Steve McIntyre always told us to “watch the pea under the thimble” when it comes to climate change pronouncements, this is one of those cases. Yesterday, to much media fanfare, wailing, and gnashing of teeth NOAA pronounced that 2015 was the hottest year on record, ever! There’s only one problem with that…the Internet never forgets. Back in 1997 after the super El Nino made global temperatures soar, NOAA/NCDC produced this report:
Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713 (h/t to Tom Nelson)
Archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/20150504164341/http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713
In that 1997 report, they say clearly that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) was 62.45°F, based on a 30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures. Since we know the 1997 El Nino caused a record high spike in temperature, that means that for that 30 year period, there was no warmer GAT than 62.45°F up until that time.
Yet in 2015, the claim for the “warmest ever” GAT is different:
They say:
During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 136 years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.29°F (0.16°C) and marking the fourth time a global temperature record has been set this century.
Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512
( Note that they link in that quote, to an image which does not exist: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201501-201512.png )
In the 2015 Annual State of the Climate report referenced above, NOAA says that the temperature was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. That’s an important number. While they don’t reference the absolute value of the 20th century average temperature for the globe in that report, we can find it here in the November 2015 State of the Climate Report:
Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201511
==========================================================================
UPDATE: WUWT commenter “brian0918” points out that in other reports, NOAA give the 20th century global average temperature as 57°F – That may be they are referring to the 20th century average for the month of November in the initial report I cited, but don’t make it clear in the language used, or it may be a typo. Even so, it is still lower than 62.45°F. I made the corrections in the title and in the body of this post.
==========================================================================
So here is the math for the claims, for 2015, to get the number, we have to add the yearly variation from the 20th century average to it to get the absolute number:
GAT for 20th century = 55.2°F
GAT for 1997 = 62.45°F
GAT for 2015 is 1.62°F + 55.2°F = 56.82°F
In any universe, 56.82°F is lower than 62.45°F by 5.63 degrees Fahrenheit.
======================================================
UPDATE: (using the 57°F 20th century GAT mentioned in comments)
GAT for 20th century = 57°F
GAT for 1997 = 62.45°F
GAT for 2015 is 1.62°F + 57°F = 58.62°F
In any universe, 58.62°F is lower than 62.45°F by 3.83 degrees Fahrenheit.
======================================================
Of course, apologists and NOAA itself will run to their statistical hidey-hole and say that the 1997 value isn’t about the 20th century temperature comparison, but only compared to the “30-year average (1961-1990) of the combined land and sea surface temperatures.”, and therefore the comparison is not a valid one. (Meanwhile NASA GISS uses a 1951 to 1980 baseline for their historical temperature claims today, which is an arbitrary choice) But, I say it doesn’t matter what they say. NOAA is charged with presenting factual evidence in the context of climatic history, and when they make claims of absolute temperature, they need to be darn sure they get it right. Otherwise, the press, supporters of the cause like Seth Borenstein at AP, and the folks at the Washington Post just blindly regurgitate what NOAA says without questioning it.
To give an example of how the media can’t even do basic fact checking anymore, I calculated the GAT for 2015 is 1.62°F + 55.2°F = 56.82°F Simple math, right? Yet somehow, in press reports, that number got transposed to 58.62°F. Just look:
(UPDATE: If the 57F 20th century GAT value is used referenced in updates above, then we get the 58.62 number that is cited – while my math was correct, I relied on the context from the November, SOTC report, which was not clear, I’ve made the appropriate corrections.)
It appears that the source of that 58.62 number in error was Seth Borenstein at the Associated Press, though I can’t tell if he made the error himself, or quoted NOAA. This is what he wrote in the AP story:
NOAA said 2015’s temperature was 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (14.79 degrees Celsius), passing 2014 by a record margin of 0.29 degrees. That’s 1.62 degrees above the 20th-century average. NASA, which measures differently, said 2015 was 0.23 degrees warmer than the record set in 2014 and 1.6 degrees above 20th century average.
The point to be made here is that NOAA professes to be an expert at telling the public what the temperature is, when so many contradictions and errors creep into what is presented to the public, we should all learn to take what NOAA says, and what the media says with a grain of salt.
When you look at temperature that isn’t biased by continuous adjustments, such as NOAA’s highly questionable fiddling with sea surface temperature data this year, you find that 2015 was not the hottest record at all according to the U.S> Climate Reference Network data, which is a state of the art system designed to need no “corrections” of any kind. 2015 comes in third for the USA:
While that USCRN data only spans a little more than a decade, it is instructive for comparison to claims made. NOAA doesn’t seem to like referencing this state of the art USCRN system in their public reports, preferring instead to rely on their old, messy, error prone, and highly adjusted COOP/USHCN network which has been shown to have significant biases. They claim in their SOTC report from Jan 2016 that it was the 2nd hottest year on record for the CONUS:
In 2015, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature was 54.4°F, 2.4°F above the 20th century average. This was the second warmest year in the 121-year period of record for the CONUS.
Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201513
As I’ve said before, NOAA can’t seem to keep historical temperatures static, and thus the claims made referencing them, accurate. They change from month to month, and when there is no firmament to the history they present, why trust them?
Dr. John Christy said it best:
“If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees?” Christy said. “The government is not the final word on the truth.”
If NOAA can’t keep a simple claim accurate, such as what the GAT was in 1997 versus 2015, why indeed should we trust them? We shouldn’t, we should question everything, always, because it seems the global temperature is not only nothing more than a statistical construct, it is as fickle as the political wind.
Meanwhile, satellite temperature data, which NOAA and NASA don’t like to use, shows the Earth as third warmest in 2015.
I’ll have more on this story via updates.
UPDATE: Dr Richard Lindzen notes:
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen balked at claims of the ‘hottest year’ based on ground based temperature data.
“Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend. Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?” Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, told Climate Depot shortly after the announcements.
“All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations. Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity,” Lindzen continued.
“But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen wrote.
Lindzen has previously mocked ‘warmest’ or ‘hottest’ year proclamations.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The internet never forgets.
I’m pretty sure that the various right-wing governments of the USA, the UK, and Australia will find a way of changing that.
(I know. Redundant to say “right-wing”. US governments wing from very right-wing – which Americans call “socialist” – to extreme right-wing. UK and Australian govs swing from centrist/moderate right to close to very right-wing. They haven’t had a left-wing government for years.)
“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”
— Ingsoc (Newspeak for English Socialism or the English Socialist Party).
I never actually expected I’d live to see this happen, but it has and there’s no doubt anymore.
And I’d also argue you “right/left” analysis is off track; the important axis is totalitarian/libertarian. Both the right and left of the US, the UK and Europe are totalitarian, there’s no fundamental difference between them other than which things they consider more important to control and how they plan on doing it.
Eh? In the UK we spend over £100 billion in welfare payments, have a socialist health service (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need) and a state-centralised and controlled education system. The state takes over 40% of GDP in taxes. Not left wing?
How’s that, again? “America hasn’t had a left-wing government for years”? Are you using a different yardstick than everyone else, or haven’t you been paying attention for the last 7 years?
Socialist governments are not right wing! Socialist, Communist, and Fascist are all left wing forms of government. Get a clue.
