Via the GWPF Date: 15/05/15 Levi Winchester, Daily Express
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), chaired by former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson, has recently launched an inquiry into the reliability of global surface temperature records, with a group of international “eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians” set to probe current data.With different sets of results appearing to conflict each other, the GWPF say they have received questions and concerns about which records are accurate and why some adjustments in temperatures are made over the years.
But now their inquiry is underway, Dr Benny Peiser, director of the GWPF, has said he hopes the findings will address the lack of clarity and transparency he claims surrounds temperature records – while admitting his “growing concern” about the gathering of global warming statistics.
One key issue which Dr Peiser claims has caused confusion is a discrepancy between surface temperature data and satellite findings.
Figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) use a network of ground-based weather stations to compile their results and recently predicted that this year will outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”.
However findings from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH) – which use satellite data – show a strikingly different picture, with neither showing last month as the hottest March on record, nor 2014 as the warmest year yet.
Dr Peiser told Express.co.uk: “There’s a lack of clarity, a lack of transparency and a growing concern about what is going on.
“But all these adjustments, you would expect, should balance each other out. So you should expect that some of the adjustments will reduce the temperatures and some adjustments will make them warmer.
– See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/new-claims-murky-global-warming-statistics-are-guessed-at/#sthash.8nGI1N3x.dpuf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
About time. But better to scrap HadCRU, GISS, etc & start over with new, unbiased teams working openly from raw data, separating ocean from land readings.
I understood that HadCRU lost all their raw data … is my memory wrong?
Your memory is not wrong, but you should have put the word “lost” in quotes…
You are correct. Thus HadCRUT is unscientific, as totally unverifiable. But its problems only start there.
It should be laughed out of the room. GISS is even worse.
Not only did they lose the primary data, they also lost all the written agreements they had made with the primary sources to keep the data “confidential”. But they’re certain they made those agreements …
As prominent global warming scientists wrote to each other in their confidential emails: “Hide the Decline.” How else can they get massive funding for their research, if people keep pointing out that temperatures have been declining?
You are correct. HadCRU lost all their raw data in office moves in the mid-1990’s.
On the Steven Goddard Blog https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ I recently read where Anthony and other Skeptics were quoted as criticizing Steven’s work…
WattsUpWithThat?? … as Skeptics we need to stick together… Goddard’s work busting continual Data Fraud is amazing… GROUND BREAKING… so I just don’t understand the criticism…
Care to Chime in?
Phil Jones
No, not really. There is no political requirement, nor philosophical “need” to “stick together” as sceptics. Rather, when a skeptical writer is incorrect, or has made poor assumption or a actual error, he (or she) needs to be as rigorously challenged as any warmunist or CAGW co-religionist.
“Skeptics”, pretty much by definition are independent. If we feel that someone is wrong or has made a mistake, we will speak up and say so.
As opposed to the warmist camp in which loyalty to fellow travelers is valued above scientific accuracy.
Goddard is good at historical document research. His so-called research is a joke. Occasionally he stumbles across a valid issue, as in a blind squirrel finds a nut everyday, or a stopped clock is right twice a day. His has been an embarrassment to the scientifically oriented on the skeptical side and his embrace by low information skeptics has been very frustrating for those trying to build a logical and coherent case.
I meant is “scientific” research is a joke.
What Goddard does on his website is very straight-forward. He puts graphs of published raw temperature data next to graphs of the published “final product” (massaged) data of NCDC, GISS, and HadCRU, very clearly showing that, in every case, the altered data creates warming trends that don’t exist on any thermometer. He does this with data sets from past and present published official records going back over a hundred years, showing that they have been steadily altered by the above listed agencies, in stages, since the 1990’s. No rocket surgery here. I think that Anthony Watts, etc are mostly put off by the fact that Goddard uses plain (not scientific/polite) language about what is plainly fraud. I also notice, as time goes by, more and more of the very things Goddard has been demonstrating for years gradually seep out into the mainstream, usually “broken” by the same people that keep knocking his work.
I agree with Warren Milbrandt. What Goddard mostly does is very strait forward. He compare raw data to adjusted data and not much more than that. He also states his views of not just climate politics of most politics quite strongly which I sure turns off many people. But with this he brings up many good points even if some are way off base. It is quite reasonably to criticizes him when he is wrong but also a good idea to acknowledge when he is right.
Yet much of his data is good. For instance he often compares continuously active stations over the past 100 years, and in most every case, and not just in the US, they support that the 1940s temperature rise, the “blip”, was real, and that there was a .6 degree drop in global NH temperatures that the global data bases USED to show. (They used to show about a .4 degree drop in global t)
This 40s blip was widdled away in continues adjustments, far greater [than] the TOBS adjustments. These records also demonstrate that the vast majority of all time heat records, not just in the US, were set in the late 30s early 40s. Goddard does an excellent job with this.
