detectable against the PDO warming, is apparently AWOL. The CO2 atmospheric concentrations kept increasing, the CO2 signal should have kept getting stronger, and instead it looks like the mighty CO2 signal has wimped out. Have other factors proven so powerful, the noise of “natural” variability, they have (temporarily) overridden the mighty CO2 signal?

    As the CO2 atmospheric concentrations keep rising, what’s going to happen? As the PDO shifts back to a warm phase after about 2035, will the mighty CO2 signal, which heralds (C)AGW, with all the “hidden” global warming building up somewhere in the climate systems, again be clearly detectable?

    References:
    1. http://cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/aboutpdo.shtml
    2. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/uah-update-for-january-2011-global-temperatures-in-freefall/
    3. http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO.htm
    4. http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/the-pacific-decadal-oscillation/
    5. http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

    (And apologies to Richard S Courtney, I spent considerable time researching and writing this comment, then noticed yours. Sorry about this.)

  71. robert says:
    “Really you can’t tell? That’s interesting. A little about my. I am an Inuit from Northern Canada. We can tell pretty well. Where I am originally from was over 3 standard deviations outside of the mean this year. Baffin Bay had winter temperatures over 10 degrees above normal. You wanna know where we notice it? Our lifestyles. Can’t travel on sea ice or the lake ice like we used to even 10 years ago.”
    ——————————–
    Yeah, right, robert!

    You’re an Inuk who calls himself an Inuit. That’s like me saying I’m a Canada.
    Lots of unfrozen lakes in Baffin Bay????

  72. Oliver Ramsay,

    Scathing. I think you’ve exposed a poseur.

    The poseur says:

    “Pertaining to the Tiljander proxy. It makes no large difference in the reconstruction, you can check his supplementary material for evidence of this if you like? You wanna make claims that aren’t supportable, go right ahead.”

    Robert misses the central issue: Mann was informed before he published that the Tiljander sediment proxy was upside-down. But he used it anyway because it gave him the hockey stick shape he needed. His protestations after he was caught, claiming that it didn’t make a differnce, are not believable. Since Mann already knew the proxy was bad, he would have left it out if it made no difference.

    But Mann’s tame referee pals hand-waved his paper through the corrupt climate peer review process. No doubt Roberto the Esquimeaux will defend Michael Mann the charlatan.

  73. As Smokey stated, if Mann knew there were problems with a particular series, and it didn’t make much difference, why use it?

    And to Robert: Mann KNEW about potential problems, and mentioned it in the SI you wanted me to read:

    “…Potential data quality problems. In addition to checking whether or not potential problems specific to tree-ring data have any significant impact on our reconstructions in earlier centuries (see Fig. S7), we also examined whether or not potential problems
    noted for several records (see Dataset S1 for details) might compromise the reconstructions. These records include the four Tiljander et al. (12) series used (see Fig. S9) for which the original authors note that human effects over the past few centuries unrelated to climate might impact records (the original paper states ‘‘Natural variability in the sediment record was disrupted by increased human impact in the catchment area at A.D. 1720.’’ and later, ‘‘In the case of Lake Korttajarvi it is a demanding task to calibrate the physical varve data we have collected against meteorological data, because human impacts have distorted the natural signal to varying extents’’). These issues are particularly significant because there are few proxy records, particularly in the temperature-screened dataset (see Fig. S9), available back through the 9th century…”

    There’s NOTHING in his paper or SI as to why he needed to turn it upside down, either.

Comments are closed.