RoHa must consider the North Korean government to be moderate if he thinks Australia has a far right government. We did have a conservative PM but he was deposed by a leftist who believes ETS’s are a good way to control the climate.
Face it…..THEY LIE !!! Liberals believe that the end justifies the means !
are we also vitriolic about those obviously cerebrally inept buffoons who said the earth was flat? or is that all just water under the bridge now?
Liberals believe that? I’m pretty sure liberals just recognise alternative preferences to their own. Obviously youre not liberal, but i dont see where it says “the ends justify the means” in the liberal’s handbook.
Hmm: Liberals don’t lie? Ok they don’t… here are the rules — Sol Alinsky’s rules for radicals…
http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals
read and enjoy.
The battle cry of the liberal is: “the end justifies the means.” Truth, principle, or being right is not the main concern of the liberal … results are. No wonder liberals have problems among themselves . . . not all of them are that liberal.
Whether or not it’s in the handbook, it’s the motto by which every liberal lives.
Just look at how they are willing to lie about anything.
The Earth is flat in some climate models.
HEADS UP A WARMIST TROLL IS ON THE LOOSE = caitiecaitie
What’s wrong cc do you feel lonely over at the little Sceptical science ???
Vitriolic-“filled with bitter criticism or malice,acrimonious, rancorous, bitter, caustic, mordant, acerbic, trenchant, virulent, spiteful, savage, venomous, poisonous, malicious, splenetic”
How on earth can you tell from Marcus’s comment whether he’s vitriolic or not? Liars are liars. Logical does not equate the stating of a fact, or the truth as one sees it, as automatically equating with vitriol, even if the statement is negative or unpleasant.
An obviously cerebrally inept buffoon- would be mentally incompetent, so you’d have to do indepth analysis to prove whether or not something they said was simply mistaken or an intentional lie.
TC there is skeptical science here? I see none.
[snip. -mod]
I think the term statist describes the despot mentality more broadly . Here’s my favorite relevant quote :
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin quoted in Max Eastman : Reflections on the Failure of Socialism
True liberals have no desire to change others unless there’s provable harm being done. AGW is fabricated, there’s no proof. That’s why the people promoting it should not be called liberals, they aren’t. They’re totalitarian elitists who have no respect for liberty, private property, freedom of choice, any of the liberal ideals. That they’ve successfully co-opted the term is not to their credit nor should it be tolerated. The should be called what they are and not allowed to hide behind an honorable classification once claimed by many of the great western philosophers.
And who are they?
“The Earth was flat” myth was generated in Victorian times for reasons not known but often surmised to be an attempt to show how superior science was to times past. Columbus knew the Earth was round (but bigger than he thought); the Vikings knew the Earth was round, as did the Romans, Greeks and Phoenicians. There did (still does?) exist a Flat Earth Society, of which Spike Milligan was perhaps the most famous member, however, I doubt he truly believed it to be flat, just that the idea fitted in so well with his humour.
Sorry to nag you like this, but you should realise that promulgating known myths as fact is not a good way to ensure others can accept your other comments as reasonable or correct.
“HEADS UP A WARMIST TROLL IS ON THE LOOSE = caitiecaitie”
Is anyone who posts a contrary position a troll? It seems that catiecaitie has made some well argued points and has remained civil in the face of insults such as “YOU are a cerebrally inept buffoon” “add being a chameleon to your undesirable traits.” “ask yourself why you don’t have any friends.”
“cc is quite the crybaby, whining ” “credulous and naive” and being accused of fabricating evidence about the Hubble telescope when the telescope was never mentioned – it was the Hubble constant.*
More general insults of those that disgree include “totally corrupt bastards” “gullible dopes” “AGW Kultists… engaging in hysteric fraud.”
Someone here linked to an article on Judith Curry’s blog titled “10 signs of intellectual honesty” Number 1 is :
1) Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance. (emphasis mine)
In the exchanges on this blog the signs of intellectual dishonesty are clear to see. Next time you wish to use insulting or derogatory language about someone you disagree with, just remember what Judith Curry pointed out.
*As an aside- Hubble came up with his observations that apparent velocity of distant galaxies was proportional to distance. The proportionality constant relating distance with velocity is the Hubble constant refered to by CC. It was estimated to be about 500 km/s/Mpc back in the 1920’s. The first “good” estimate was 75 in 1958, and current estimates are about 67.80±0.77. The units are interesting, because km and Mpc are both distance units, so they cancel out leaving the SI unit as /s.
seaice1:
I see you are uniting with the cc troll saying
Absolutely not!
The animated responses have all been reasonable reactions to abusive behaviours of the “cerebrally inept buffoon” (I wish I had thought of that accurate description) who has not made any “well argued points”.
As example, please see the subthread that begins here and ends with a summary by John B.
Richard
“Obviously youre not liberal, but i dont see where it says “the ends justify the means” in the liberal’s handbook.”
Hey there, can you send us a link to a copy of this handbook you are referencing?
What edition are you reading?
Is it a thin book, one which you know by heart, or did you have to read through it again to check on this specific issue?
Thanks in advance.
Menicholas (In reply to caitiecaitie)
The classic Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals starts with their commandment “My ends justify my means; but your morals, your means, and your life are illegal, immoral, unethical and fattening.”
Marx only wrote his books using that as a starting point.
Harry Reed several times from the podium of the Senate stated that Romney did not pay his taxes. A couple of months ago during an interview he was asked about this lie. In response he smiled and said “We won, didn’t we?’
[trimmed. Repeating the obvious is not needed here. .mod]
Not so much ‘Liberals’ as ‘r selection’ species, its a genetics (epigentics actually), thing. These types generally are what we refer to as progressives or Leftists or Liberals, but may cross other boundaries. One commonalty, among others, is that they are prone to cheating.
That’s what I said !! LOL… 😉
The adjective most commonly associated with Hillary, according to polling, is “LIAR”
QED
CC, the more you comment, the more you show that YOU are a cerebrally inept buffoon, and I have a model to prove it !!
Yes marcus, I understand your modus operandi is simple insult and ad hom.
That however, wont earn you publication and nor does it lend your points credence.
You are free however, to engage in the quotemining I’ve seen here, and I suspect this will be the sum total of your “model”.
Marcus. Could you comment on what you think is the merit of corroborating data and drawing conclusions based on the corroboration?
Before you’ve done that, feel free to examine the same parameter in the datasets available in NASA and JMT. Get back to me when you’ve drawn your conclusion about what you thihnk NOAA SHOULD have said about 2015 high temperatures.
Go on, I’m keen to learn how you process those data – my current understanding of how you do it is – I hope – very wrong.
cc,
And as I’ve pointed out, your M.O. is to endlessly deflect.
Your incessant deflection is done to avoid the fact that the observed warming is natural and normal. You have never produced any measurements of AGW, despite being asked repeatedly.
In science, data is essential. Measurements are data. But you have no measurements quantifying your DAGW belief system.
Wake me if you can find verifiable, testable, empirical measurements quantifying the fraction of AGW out of all global warming…
…or, keep deflecting like you always do.
“Yes marcus, I understand your modus operandi is simple insult and ad hom.