Tony also does an excellent job of compiling historic data demonstrating that the 70s ice age scare was real, and not just some overblown reporting.
In addition, his documentation of the ever increasing use of fewer stations through the ignoring of over 40 percent of the listed USHCN stations, and the increasing infilling, is excellent. He not only shows this, but he shows what those other stations raw data demonstrate, which is always less warming, or even cooling. (Anthony did make some errors in some pre-mature criticism here)
In addition Tony well documents the divergence between the satellites and the surface record.
I recommend his sight for the short quick hitting summaries and graphics, historical records and data on numerous subjects, and articles showing media deception regarding extreme CAGW claims, quickly debunked with local records.
My only wish is that Tony would do a more thorough job in explaining exactly how he arrived at some of his graphics. If not interested in the politics, just skip those.
They’ve also launched an inquiry into the reliability of Nigel Lawson………
I don’t think that Nigel Lawson is a gatekeeper of any of the temperature records.
Notice how the warmists don’t even bother attacking the science or the data anymore.
Your point?
Mike H.,does this mean you have no problem with what Dr. Peiser stated?
“Given these concerns, we thought there must be a better way of answering these questions.”This is not about anthropogenic or man-made climate change, this is about whether the gatekeepers of the data, the metrological agencies, are providing reliable information.”
Is it possible to extract satellite data only for areas where there are surface measurements to see how well that compares? (as opposed to global average). Should we even be looking at an average of daily high temps? I would think that CO2 acts more to help retain heat during nighttime, so would the hi-lo delta be an indicator of greenhouse effect?
sattlelite data using infrared scanners is a much better and truer reading than these clowns do. a guage on the ground is subject to all kinds of other factors shade, direct sunlight elevation of readings. you could put a guage on a roof top and though the real temp is 93 it will be well over a hundred! sporting events. clay and asphalt hold heat and the guages will show a 10-15 degree swing from real temps. sattleites are more accurate hence there refusing to use them! it also exlains the baloney of the hottest on record yearly rant!
Depending upon the resolution of the measuring device. Remember all optical devices have a resolution in pixels per unit of measure. Each pixel, then inputs a signal to a reader, which translates it to another signal. Which is read by an earth station,, a large pixel area, averages the signal over a large area. Moving the camera would smudge or average the signal. So unless it is like a TV, or movie, where each measurement would be a frame, why? And you could see what you were measuring, and how the tempreture modifies what you are observing? Illogical, wrong question? To prove a point? Not validate the question? But to overall readjust a image to smudge it, which could show air tempretures, surface tempretures, at a resolution that is useful, and helpful, be degraded to a smudge, an artifact, is monsterous. Basically a waste of time.
Yes, CO2’s alleged effects would result in warmer lows and very slightly COOLER highs relative to those lows. CO2 resists warming less than it resists cooling, but it acts on both ends of the equation… so a decreased average daily deltaT from min to max would be expected.
Some of that is from radiative effects, and some of it from CO2’s specific heat in solution – though that portion is undoubtedly tiny, it is present regardless of claimed GHG effects.
Most critically, warmer lows are almost universally a GOOD thing, except where dew is the most important water source for plants. Then, the added CO2 makes those plants more resilient to drought, so the results could be a wash – or even a net positive even in that case.
Satellites cannot measure surface temperature. They measure verical swathes of the troposphere–lower, middle, upper in the case of UAH. Measurements calibrated to radiosonde thermometer readings at different latitudes show the satellite measurements agree withnthe weather balloons quite nicely, r^2 as high as 0.98 (Christy’s 2014 testimony to Koonin’s APS review committee).
Thanks for that. I had always assumed the satellites where calibrated/tested against radiosonde measurements but I never really knew for sure. Guess I was too lazy to look it up.
Also, at UAH they do not measure infrared frequencies from space, they measure (sample) microwave frequencies, most of that spectrum eminates from O2 molecules (if I remember Dr. Spencer correctly).
ristvan said “…Satellites cannot measure surface temperature.”
Sorry – not correct. Any instrument that can sense in the 10-11 um range of IR can see surface temperature…in a clear sky, of course. This applies to both geostationary & polar orbiting platforms.
Just saw this link on Matt Drudge. Good thing you are on WordPress.
Question.
Are the station’s data weighted in influence based on the area they represent? ie Clusters of closely packed stations have less overall influence but higher confidence?
Yes. Sometimes this is not enough, though.
Also, is the data weighted in influence based on the proximity to liberal leftist political donators?
No, it is “homogenised” and revised upwards regardless of proximity to “progressive” donors. A bit like putting an apple and an orange in a blender, pouring out half the mixture and declaring “this is an orange”.