That however, wont earn you publication and nor does it lend your points credence. ”
Upon what do you base your assumption that marcus wants to earn publication or credence with you?
hello dbstealey.
Erm.. I have to do that? why? What claim do you think I’m making dbstealy?
I’ll help you out. I’m not making one that explictly supports nor refutes AGW – why? because I dont have the means, nor motivation to examine the data. What a cop out!.
Not really – you see dbstealy, if you examine my posts, you’ll find I’ve never once made such a claim. I’m aware of my limitations – my posts usually just focus around simple descriptions of processes. I invite people to correct me where wrong, and that’s happened a few times and that’s perfectly acceptable – it’s the SM afterall.
What I see here dbstealy – and explicitly from you, are the kinds of asertions and claims that you yourself object to. You falsify data – the plot you genereated for me was simply faked, and at the end of the day, you assert that scientists dont agree with you because they’ve got your name on a chalkboard in some old boys room, where they coddle around and dream up ways to stiff you, one more time.
dbstealy, along with a few other posters, you exhibit exactly what you loathe about the AGW crew. I dont need to “support” AGW, all I have to do is poke holes in your arguments, and since your final point was that it’s all a giant conspiracy, I relegated you to the same ranks as those who insist humans never went to the moon, that aliens are held in area 51, and that there are, in face, faces on mars.
cc sez:
I’m not making one that explictly supports nor refutes AGW – why? because I dont have the means, nor motivation to examine the data. What a cop out!.
You’re arguing incessantly with everyone, so you certainly have the motivation. You’re not fooling anyone here. I can smell a climate alarmist three states away, and you aren’t arguing with every scientific skeptic around because you agree with us. So add being a chameleon to your undesirable traits.
Next:
I dont need to “support” AGW, all I have to do is poke holes in your arguments
You’ve been repeatedly schooled about the scientific method, and still you deflect. Listen up: skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely on those who promote and believe in the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare. It is the skeptics of that failed conjecture who have the job of poking holes in it, and we have done a perfect job. There isn’t one CAGW argument that has withstood even mild scrutiny.
Next:
You falsify data – the plot you genereated for me was simply faked
You’re going off the deep end, junior. I haven’t generated any plots. You sound wacked out. Take an aspirin, lie down, and ask yourself why you don’t have any friends.
Finally:
…your final point was that it’s all a giant conspiracy, I relegated you to the same ranks as those who insist humans never went to the moon, that aliens are held in area 51, and that there are, in face, faces on mars.
When your feet are held to the fire, that’s all you can come up with? OK then, I challenge you to support those assertions. Show us where I’ve ever mentioned Area 51, aliens, or anything else you falsely claimed. You’re getting pretty desperate there, junior. That happens sometimes when folks lose an argument. Too bad, but that’s what you get for prevaricatig and deflecting.
“You’re arguing incessantly with everyone”
no, just people who misrepresent, or perpetuate misrepresentation or wont consider aspects that are rather obvious, and arrive at an obviously uninformed conclusion.
But okay, you admit you made an incorrect and invalid accusation. I am not asserting what you said I was asserting. I accept your acknowledgement of that omission.
“The onus is entirely on those who promote and believe in the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare”
That is rather inconsistent with the concept of onus probandi. I have not seen a legitimate reason to conclude climate science is anywhere near the levels of conspiracy you claim. You’re welcome to justify them at your leisure, until you do, as I said, you’re in the same basket as the area 51 crew.
“There isn’t one CAGW argument that has withstood even mild scrutiny”
Of course, scientific peer review is mild scrutiny – but you dont consider that, cos aliens.. no wait, conspiracy.
“Take an aspirin, lie down, and ask yourself why you don’t have any friends.”
I’ll ask my friends why they dont exist.. or something.. what? I’m not sure I’m as in need of a lie down as some.
dbstealy, the plot you showed elswehere in response to my asking about which of the plots in the publication that was the subject of discussion did not come from the publication, it did not show what you said it did. It looked very much like a mere excel plot, certainly not publication quality. It did not come from the publication – if you did not contrive it, someone did and you are responsible for the misinformation.
“Show us where I’ve ever mentioned Area 51, aliens, or anything else you falsely claimed”
Opps. in your addiction for vitriol, you didnt read what I wrote. Let me break it down:
“your final point was that it’s all a giant conspiracy, I relegated you to the same ranks as those who insist humans never went to the moon”
your final point was that it’s all about “pal review” i..e conspiracy by mates to publish mates findings.
Now, dbstealy, there are OTHER conspiracy theorists – e.g. people who deny humans went to the moon, people who think aliens are in area 51. YOU demonstrated you’re ALSO employing a conspiracy argument. Therefore, your arguments are of the same calibre as the area 51 mob.
I’m perfectly happy for you to refute that association if you think the area 51 guys are not employing conspiracy theory arguments. I’m honestly too lazy to show area 51 aliens is a conspiracy theorist’s playground.
When it’s correctly observed that he/she/it is arguing with people, cc asserts:
no, just people who misrepresent, or perpetuate misrepresentation or wont consider aspects that are rather obvious, and arrive at an obviously uninformed conclusion.
That insufferable ad hominem comment is a failed attempt to put anyone whom cc disagrees with (which is most commenters here) into a box labeled people who misrepresent, or perpetuate misrepresentation or wont consider aspects that are rather obvious, and arrive at an obviously uninformed conclusion
Yet cc is quite the crybaby, whining whenever someone calls her/it to account or says anything it doesn’t like to read. See, it’s A-OK for cc to post insults like that, but it’s just so unfair if anyone else points out that she/it started it!
Trolls could learn a lot from that insufferable know-it-all. Fortunately, the overwhelming consensus here knows what’s going on. Is it 25¢ a post these days? How much?
Alas……. please produce one paper that proves that the slight warming we may have had has NOT been totally due to natural climate variability.
In it you should be able to put forward, quantify (ordered list will do) and prove all climate forcings.
The ball is totally in your court.
Until you can actually prove it is NOT natural climate variability, the only fools around here are those that actually believe in this farce.
Alastair Brickell,
That’s the best you’ve got? AndyG55 put it well:
Until you can actually prove it is NOT natural climate variability, the only fools around here are those that actually believe in this farce.
The default position is natural variability. Show us that’s not what’s happening, and you will have credibility. Otherwise…
AndyG55 says to ‘cc’:
…please produce one paper that proves that the slight warming we may have had has NOT been totally due to natural climate variability.
And caitiecaitie hasn’t answered — despite dozens of other comments since then.
Total global warming over the past century has been ≈0.7ºC. How much of that minuscule warming was caused by human CO2 emissions? CC doesn’t know.
That is the central point in the entire debate, but cc doesn’t have the answer.
No climate alarmist can produce an answer to that question. All of their arguments are based on their BELIEF, not on science.
Skeptics are laughing at cc, who is all assertions, all the time.
” But, I say it doesn’t matter what they say. NOAA is charged with presenting factual evidence in the context of climatic history, and when they make claims of absolute temperature, they need to be darn sure they get it right”
You’re going to be disappointed when you discover why the scientific method is the way it is.
(psst, it’s because humans, data and interpretations are fallible – that is to say, we dont know everything with infinite precision. I know!, upsetting isn’t it!?)
I’m afraid your characterization of the problem doesn’t quite jibe with what the article is saying. Try reading it again. (Or maybe you shouldn’t bother, since you’ve basically verified Marcus’ point, [psst, a difference of 5.6 degrees is some distance away from not knowing “everything with infinite precision” And what about that 58.62 vs. 56.82? Is that acceptable in your universe? Is that error really covered by your argument that “we dont know everything with infinite precision”? Or did you just toss out the first rebuttal that came to mind regardless of how well it fit the original argument?])
it was more the “know everything” than “infinite precision” that might matter here.
One of the greater strengths of the point of the scientific method is that it’s self correcting.
Of course, if we got everything right , exactly, first go, science would not exist.
Therefore, we have these scientific method exactly for the reason that we dont know everything, exactly, first go. That’s why it exist, and that it is self -correcting is why it works.
This was basically the substance of my comment.
The 58.62 number comes from the actual 20th century annual average, which is 57.0F. The “20th century average” of 55.2F was just for the month of November.
When you’re looking up any of those Global Analysis reports, you have to pick Annual for the month.
In all the Annual reports, the 20th century average is reported as 57.0F:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201413
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201213
“One of the greater strengths of the point of the scientific method is that it’s self correcting.”
A great con line . . allowing totally corrupt bastards to get away with just about anything, while gullible dopes imagine vague magical forces preventing them from doing so. Notorious scientific blunders and frauds are thereby transformed into “proofs” that you can trust anyone in a lab coat, since those particular blunders and frauds were eventually found out.
It’s like saying you can trust politicians because politics is self correcting . . and for proof saying; Just look at all the corrupt politicians that have been exposed ; )
” great con line . . allowing totally corrupt bastards to get away”
interesting.. john. do you REALLY not know about the scientific method?
I know it’s not the people who ostensibly employ it, O purveyor of fantasy-land BS.
CC, the alarmists ” scientists ” DO NOT follow the scientific method..Pal review is not the same as peer review ! Falsifiable evidence is a must for scientific integrity, unless your a climate scientist !! They don’t believe they have to show their work because someone ” might find something wrong with it ” !!
Marcus,
two comments.
your description of “pal – review” seems like you’re asserting some kind of monumental global conspiracy, where climate change scientists are actively and deliberately permeating the peer review process so they can be awarded massive research grants and have a beach front mansion. Could you confirm this is your view (or not?).
I have another question too marcus:
The oil industry is supported by the most wealthy people on the planet, the most wealthy people in the usa. The AAGW backers have access to more money than any other group on the planet – even christians. Now, Surely if a scientists was in it just for the money, they’d jump on the most promisingly wealthy bandwagon – that is, the aspect that favours not ongoing consumption of oil, but accelerated consumption. I’m pretty sure that any insidious and scientifically dishonest crony would instantly jump on that, because it’s simply got a LOT more money behind it – yet here we have the vast majority of scientists opting for the less promising option. Not only that, it’s unpopular with the people that pay their salary anyhow (in the case of government-funded research at least).
So marcus, the implication that AGW researchers are in it just for the money really doenst stand up to a few moments’ thought. In fact, it fails dismally pretty quickly. A dishonest scientist is not going to opt for scientific integrity when there is a possibilty of selling out, and cashing in.
I dare say this site earns quite a bit from the ads – I’m not saying it’s the purpose for it’s existence, but I’m pretty sure it helps.
“They don’t believe they have to show their work because someone”
okay, fine, put your money where your mouth is – grab the corroborating datasets from JMT and NASA, and draw your own conclusion – post it here and argue your point.
I’d contend they dont show the working because it’s a non-point.
cc,
More deflection. You haven’t produced any credible evidence showing that the observed global warming is man-made.
So I guess deflecting to the alarmist talking points of ‘big bad oil’ will have to do.
” Surely if a scientists was in it just for the money, they’d jump on the most promisingly wealthy bandwagon – that is, the aspect that favours not ongoing consumption of oil, but accelerated consumption. I’m pretty sure that any insidious and scientifically dishonest crony would instantly jump on that, because it’s simply got a LOT more money behind it – yet here we have the vast majority of scientists opting for the less promising option”
Wild thinking. The oil industry would not put up with such lying and manipulation of the data. They would be fired after their first fabricated report. Business cannot survive by manipulating data unless they have the government enabling them the way alternative fuels operate.
Caitiecaitie: you do seem to be generating an unusual amount of antipathy with many on this site, with some responses appearing to be rather unnecessarily aggressive; however:
You ridicule others for apparently having a conspiracy theory, yet display your own belief in a conspiracy. Please show some consistency.
As for the “pal-review”, if you peruse the infamous Climategate e-mails, you will see an open discussion on the destruction of one reviewer’s career because he cast doubt upon the paper he was reviewing; the implication here is that the writers of the paper wanted their papers to pass review without being questioned – i.e., the reviewer has to agree with what they say. If that isn’t a desire for “pal-review”, please tell me why not. Then there is the authority that peer-review gives – is it a true basis of validity? Do you recall the case of Deiderik Stapel? Over 30 “peer-reviewed” papers, ensuring him a well-remunerated position at a Dutch university for many years, for it all to come crashing down when someone (one of his students, if memory serves me right) did question his papers, to find that they had all been totally fabricated.
Caitiecaitie: you do seem to be generating an unusual amount of antipathy with many on this site, with some responses appearing to be rather unnecessarily aggressive; however:
You ridicule others for apparently having a conspiracy theory, yet promulgate your own conspiracy theory. Please show some consistency.
As for the “pal-review”, if you peruse the infamous Climategate e-mails, you will see an open discussion on the destruction of one reviewer’s career because he cast doubt upon the paper he was reviewing; the implication here is that the writers of the paper wanted their papers to pass review without being questioned – i.e., the reviewer has to agree with what they say. If that isn’t a desire for “pal-review”, please tell me why not. Then there is the authority that peer-review gives – is it a true basis of validity? Do you recall the case of Deiderik Stapel? Over 30 “peer-reviewed” papers, ensuring him a well-remunerated position at a Dutch university for many years, for it all to come crashing down when someone (one of his students, if memory serves me right) did question his papers, to find that they had all been totally fabricated. Lesson learned? – even peer-reviewed papers should be treated with scepticism.
CC says:
it was more the “know everything” than…
…says the know-nothing sockpuppet.
I am pretty sure oil companies sell lots of oil and thus make lots of money (although not much these days) because they have something for sale that everyone on the planet needs and thus pay money to get their hands on some.
Apple does the same thing, and generates far higher profits, as do many other sorts of companies.
Normally the data are settled and scientists constantly argue over how to interpret it.
Only in climate “science” is the interpretation settled, while the data constantly change.