“a more ‘correct’ orange”
😉
The issue of accurate data sets and the conciliation among the differing data collection and analyses is a very valid scientific topic. However, for the rest of mankind, we can judge today that the technical maturity of this science has not reached a level of certainty that warrants the destruction of massive national infrastructure, I.E. the combustion of carbon. We are risking billions of lives on sophisticated hunches. That is not a criticism of the scientists, it is an accusation of our national leaderships.
I’m with you mostly. But I think its a little dramatic to claim billions of lives are at stake if we don’t continue full throttle with fossil fuels. I remember Christopher Keating telling me that the AGW death tolls mirrored the Holocaust in numbers. Yeesh. Too much drama. As soon as I can go solar, I’m doing it, not because oil and gas are evil, but because solar is going to smoke my gas powered furnace by a hefty margin as the tech develops.
owenvsthegenius
You say
I copy my reply to Bill McKibben when he recently asserted similar nonsense on WUWT
Richard
richardscourtney,
Thank you for your reply. I am migrating toward LED lighting throughout my house, also am supplanting my power hungry appliances with devices more appropriate to my lifestyle, I have two electric scooters in my garage and I’m waiting for an affordable ev car, I’m growing a garden this year…everything I can possibly do to decrease dependencies, my wife and i are doing. We come at this politically, from a deeply Libertarian mindset. The power draw from my property is going to be a fraction of what it was ten years ago and over time it will draw less and less, because…and here it is, energy tech keeps improving, products keep improving, choice widens. Solar cells, as well as combustion engines have improved enormously over the last 20 years. Expect that trend to continue. Expect that when you buy a new car today, the engineering allows you to travel further on the same tank of gas than it did 20 – 30 years ago. My tablet sucks back a tiny portion of the power my desktop gulps…etc. I absolutely love VAWT wind turbines, and solar. My province is basically run off a hydro grid, which is another type of turbine system. I have no issues with it, its just not “my” grid. And the cost of my electric scooters vs my car…omg. Just waiting for an EV with range…and that’s the game.
richardscourtney,
I’m a huge geek, I would not expect you to follow trends the way I do. Your opinion is antiquated. I’m not suggesting anybody try to power a large ocean vessel via wind, although it was common practice for centuries. A) we get a lot of sun on the prairies, and B) I’m not sure why you think I should prop up a dependency that I could be free of within 15 years. Its like buying a house vs renting till I die
Owen, your logic is sadly lacking.
You will only be independent of the power grids you hate when every single product you use, plus all the food you eat, plus the materials your house is built from, are produced without the input of a single kilogram of fossil fuels.
Until that happens, you are a leech sucking on the efforts of the rest of society while claiming the moral high-ground.
@owen
I see you are a bleeding edge adopter. Unless you are prepared to make drastic changes in the “typical” American lifestyle, or have ridiculous quantities of vacant land good for no other purpose, this is no-win at current prices, absent very special circumstances. Without subsidies you can’t compete. Even our host shelled out $2.77 per installed watt for his rig with a lot of his own sweat equity. Coal plants historically run around $1.00-$2.00/watt, and they run at night.
LED’s (one wag I know calls them Light Emitting Decorations) are certainly cheaper than a year or three ago. Come back in three years and let us know how many of yours are still pumping out the lumens. The early hype said we’d get 21,000 hours out of CFL’s. Now they promise about 4,000 at 3x the price of high performance incandescents. Now LED’s claim 40,000 hours but the criteria are different. That’s 40,000 to 70% of original lumen output. A simple light meter can tell you if you’re getting what you paid for. I await your data with interest.
“However findings from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH) – which use satellite data – show a strikingly different picture, ”
If Land/Sea and satellite are not matching, why are they only investigating Land/Sea? After all, wasn’t the entire UAH record just revised in one month by changing their model that interprets the microwave data?
Because UAH made all of their data and their methods and reasons for adjusting the data available for anyone to see.
On the other hand HadCrut is famous for losing their data and they and the others still refuse to reveal their methods.
“Because UAH made all of their data and their methods…available for anyone to see”
I am not sure that is true. Could you show me the web site for the code for computer algorithms that were used? I didn’t think so.
“Because UAH made all of their data and their methods and reasons for adjusting the data available for anyone to see.”
Really? Where?
The NOAA adjustment code is here. NOAA provides extensive data, adjusted and unadjusted. GISTEMP code is here. All the main codes describe their methods extensively in publications.
NOAA never provided code, Menne for example says to read his papers.
An interesting thing about the difference in GISS estimates of GTA from previous years, or raw data and homogenised data is the large systematic error corrected for but little random error. Its as if changes in station position, closing and opening of new stations, and change of time of observation were all coordinated to hide the warming.
“is the large systematic error corrected for but little random error”
There is little random error in a global average anyway, because of the very large numbers. I showed here that you could add random noise, amplitude 1°C to the station monthly averages and it made hardly any difference at all.
It is systematic error, or bias, that is the potential problem, and that is what the corrections are designed to deal with.
Nick,
Sorry, but the “corrections” are clearly designed to cook the books. How else do you explain GISS’ previously secret UHI “adjustment” AlGore-ithm which, when finally dragged kicking and screaming out of Hansen, showed that instead of cooling the affected stations, it warmed them?
How do you explain HadCRU “adjusting” its ocean “data” warmer to match their already cooked book land station “data”?
Why are records from past decades cooled while more recent warmed, not just once, but repeatedly, as the present keeps refusing to behave as desired?
Etc.
The whole corrupt exercise needs to be shut down, and will be if an honest person is elected president to go with the GOP congress.
The systematic bias toward warming is obviously not to make the data better, but to make them conform to the story.
Nick, you add essentially zero to every month and get virtually zero difference. Yippee! You could add a Gaussian distribution of ±10°C as there are enough stations for the average to be essentially zero.
There are adjustments that add a large trend to the data, almost a straight line for most of the 20th century. Every year, the average of shifts of stations reduced warming by about 0.003°C per year on average with surprisingly little variation. It would require almost no variation in number of station shifts per year and a conspiracy to put an equal portion of them in a colder spot.
Sturgis, exactly, lets add that HADCRUT can not supply the raw data they lost, and there are continues .01 degree cooling’s regularly made to the past, and the Iceland adjustments are not rationally defensible, and homogenization and infilling is expanding, with up to 40 percent of USHC stations not used.
There is a reason the 40s blip vanished, and the warming slope is ever steeper, as the baseline is ever changing. .
Growing concern, lack of transparency… we are not in 18th century call it what it is… LIES! Manipulation and guessing of temperatures to reach a pre-concieved solution. High School kids do it all of the time. These scientists just never grew up and out of it!
Wonder why Drudge would link to this article right under a headline that it is snowing in AZ? Agenda?
Marc,
The agenda is entirely on the part of the UN/IPCC and the government. The “dangerous man-made global warming” narrative is intended to pass a carbon tax.
That would give governments something they’ve always dreamed about: a way to tax the air we breathe.
Both of the satellites that measure global temperatures show that for almost twenty years now, there has been NO global warming! Yet they are still trying to frighten the public with their ‘global warming’ scare (which has morphed into “climate change”, because global warming has stopped.)
This chart shows that the temperature stations that were eliminated were the ones showing no global warming. Only those in regions with local warming were left:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.jpg
Best graphic ever.
Wow over a 1 deg artificial increase (is that C or F?)
They just don’t care how many facts are given…They want to tax us for breathing and this is the best way to do it.
I guess the true believers have had the ability to understand irony surgically removed.
No surprise to find that the areas with the FEWEST monitors are the one’s that are the main focus of the alarmists concern……
Dave, pay attention to your use of apostrophes, massive FAIL.
“Different technologies will also produce different readings, simply because the technology has changed and you have to take that into account.”
Did climate scientists and temperature measurement technical experts ever hear of something called “instrument calibration”? If I measure a length with a micrometer, a laser rangefinder, or for that matter a ruler, the precision of the measurement may vary. But if the instruments are properly calibrated*, the mean of a series of measurements using each technology should be the same. Why are not temperature measurements calibrated routinely?
*calibration The comparison of a measurement instrument or system of unverified accuracy to a measurement instrument or system of known accuracy to detect any variation from the required performance specification. (American Society for Quality Glossary)
Yes, they have heard, but it is not so simple in the end. There are systematic biases even when the temperature as such is ‘precis’ correct. Like, did you let the grass grow? It slows wind and decreases mixing of surface air – affects the local lapse rate.
Not sure of your point on calibration, but it seems odd to go back and adjust decades old data more than once. Strangely the older data is adjusted downward to exaggerate warming. How does one calibrate thousands of temperature readings collected decades ago with any certainty?
“For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.” –
See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/12/university-of-augsburg-44-year-veteran-meteorologist-calls-climate-protection-ridiculous-a-deception/#sthash.340HOZxd.dpuf
There are at least a dozen differences between man-made global warming (MMGW) and real science. While science follows a defined scientific method, MMGW uses political campaign tools like polls, demonizing opposition, scare tactics, deception, and propaganda.
Real science, for example:
1. says “Question everything”. MMGW says “Questioning MMGW is reckless because it threatens the planet.”