Actually happens in all sciences. For example, the error of Hubble red shift measurement is 40%-60% and the measurement results are jumping all over the place; however, it is settled that the red shift exists and it is caused by Doppler effect meaning that the Universe is expanding. A quick and simple explanation to why it is settled in this case is – it is exciting and sensational science!!! And we can watch Science or History channel and be super entertained, and Michio Kaku will tell us great stories…. And professors will get funding and the students will receive PhDs. What will you do with conclusion like that: “accuracy is of our measurement is insufficient to neither confirm nor deny existence of red shift”?… Boring! No funding (that’s the biggest one!), no fun programs, Michio and other bunch have to teach instead of playing celebrities (that’s second big one!), no “Big Bang Theory” show with such a funny Sheldon… That’s the picture…
+1
Ah yes indeed walt. The hubble constant changed well outside the earlier estimates of the errors.
Curiously, that fact is either uknown to, or ignored by the crew here – and actually so it should be, the scientific method is self correcting, thats the purpose.
I’ve already put to a poster here the question: why they dont make similar noise and accusations against edwin hubble. That he was a very lowly paid telescope staff might have something do to with it, but that grates with the accusation that scientists deliberately generate inaccurate errors so they can obtain ongoing grant money to generate yet more inaccurate data. The development of findings according to the scientific method seem so foreign to so many people posting here – there is such angst and contempt – and why? because they simply dont want to learn how the SM works.
It’s fine to object. It’s not fine to object from an uninformed standpoint.
cc,
are you that credulous and naive that you believe the CAGW scare is science?
It’s not. It’s all politics when it comes to federal grants. Read the Climategate email dump. It’s all there.
okay dbstealy,
it makes perfect sense for a scientist that you claim is intellectually dishonest and preferentially perusing a more financially lucrative future to select the “side” that is by far, the less wealthy. No really , right?
I mean, if I were to want oodles of cash, I’d probably choose one of the worst and difficult ways to get it right? Of course, I wouldnt want to side with the group that include people that are the most wealthy on the planet, and have an invested financial interest in attempting to refute AGW would I?
Reasoning, dbstealy – meet each other, dont be shy dbstealy, though it’s the first time you’ve encountered each other.
“cc” writes:
I shouldn’t have to point this out to you but since I spent some time in the field of astronomy I suppose I’m good enough; the reason is Ed Hubble never tried to tax everyone on the planet, threaten the lives of millions and generally behave like a pompous arse because his constant wasn’t quite right on the first go.
I find it fascinating how the troll CC actually believes that since NOAA is charged with producing factual data, that therefore they do.
It’s also fascinating the way the troll just assumes that things are only facts, when she agrees with them.
hi mark,
I’ll just point out that it’s impossible to sensibly reply to anyone who employs the “it’s a conspiracy theory dammit!” argument.
The reason for this is as follows – the argument goes thus.
you : you’re being deceived, but you dont know it
me: so how do you know it?
you: cos I do!
me ……
Actually to be honest, your answer to the last is probably more like “just look at the data wont you?!”
and when I look – I see no evidence for conspiracy.
Mark, what is portrayed here as an error and a deliberate obfuscation of data is not. You’re justified in asking why – and the answer is thus:
At the time the data were taken, corrborating data were not available -or at least, acessible. Recently it is: MET and JMT have only relatively recently made their corroborative data available.
So – in the past, when the data could not be corroborated, the finding was legitimate.
After later corrboration, the finding was found to be extranous – i.e. it was not corroborated.
Now any scientist worth their salt is going to ponder about uncorroborated data, and indeed, it is MORE dishonest to pretend the uncorroborated data is valid – quite simply, it’s not, we dont talk about data in terms of the outliers.
However EVEN if that was not the case, and the data were not actually able to be corroborated, it’s still perfectly legitimate for science to improve and modify its model and processing. Mark, this happens in science ALL THE TIME – in fact – IT’S CRITICAL for the scientific method. Absolutely fundamental.
The only failure here is that NOAA didnt bother to address and describe WHY the uncorroborated data was not described, but to demand they do is pretty insane anyhow – data == not corroborated == suspect == leave it out.
pretty simple isnt it?
caitiecaitie
(psst, it’s because humans, data and interpretations are fallible – that is to say, we dont know everything with infinite precision. I know!, upsetting isn’t it!?)
What? But, but, but… we were told the science was settled! You’re saying it isn’t?
Now I’m upset.
This is very strange, david. really. Its completely beyond my comprehension that grown educated adults genuinely appear to not actually know how science works.
David, can you confirm you dont know that science is a process of iteration and refinement?
really- guys. it’s bizarre!
CC writes;
“You’re going to be disappointed when you discover why the scientific method is the way it is.
(psst, it’s because humans, data and interpretations are fallible – that is to say, we dont know everything with infinite precision. I know!, upsetting isn’t it!?)
Grown up people naturally wonder, it seems to me; How come that lady did not mention that people can be dishonest, and that’s also part of “why the scientific method is is the way it is”? What sort of person would not want us to consider that possibility? . . What sort of person does not want others to consider the potential for human dishonesty? . . Well, I can think of one kind off hand ; )
hi john,
just to be consistent, can you explicitly denounce edwin hubble for lying?
Afterall, his inital estimate of Ho was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY different to the currently measured value.
So john, post back that edwin hubble is in insidious liar , motivated by lucrative grants to get better patches for the elbows on his aging sweaters, and then I’ll have a better idea of exactly how seriously you grasp all this.
Your next exercise will be to examine corroborating data – and this is what NOAA do – and show me that you come to a different conclusion to NOAA. You can easily access JMT and NASA/GIS data to examine, then explore the correlation (or not), and report back your declaration of the validity of NOAA’s statements.
Yes john, I’m giving you homwork because it’s ratther important you get on top of this particular matter.
The (to me occultists) implication that Mr. Hubble could be wrong but not dishonest, therefor no scientists who are wrong could be dishonest, is double-talking fantasy-land BS to me. Science is not self correcting, except when it is, like anything else.
Virtually all professions have measures in place to prevent error and/or fraud, but obviously such measures are not completely effective . . and the honesty of most does not prevent the dishonesty of some. And, the more people treat any such measures as if guaranties of honesty (as you are clearly proposing we do), the easier it is for the dishonest to thrive in any profession.
KatieKatie, you AGW Kultists got caught dead to rights engaging in the usual hysteric fraud.
Own up and bathe in the “excellence.”
You should revel in such power as it is invariably and unerringly fleeting as people discover they were lied to.
Sorry sven, I dont really understand your contention here.
What fraud are you accusing me of?
Are we engaging in a little quotemining sven? I do hope not.
What fraud are you accusing me of?
Let’s start with your name…
NOAA’s 20th century average temperatures, as pointed out by Brian:
“The 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature is 13.9°C (56.9°F), the annually averaged land temperature for the same period is 8.5°C (47.3°F), and the long-term annually averaged sea surface temperature is 16.1°C (60.9°F).”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513 (/201213 – /201513) under 2nd table, right above „Regional Temperatures“.
Chatty Caiti – Nick was the 1st one I found to put out this problem with NCDC/NOAA reporting. I have been updating since then.
(1) The Climate of 1997 – Annual Global Temperature Index “The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997” = 16.92°C.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13
(2) 2014 annual global land and ocean surfaces temperature “The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)= 0.69°C above
13.9°C => 0.69°C + 13.9°C = 14.59°C
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
(3) average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F) = 0.90°C + 13.9°C = 14.80 °C
The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F) [16.92 + (0.63-0.51)= 0.12 >> 17.04 °C ] for 1998
16.92 or 17.04 >> 14.59 or 14.80
Thanks to Nick at WUWT for the find. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/09/warming-stays-on-the-great-shelf/#comment-1856325
Since 1997 was not even the peak year (per 2015 write-up 1998 was 0.12°C warmer, which number do you think NCDC/NOAA thinks is the record high. Failure at 3rd grade math or failure to scrub all the past. (See the ‘Ministry of Truth’ 1984).
Oh and it is not called “data” after it has been massaged.
Actually, they call it data, though it is not any longer.
I’m getting a bit tired of this. “Data” just means “things given”. The output of one analysis is data for the next. The distinction you are trying to make is not between real data and fake data but between OBSERVATIONAL data and DERIVED data. It’s an important distinction, but it helps to use accurate words.
You left out CONTRIVED data.
Merriam-Webster
Full Definition of contrived
: having an unnatural or false appearance or quality : artificial, labored
“Oh and it is not called “data” after it has been massaged”
why is it not data?
do you not recognise that outliers are routinely omitted from data when doing analysis? What do you think a linear regression actually is? it’s pretending all the data exist in a single line – the scatter is thrown away. Is that a bad way to do science? Please suggest a better way. Thanks.
or pull your head in. either is fine.
I agree, it really does help to use words that accurately portray your intended meaning (or to put it simply, “to use accurate words”).
“The output of one analysis is data for the next” is also reasonable statement, but “more accurate words” could be: “The output of one analysis may potentially be used as data for the next”
And, when “the output of one analysis is data for the PREVIOUS”, so as to make the PREVIOUS fit the intended goal, then the data is more than just “things given”, it is “things created”.
It is very funny to hear the troll caitie caitie explain why she keeps using the straw man argument that she repeatedly and fallaciously employs.
‘scuse me, the popcorn is done.
BRB
CC-“You’re going to be disappointed when you discover why the scientific method is the way it is.
(psst, it’s because humans, data and interpretations are fallible – that is to say, we don’t know everything with infinite precision. I know!, upsetting isn’t it!?)”
You’re going to be disappointed when you discover that we know what the scientific method is, and how it’s supposed to be used. We KNOW it’s not about infinite precision at all. What does get us riled up is when NASA or NOAA or the press makes it seem like their work is precise, infallible, or accurate.
Doesn’t that upset you too?
hi aphan,
is it their fault you are making an unwarranted assumption about the quality of scientific data, even though you claim to be fully informed of how the scientific method works?
I’ll contend your education is not their concern. They dont need to teach you to read, or parse error bars, they dont need to teach you how to understand the significance and utility of scientific results.
I’m using edwin hubble as an example so often here, because it’s so apt.
You might even have been alive when it was first determined – the value was 75 km/s/Mpc.
Shucks, hubble – what a lying and manipulative, decieving and insidious person he must have been – he reported a result he knew to have large error bars without explicitly pointing it out!
Now of course, we know t Ho is something like 68+-0.77.
Boy what a liar he was for pretending that value was accurate! – dont you agree?
CC-“is it their fault you are making an unwarranted assumption about the quality of scientific data, even though you claim to be fully informed of how the scientific method works?”
Me-I don’t make unwarranted assumptions. In fact, I rare make assumptions at all unless I can back them up sufficiently. I have never believed that scientists are anything other than human and fallible. But other people DO think they are, and that should be corrected openly and often by scientists themselves. The fact that they do not correct it honestly and openly, it one of the reasons the public is losing faith in their failed predictions.
CC-“I’ll contend your education is not their concern. They dont need to teach you to read, or parse error bars, they dont need to teach you how to understand the significance and utility of scientific results.”
Me-It’s funny because just a few years back, the “scientific community” decided that for some reason, the public was failing to grasp how urgent the AGW situation is. So they decided that perhaps people needed to be educated about “science” itself. But…the social science research showed that :
http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/03/01/dan-kahan-climate-changescience-communications/
“And yet most climate communicators — especially advocacy communicators — cling to the science deficit model when it comes to climate change, arguing that the answer to changing hearts and minds is simply bigger, louder, simpler, scarier projections and modeling outputs. (hiroshima bomb widgets, inclining charts, comparing skeptics to moon landing deniers and everything else…guess what…IT BACKFIRED-and the public is no longer buying it in the US)
“This habit — an insistence that the blunt force instrument of a one-size-fits-all message must work for everyone, because it so convincing to us — isn’t just a bad one. It actually backfires.” (see…told ya)
“Kahan and his colleagues have found that, the more science-literate an “individualistic/hierarchical” person is (as opposed to “egalitarian/communitarian”), the less likely they are to believe in the urgency of acting to stop climate change.”
“Here’s where it gets potentially frustrating, especially to those who think we needed that answer yesterday. Because what’s bracing about Kahan’s new paper is his refusal to give pat recommendations, and his insistence that science communications needs to grow up and take a “genuinely evidence-based approach” to what it does.”
“Genuinely evidence-based science communication must be based on evidence all the way down,” says Kahan, without pity.”
“I’m using edwin hubble as an example so often here, because it’s so apt.”
You are such a fraud. Edwin Hubble DIED in 1953-The Hubble Telescope didn’t even launch until 1990. The freakin thing was NAMED after him, he was NOT the person who built it, and the problems with the lens were more than a few. And NASA..NASA knew there were problems, were told there were problems by the manufacturer and the main engineer of the lens over and over and over and yet still put that puppy in the sky. NASA was the home of the “lying, manipulative, deceiving, insidious people”. Now, go educate yourself about the telescope before you go demanding any more idiotic outrage towards Hubble.
And read up on logic, reason, and cognitive biases before you talk to me again. I will see the flaws in your arguments and expose every last one of them here for all to see. Count on it.
Aphan “You are such a fraud. Edwin Hubble DIED in 1953-The Hubble Telescope didn’t even launch until 1990. The freakin thing was NAMED after him, he was NOT the person who built it, and the problems with the lens were more than a few.”
CC never suggested Hubble had anything to do with the telescope. CC is talking about the Hubble Constant, nit the Hubble telescope.
Back in the 1920’s when Hubble came up with the proportionality between distance and apparent velocity the constant was estimated to be about 500 km/s/Mpc. The first “good estimate was in 1958 at about 70. Now we estimate it at 67.80±0.77 km/s/Mpc. CC’s point is that these estimates change but there is no suggestion of fraud. Nothing to do with the telescope.
Thanks dbstealy, I’ll defer you to my post above.
and remind you that it’s not okay to fabricate data.
Show me where I’ve ever “fabricated” data.
See, you’ve lost the argument, so you deflect into ad-hom lies that are easily disproven. I challenge you to show where I’ve ever fabricated anything. Produce evidence, or you are lying. It’s that simple.
Bearing false witness has been frowned upon for thousands of years, and yet here you are, doing it.
I’ll refer you to my post above, again. I’m not sure why you keep posting the same questions over and over.
You fabricated everything you just said about Edwin Hubble you brainiac you. LOL When my post clears (due to links) you might want to step back a few steps.