2. never ends, but is an ongoing cycle of testing and correction. MMGW tries to break that cycle by claiming “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”. “SETTLED SCIENCE” IS AN OXYMORON invented by non-scientist Al Gore to avoid debating his profitable beliefs in public.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
3. develops hypotheses that are falsifiable via testable predictions. MMGW ISN’T FALSIFIABLE because it makes contradictory, changing predictions. More hurricanes (see Al Gore’s movie cover) or fewer hurricanes (reality now attributed to MMGW), more snow or less snow, warmer or cooler than average temperatures, etc. are all cited AFTER the fact as proof of MMGW. There is no observation that MMGW proponents will accept as refuting their belief. Predictive models created by warming proponents are consistently wrong:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/05/new-peer-reviewed-paper-shows-just-how-bad-the-climate-models-are/
4. relies on skeptics to make progress. Many real scientists spend their careers try to disprove accepted wisdom. MMGW, on the other hand, intimidates and SMEARS SKEPTICS as “non-believers”, equating them to holocaust deniers and treating them more like the Church treated Galileo:
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/15/eminent-swedish-scientist-latest-victim-of-climate-mccarthyism/
5. grants awards for disproving accepted truths. MMGW researchers, on the other hand, have a VESTED INTEREST in only one outcome. They can access billions of dollars in government money only while MMGW is perceived by the public as a threat to humanity:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/19/the-well-funded-climate-business-follow-the-money/
6. has nothing to do with polls or consensus, but MMGW proponents CONSTANTLY USE POLLS to defend their claims. Ironically, even when they use polls they have to spin their outcomes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
7. doesn’t claim validity by citing the credentials of proponents. It respects only data and analysis, regardless of who is publishing it. Einstein was a little known patent office clerk when he overturned the consensus understanding of space and time in 1905 with Special Relativity. “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong.”-Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Physicist
8. keeps testing to remove bias and discard bad models. Einstein’s Relativity is still being tested a century later. MMGW ignores or HIDES DATA it doesn’t like:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html
9. accepts that bad predictions imply bad hypotheses. When MMGW predictions are wrong they don’t question the hypothesis…they just change the predictions and REBRAND the movement.
10. never recommends that skeptics be JAILED:
http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888
http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/16/al-gore-sxsw-punish-climate-deniers/
11. doesn’t create billionaires who get rich peddling untested theories.
12. tries to account for all interfering variables in studies. MMGW simply ignores all the variables that have drastically impacted Earth’s climate for billions of years unless those factors are needed to excuse faulty predictions.
Thank you. That is one of the best comparisons I have ever read. I will pass it on.
12. When the data doesn’t match the theory, regular science adjusts the theory. MMGW adjusts the data.
Excellent summary Mike. Thanks.
This needs its own post.
Excellent.
However, I would suggest everyone stick to the same set of acronyms, in this case CAGW instead of your MMGW. The waters have been muddied enough as it is with the alarmists continually concocting new terminology like “climate d e n i e r” so that the masses are more easily confused and baffled.
Also, I suggest the use of italics or bold for emphasis, in place of
ALL CAPS.This reminds me of estimating lobster populations. When I was an undergrad, in a bio1000 lab a professor explained to me how he got lobster population numbers for his research. He relied on the fishermen. Lobster fishermen would report a tagged lobster to [the professor] when the fisherman happened to catch one. They also would report how many lobsters they caught over all. Now [the professor] tagged live lobsters and previously dropped them in areas where he knew that the fisherman would fish. By his reasoning, the fraction of the tagged lobsters, the number of originally tagged lobsters, and the total lobster catch yield the number of total population. So he thought. My point here is that they ended up measuring populations where they had access to measure, not considering un-fished populations and migration. The professor assumed that the fisherman knew where all the lobsters were. I mentioned this to him and I got a really nasty response and a less-than-perfect grade on that lab. I questioned his model.
It seems to me that temperature sensors are located based on ease of access, not relevance of location. In a perfect world, would it not be better to have a uniform hollow spherical distribution of sensors over the
entire planet, not just where it is easy to get at.
Notice the oceans are empty? Hey maybe we can convince the lobsters to take data!
One last observation, The red dots are deceptively large. The USA is almost entirely red. USA likely has a large number of Stevenson Screens, A Watts has pointed out that scientists in the USA are blind to certain areas of the USA also. Add to that his criticism of the reliability of the data coming from them and UHIE.
Someone please post a link to his paper.
http://www.surfacestations.org
“Notice the oceans are empty? Hey maybe we can convince the lobsters to take data!”
Reports indicate that lobsters turn red in hot temperature. 🙂
poor pinchy….
That’s a perfect example of soft science and soft scientists getting mad when you mention their fallacies.
I’ve been battling the soft science at the FWS for over a year now on the listing of Lesser Prairie Chickens as threatened and their extortion on any industry activity in these areas. I run into things like distance of “mean avoidance” in the literature with not a single other supporting statistic or observation. As if the average distance that tagged chickens are from infrastructure is somehow scientific evidence that these animals purposely avoid the object of interest despite half of the chickens being within that distance and a plethora of direct observations of chickens standing right next to infrastructure.
I think that as bad as “science” and pal review has gotten there needs to be some sort of grading system on publications like there is on course work. Requiring scientists to have a degree in science instead of arts would be a good start, and that would automatically do away with most of the climate science industry.
“I questioned his model.”
Kiss of death. There are some very small minds occupied in academia who are not fit for purpose.
I surveyed for Mountain Pine beetles, in Western Canada, and I can tell you we employed 3 different types of survey and control. They were all scientific, that is, they were all based off of well founded assumptions. But only one method, “full survey” yielded anything close to precision. Full coverage is another name for full survey. So much was missed with the other methods, we were returning year after year to the same control sites. In the context of surveying the earth and all its layers for temp readings…omg. Only full coverage and resolved fluidics math can answer the bug questions. So much speculation and bias pervades climate science.
Owen, You might know GlynnMor of Skywall 🙂
Yes my point exactly. So when they were surveying, was much done by the roadsides rather than steep slopes in bear country?
“Global Warming-Climate Change-Whatever handle fits at the moment” is unquestionably the biggest scam and money grabbing scheme ever to have been thrust upon mankind. The veracity and objectivity of the so-called “scientists” has always been highly suspect, with seriously skewed data based on models, rabid personal opinions and the exclusion of certain data that contain “inconvenient truths”. The only fact associated with this travesty is that it has created a multi-billion dollar industry where millions of scam artists world-wide have a stake at perpetuating the lies. And lets not forget where most of the…ahem…scientists…get their money from; governments, loopy millionairs (like Al Gore) and wealthy ditzy Hollywood celebrities. So the data crunchers will produce whatever results are needed to sustain the narrative and their very lucrative jobs.
Sooner or later they get found out, but a great deal of damage is done in the meantime. Now, I think I’ll just dig out my 1970’s articles, written undoubtedly by some of the very same scientists, and enjoy the predictions of the looming ice age….which should have happened by about now!
We have had previous temperature records “updated” and weather stations placed in airports and other heat islands, Despite this, AGW is still unproven even when people like myself are insulted with the term “d@nier” and “the science is settled” keeps getting churned out ad nauseum. I will pre-empt the GWPF’s findings by:
a) Predicting there is guesswork involved and
b) The temperatures were lower in the past than they are now and there is an exponential rise
We’ve all seen in the infilling they do. Station 1,2,3 form a huge triangle, all showing 80F. There are no stations in between. They guestimate that the entire area in between should be closer to 85F, due to some variation excuse… and voila! IT’S WORSE THEN WE THOUGHT!!!
Or like Carnarvon,in Western Australia. Doubt the data. Homogenise with temperatures from the surrounding area that are inland.
“But all these adjustments, you would expect, should balance each other out. ”
Someone doesn’t seem to understand the philosophy of “adjustments”.
“Adjustments” are the difference between the actual recorded data value ( the “raw data”), as obtained from the instrument in question, and the value required to satisfy the forecast value ( the “raw adjusted data”) i.a.w. the mean of a selected set of models plus a bonus margin in order that the “adjusted” data will yield a record value sufficiently ahead of the next scheduled international Climate Science conference and facilitate an economic number of least publishable paper units to be pal reviewed, published and financially rewarded (the “LPU adjustment margin”).
The notion that “adjustments” “should balance each other out” is clearly a complete misapprehension and only serves to deny the correct climate of scientific endeavour required to maintain the forecast of CAGW.
To any who are not fully across the concepts outlined above, can I suggest the COOKMOOC Denialism 101 course on line run by the University of Queensland which is entirely funded by LPU and is one of the most sustainable education models currently operating anywhere on this or any other planet.
All those dots represent thousands and thousands of people sucking off of tax payer money…
The last part of Levi Winchester’s article in the Daily Expressseems to have been omitted….
David May,
Satellite temperature data is the most accurate data we have. It does not depend on land-based temperature stations, which ignore 70% of the planet.
Satellite temperature measurements clearly show global cooling for many years now.
That’s why the “global warming” scare has morphed into “climate change” — a vague term that means nothing. The climate always changes.
Finally, all the arm-waving is over a 0.7ºC fluctuation in temperature, over a century! That is as close to flat and unchanging as you will ever see in the temperature record.
Fact: There is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening. The “dangerous man-made global warming” scare is just a money-grubbing hoax. Read this website for a while, and you will clearly see the scam. There is no credible science supporting climate alarmism. None at all.
DBstealey…So if as predicted the satellites show warming this year (with the El Nino), will you conceded the planet is still warming? I am curious only because every other indicator on the planet… ice … sea level…. the main land based data sets … all show warming continues.
simon,
you do realize that ice will carry on melting even if the temperature falls. The clue is in the name of the period we inhabit, an interglacial. Once we enter the next glaciation, Canada is toast (so to speak!).
Billy… and your point is? If you are saying the world may have stopped warming and that the ice could still be melting. I guess that is possible. It’s also what happens in a warming world and given both the arctic (including Greenland) and antarctic are pretty warm at the moment, my guess is it’s melting coz the planet is warming up. And lets not forget the glaciers are melting (well most of them anyway). But hey, ice is only one of the indicators.