(The Hubble Telescope was named after Hubble…he did not design it, or build it, or launch it. He was DEAD 40 years before it even launched. And NASA….well they were vile, evil, liars back then too.
linkcanbefoundathttp://people.tamu.edu/~v-buenger/658/Hubble.pdf
What’s upsetting is an organization charged with administering government research funding in the areas of oceanic and atmospheric sciences throughout the US isn’t capable of simple arithmetic. It’s impossible to believe people that can’t add two rational numbers could get anything else right. I wouldn’t trust them with my laundry.
That’s upsetting.
cc,
” … we dont know everything with infinite precision …”
Every once in a while someone knowledgeable can reasonable confuse the meanings & differences between accuracy and precision, but doing so does indeed show that that person is probably lacking in their ability to completely understand the interrelationship of the little pieces that contribute to big picture.
I don’t give a shit about precision with respect to climate & weather projections (based on co2 as a driver or just a forecast/projection). Take a look at the accuracy of the projections and get back to me when you, or any those you follow, have something tangible.
(and take the mental time to understand what you think you are talking about)
As much as it would be proper to use absolute temperatures for comparing/determining the potential accuracy between the many methods used to calculate earth global temperatures, climate science has abandoned absolute temperatures in preference to trends and deltas, thereby glossing over the fact that no one can agree on what the temperature of the planet was at any point in history, including the average temperature today – which makes it impossible to compare modern temperatures with historic temperatures.
Yeah, Gavin and Reto are over on a Reddit AMA circle jerk right now.
Obviously they had to manipulate, I mean correct, the 20th century average, cooling it by several degrees F.
caitiecaitie:
On the ‘Gosh, a new model study …’ thread you demonstrated you know bupkis about science.
As davidmhoffer accuratelysaid of you
You need to learn much, much more before claiming an ability to inform anybody about science.
Richard
hi richard, its interesting you continue to slur me.
I’d encourage you to read what I wrote on that page, cherry picking your resource isn’t doing much for intellectual honesty.
no, i didn’t get the heat capacities reversed at all, thats a complete untruth.
I understand you are uncomfortable, but that doesnt justify the slurs.
There is no escape here.
caitiecaitie:
No smears and no slurs from me. I merely pointed out that your comments are based on your demonstrated ignorance of science and provided some of the evidence listed by davidmhoffer.
I am still awaiting the apologies I demanded for your untrue assertion that I had made “threats” and your unsolicited, untrue and abusive insults of me; see e.g. here.
Richard
OK Richard and “catiecatie” both of you, knock it off. Take your food fight elsewhere.
Yes, do! Everyone! Read what caitie wrote. Watch one of AGW’s finest in action.
HEADS UP A WARMIST TROLL IS ON THE LOOSE = caitiecaitie
What’s wrong cc do you feel lonely over at the little Sceptical science ???
Janice: I think you still think CC is a singular entity. Not so, IMO. It takes too much individually to invest the time and trouble this thing puts into threads. I suggest you parse the first two comments from it: suspect style differences. I recall that Mosher did a piece of work on Gleicke (sp?) – I would love to see what he makes of this one.
And please, everyone, stop with the gender bias. It’s a thing, or an entity of things.
“Janice: I think you still think CC is a singular entity. Not so, IMO. It takes too much individually to invest the time and trouble this thing puts into threads.”
Well, it might be Siamese twins, Catie 1 and Catie 2. (Just kidding.) I suspect it is a classful of college ecology students, plus their professor, with Catie as their co-ordinating lead author. If so, what they may be doing is conducting a study to see how abusive we skeptics are to a visiting warmist, and then to accuse us of that in a subsequent paper. So I suggest that some of should us tone it down.
How du manage post replies wit same time?
“How du manage post replies wit same time?”
I’m assuming you were asking “How do you manage posting replies with the same time stamp?”
Several options-bot, evil alliance, or comments being moderated and released in a batch?
[Note: Time stamps are applied when comments are posted. Moderation doesn’t change them. -mod]
D.I.-
Aphan,
“I was asking Catty Catty,are you Catty Catty?”
I guessed that, but you didn’t actually address a specific person in either of your posts right here did you? But I have to ask, if you think “Catty Catty” is a “robot, ya know one of them computer story teller things” then you couldn’t possibly have expected it to confess that yes, it was a bot. Did you? There are other possibilities. Not saying you are wrong. Just pointing those out too. Calm down.
I think Catty Catty is a robot,ya know one of them computer story teller things just being tested out.Too many mistakes to be real.
Hint, check the timestamps of the posts.
Aphan,
I was asking Catty Catty,are you Catty Catty?
am I cattycatty?
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
I’m interested in Aphan’s reasoning above, which seems to be something like:
Ask a bot if it is a bot – if think “Catty Catty” is bot then you couldn’t possibly have expected it to confess that yes, it was a bot.
Okay , so the inference here is that if you ask a bot if it is a bot, then if it IS a bot,you would expect a bot do deny it.
so – if you think somone is a bot, ask them – if they dont admit to it, they are a bot.
If they DO admit to it.. um.. i suppose they are still a bot.
Aphan, DI. do you know how they checked if young women were witches?
They threw them in water. If they floated, they were a witch, and they could be justifiably burned.
If they sank and drowned, then they weren’t a witch
(actually I dont know if that is strictly true, but I enjoyed the monty python take on it, and your post, Aphan, was similarly hilarious.)
Hi alphan
The accuracy of the time stamps is one minute. It’s perfectly possible for me to write two posts in one minute.
Of course, ockhams razor here should be dismissed when the possibilty of a conspiracy can be raised – afterall, conspiracy theories are the most sane, and in the absence of better information, it makes sense to simply make up whatever you like – preferably with an evil slant where possible. Right alphan?
alphan? You got it right, then wrong. And there’s only been one other poster here who used that specific spelling. I wonder if the mods remember that?
Of course, that punk was also stupid enough to bring up monty phython reasoning and then say “I don’t know if that is strictly true…”. The only one talking about conspiracy theories here is YOU. Do you believe in them yourself or are you just projecting the belief in them onto others here?
I believe it’s all the rage at the AGW ball these days…those skeptics are in cahoots with the evil oil industries, shills…whatever terms are used, it still ends up on the AGW side of crazy. Even Lewandowsky proved with his research that more people on the AGW side believed in conspiracies than on the skeptic side. But hey…scientists are allowed to be fabulously wrong according to you. Poor, stupid, fallible Lew. He and his little group of pals are like the poster kids for “fallibility” these days.
“It’s perfectly possible for me to write two posts in one minute.” And ferociously incriminating as well. 🙂
cc,
“The accuracy of the time stamps is one minute.”
See above post at 10:47 pm
The previous 1997 report and the data it incorporates do not have the newest NOAA adjustments to the current “data”.
Just like NOAA’s Soviet colleagues say, “The future is certain, the past is mystery and the present is determined.”
Ha ha 😉
+1; a very perceptive and apt observation.
58.62 ….. 56.82 …….. Dang! …. Lysdexia strikes again!
2015, the Warmest*& year on record!