Simon,
For the past going on 20 years, the planet has not been warming up. It is warmer now than 320 years ago, in the depths of the LIA, warmer than 160 years ago near the end of that cold interval, but probably not (we don’t know because of the cooked book “data” sets) warmer than 80 years ago, during the previous warm cycle of the Modern Warm Period, which followed the LIA, just as the LIA followed the Medieval WP.
We do know that the Modern WP so far has been cooler than the Medieval WP, which was cooler than the Roman WP, which was cooler than the Minoan WP. The planet has been in a long term cooling trend for at least 3000 years and possibly 5000, since the end of the Holocene Optimum. The Modern warming cycle has so far not reversed that trend.
Soil radionuclides from the edge of the EAIS show that it hasn’t moved in 3000 years. Its next move, scarily, is likely to be extension rather than further retreat from its Last Glacial Maximum extent, c. 20,000 years ago.
simon,
You need to educate yourself if you think that Greenland and Antarctica are ‘pretty warm at the moment’. Your guess is wrong, the ice has been melting, more or less, for close on 20,000 years.
DB…. I only bring this up because this thread is very much about data and what it is telling us. You have told us on many occasions that you are a man who trusts the data… and you trust very much the satellites, so will you adjust your view if the two satellite data sets show warming?
To Billy and sturgishooper … sorry boys, believe what you want, but please I am way past discussing the myths you bring up. Find someone with a foil hat.
Simon says:
…will you adjust your view if the two satellite data sets show warming?
If global temperatures begin to rise and accelerate according to satellite and other data, and if it continues for several years, then yes, of course I will change my mind. I’m a skeptic. I’ll look for all the reasons that might have caused it.
That’s the difference between skeptics and alarmists. If and when the data changes, skeptics will listen to it and change their minds if necessary — while the alarmist crowd cherry-picks only those factoids that support their ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ belief.
Global warming stopped rising almost twenty years ago. But here you are, simon, still looking for those factoids to feed your MMGW confirmation bias.
Simon
May 15, 2015 at 3:55 pm
Only in “climate science” are the hard data I cited “myths”.
DB…. Thanks for responding. We can now watch with interest and see how things pan out.
Let me see if I have this straight, more ice means the planet is warming.
MarkW
Sort of.
Depends on where the “more ice” is, and when you have established the “zero.zero” baseline point to decide if you have “more ice” or “less ice” . And, on land, there is no single sentence that works pole to pole.
See, down south, “more ice” means a cooler planet, because the southern sea ice is much closer to the equator at all times of the year than the Arctic sea ice. Thus, but ONLY down south, the oft-repeated mantra (more sea ice means more energy reflected from the ocean, so the ocean cools off) is true.
Up north? Not so much. Only in April-May-June-July is that story true. Only in those months is the sun high enough and the Arctic ice present close enough to the equator that the sun is high in the sky far enough that the sun can actually heat the newly open waters 0 in stead of just reflecting off back into the sky. The rest of the year, the melted sea allows much energy to be lost from the open ocean by evaporation, convection, conduction and radiation losses than is absorbed by the ocean from the sun. So, from today’s sea ice extents under today’s conditions, losing sea ice up north cools the plant – 2/3 of the year.
So, some places, more ice (more falling snow on land) means more humidity and more falling precipitation and frozen water – perhaps from warmer air over open waters, perhaps from other things. In some areas, more (sea) ice means a colder ocean; in other places, more sea ice means a warmer ocean – some of the time.
Simon, the ice has been melting for almost 400 years. Is CO2 responsible for the melting that occurred hundreds of years prior to the rise in CO2?
Simon, people who understand science are capable of understanding that a one year, minor temperature increase does not a trend make.
And that is no myth.
Thanks for completing the picture. I put more faith in Bob Ward’s statement. We pay his wages and he has no vested interests. Lawson, on the other hand…..
Ah yes, the standard, anyone who works for govt is incorruptible, line of thinking.
You must work for fund manager Jeremy Grantham if you pay Bob Ward’s wages. I thought Jeremy Grantham has $112Billion of vested interest (as of 2013).
Earth stations cannot be relied upon for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is the manipulation proven to be in evidence (climate-gate etc.) Therefore the only data that can or should be relied upon for genuine scientific or engineering research is independently audited satellite.data. This also applies to the data collection of so-called greenhouse gasses.
Let the real science begin.
I hope their research into sparse data and resulting estimates and adjustments to raw data will be unbiased and comprehensive. Then, we need to find a way to guard the raw data and make sure they are preserved exactly as recorded/measured to have a baseline to determine any bias in previous and subsequent adjustments and homogenizations.
Recently even the raw data are biased toward warmth. NOAA’s instrument readers preadjust them. Some commenters on WUWT have noticed the discrepancy between readings of their own thermometers and those at nearby NOAA stations.
Climate science is now thoroughly corrupt.
Really? I’ve never even considered that as a possibility. How sad that it has come to that.
Sad and infuriating.
But not IMO really a surprise. NOAA’s lowliest flunkies know upon which side their daily bread is buttered. Trough-feeding toadies, one and all.
But when a new piper is playing the tune, they’ll dance to it as well.
PS:
Bear in mind that this is the agency which set up an extra reporting station in Death Valley, sited (opposite a south-facing stone cliff) so as to, it was hoped, break the long standing heat record there. Yet it still hasn’t panned out for them.
This is the agency which is systematically going back over state record highs so as to eliminate those which it deems unlikely to be broken soon. Same thing the international criminals did with the world heat record from Libya.
The depths of their evil deception have not yet been plumbed.
I always wondered where the 3% of “scientists” who deny human influence in climate change hang out…now I know.
shouldn’t your post read “where are the “3%” of scientists”?
Lyn Wilson,
Your bogus “97% of scientists” narrative has been so thoroughly and repeatedly debunked that only religious True Believers in dangerous man-made global warming still but into that nonsense.
Send in the clowns….
Don’t bother, they’re here
Another acolyte who believes what she is told to believe and doesn’t dare think for herself.
Of course a grand total of nobody denies that humans can influence the climate. But if it’s more comfortable to believe lies about those who disagree with you, than it is to actually understand what others say and believe …
Lyn, consensus arguments is worthless, REPRODUCIBLE research is what drives science learning..
Global Warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.
http://www.zazzle.com/FirstPrinciples*
What troubles me is the lack of actual science going on here. Adjustments require some kind of knowledge as to what the actual should be. For instance, the recording of the neutrino that went faster than light needed adjustment because of instrumentation problems, mainly a faulty fiber optic attachment and a slightly fast clock oscillator. We know it can’t travel faster than a light particle, thus something was wrong. Local temperature records don’t have this hard-known actual that can be adjusted to. We can’t know for certain the “real” temperature without some form of comparison point. All we can tell is what is recorded by the instrument and that is what should be recorded and published, not a what-if guess.
Which still leaves out quantum entanglement. And or time displacement, which faster than light would imply. I could find fault with either/and both the faster clock and faulty fiber. Light on a fiber either works or it doesn’t and the clocks have to be matched for the signals to be read. The light signal doesn’t back up like on an electrical signal and inject errors as in bridge taps or impendence mismatches for example. The only thing you can have is a reduced db signal, and it fails only if it is below the minimum. Then you have signal components, do they take some of the bit stream to check or is entirely timing with injected errors to count the time. Otherwise you have errors. Additionally, there is redundancy on light systems. If one side or the other is out, it is shut down and alarm occurs, but not for the entire circuit unless it all fails. There is no partial failure. Also, on many of these, the systems are self healing. Speaking of entanglement, some of the switches and the networks are kinda spooky.
Do I believe the faulty connection and clock story? Not really. There is probably some other reason.
LT, your analogy is spot on. Just as physicists knew that the neutrino couldn’t travel faster than light, there are many climate scientists who “know” that the temperature is still rising, so the observations must be wrong.
RH, you’re not thinking. At least try.
LT says:
We can’t know for certain the “real” temperature without some form of comparison point.
Metrology/calibration has flown right over LT’s head. Aside from that, let’s pretend his argument has merit, and that we’re not certain of any particular temperature point (within error bars, we are).
That still doesn’t matter. Because the trend is what’s important.
The global temperature trend has been flat to declining for many years now, as the data from both global temperature satellites shows (RSS and UAH). Even the IPCC admits that global warming has been in a long term “pause” (by which they mean: it has stopped).
Next, RH, your comment here is pure parody:
… there are many climate scientists who “know” that the temperature is still rising, so the observations must be wrong.
Sure: “Throw out the observations! Make the ‘theory’ fit our beliefs!”
Anyway, you don’t name those “scientists”, so I assume you just made that up.
So there is a basic physical law of the universe that says that the earths temperature must still be rising? Basic physical laws are more than gut feelings!
We don’t know for certain that nothing can go faster than light, we just strongly believe it base on our best current theory, but everything should be open to experimental verification, and if a well conducted experiment disproves even the most strongly believed theory, then the theory must be wrong.
quality control ? in climate science ? surely you jest …
We have an official NOAA measurement station about 12 miles from our house. About 4 years ago an adjacent orchard of mature fruit trees was replaced with grapes. For anyone who’s ever worked in an orchard and then in a vineyard you already know the rest of the story. My guess is, all other things being equal, the orchard cooled the adjacent environment by as much as 3 to 4 degrees F, while the grapes allow the sun to cook the ground rather directly.