* Except in our best global temperature data (UAH/RSS)
& Except in our best surface data (USCRN)
‘While that USCRN data only spans a little more than a decade, it is instructive for comparison to claims made. NOAA doesn’t seem to like referencing this state of the art USCRN system in their public reports, preferring instead to rely on their old, messy, error prone, and highly adjusted COOP/USHCN network which has been shown to have significant biases. They claim in their SOTC report from Jan 2016 that it was the 2nd hottest year on record for the CONUS:”
CRN is WARMER than the adjusted “bad stations”
See the chart and the table.
Since CRN is the WUWT GOLD STANDARD… since it is calibrated and triple redundant,
it offers a clear picture of Bias in the other “bad stations”
IF they match, then maybe the “science” of “site rating” is not settled.
Do they match?
hmm CRN is warmer by a couple of tenths.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=climdiv¶meter=anom-tavg&time_scale=12mo&begyear=2000&endyear=2015&month=12
Those are plots of anomalies, not absolute temps. All you noticed is that the anomaly variance is greater, not the absolute temperature. That’s a really basic error! What’s your job again?
bouffon de la cour peut-être?
you do know that you get anomalies by subtracting a constant.
But LOOK AGAIN AT THE PAGE..
see the table?
also read below
Read Dr, Pielke.
see?
My job today is correcting you.
Mosher: “While that USCRN data only spans a little more than a decade, it is instructive for comparison to claims made.”
It would help your case if you could cite like data of a GLOBAL nature since that is under consideration in this case and specifically in this thread.
“It would help your case if you could cite like data of a GLOBAL nature since that is under consideration in this case and specifically in this thread.”
The USA data was included in the post. Mosher commented in response to this. It cannot possibly be irrelevant to comment on material that is actually in the post.
seaice1, my point would still seem to be valid, despite distractions or assertions to the contrary.
there is a perfectly logical explanation for this. the global bull warming universe is expanding, so any temperatures peaks reporting earlier becomes red-shifted down, hence the current years are the warmest ever! this drives the big bang in funding for more bogus GW research.
So … in certain climate science circles, black holes are green holes? 😎
Impossible. The expansion is isotropic.
🙂
According to the Met Office and the BBC. 2015 was 0.75 degrees C above the 1961-1990 average
see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35354579
Link here
Apologies, my first post and I forgot to add:
I would like to know what the 1961-90 average temperature was back in 1997 and see how it compares to the 1961-1990 average as calculated now. I am sure they will be the same, but after lurking here for a while I have become somewhat cynical.
I can guarantee they are not the same, because UKMO switched from HadCrut4 to HadCrut 4 a few years back. HadCrut 4 runs hotter. Wrote a little about it in essay When Data Isnt. This post is another fine example.
[HadCrut4 to HadCrut4 ? To clarify, what was the actual change? .mod]
even if they are not the same, the data from MET dont corroborate the NOAA findings.
Nor do the data from JMT – and NOAA were probably fully aware of that failure to corroborate, which justifies the lack of interest in reporting uncorroborated data.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
I have no doubt that 2015 (with a very strong El Niño) is a very warm year. 2015 is also likely at the late end of a plateau in a natural warm cycle. What is troubling indeed is the moving metrics by which superlatives and comparisons are made.
This post aptly exposes the inconsistent standards/metrics for measurement as well as the alteration of the data itself. This inconsistency (or shell game) severely undermines the credibility of NASA and NOAA.
When your pants are on fire, every year is the “Hottest Year Evah”!
It’s kind of clear what you try to say, but… Gavin Schmitt is still the Director, Dr. Mann is still the Professor, even Dr. Jagadish Shukla is still the multimillioner… So, it doesn’t look like their pants are on fire.
and Al Gore and John Kerry both lost to W. The Democrats and Obama are paying back those defeats in spades with dishonesty, deceit, deception, half-truths, and politicized agencies. The climate deception scam is just one campaign front of many in a multidimensional Info War for power.
So when the Left and the US President himself characterizes climate change as the world’s biggest threat, and world leaders laugh at them behind their backs, there is no limit to the lengths they won’t go to now to maintain the deception.
I’m just afraid of Obama will do if it becomes apparent a Republican will win the November election. Every thing psychology knows about the depravity of a true narcissist sociopath says he will attempt to employ drastic means to try to prevent that outcome.
+1
Although I’d say they’ve moved from pants to “full woolen suit soaked in kerosene” on fire…
The 58.62 numbers comes from the actual 20th century annual average, which is 57.0F. The “20th century average” of 55.2F was just for the month of November.
When you’re looking up any of those Global Analysis reports, you have to pick Annual for the month.
In all the Annual reports, the 20th century average is reported as 57.0F:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201413
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201213
Thanks Brian, it wasn’t clear to me in the initial reading, I’ve made the corrections in the title and body of the post.
Yes, the Brians are correct.
The November citation compared the November GAT against the GAT for Novembers in the 20th century while the 2015 calendar year citation compares the GAT for all of 2015 against the annual GAT for the 20th century.
I’m not saying that the NOAA haven’t doctored their figures but the premise of this particular post is wrong and will give the CAGW crowd ammunition to deride the thinking of sceptics
It wasn’t clear to me either at first. One thing I noticed is how much the format of their “Global Analysis” changes each year. It’s as if each report is written stream-of-consciousness to try to emphasize data that show warming, while de-emphasizing data that don’t. Back in 1997, they could actually rely on the global temp being highest, so they didn’t need to point to any other data for evidence.
Gavin Schmitt and friends should complain to their great friend Algore, who did, after all ,invent the internet 🙂
The irony of it all ….
” Please look up the meaning of ironic and the meaning of climate change.”
That was posted to me. In response to a colossal snowstorm How ironic, indeed! … It is somewhat amusing when new people arrive telling me I don’t or can’t accept the scientific method. I’ve often thought that CAGW has a memory problem. They can’t remember 2 weeks ago the research they did. They constantly contradict themselves. …
Details never stopped PT Barnum.
Who prcticed the fine art of humbuggery (his term, from his book).
“Who prcticed the fine art of humbuggery”
I get this image of a person humming…
The 2015 temperature will eventually be revised down once it becomes inconvenient just like the 1997 and 1998 temperatures were.
…and great lakes ice will set a new record in the new hottest year ever, and 30 percent arctic sea ice will set a new record for the date, and global sea ice will be above average in the new warmest year ever…
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
David A:
“…and great lakes ice will set a new record in the new hottest year ever, and 30 percent arctic sea ice will set a new record for the date, and global sea ice will be above average in the new warmest year ever…”
Really?
Not according to this…
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/despite-the-chills-the-great-lakes-are-remarkably-ice-free/62297/
and this…
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
and this …..
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Arctic ice is bumping along close to the lowest year in the satellite record (2012).
Toneb
Not true … Arctic sea ice has remained within or right below the 2 std deviation point the past two years. That is, within the range of natural deviation – and that ONLY IF you use the 1979-1990 basis for calculating arctic sea ice anomalies! But across the ten years since 2006, arctic sea ice has certainly oscillated, but has not decreased at all.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Last spring, arctic sea ice was the highest of any of the past 10 years for those dates near the maximum.
Last summer (mid-July), arctic sea ice was the highest of any of the past 10 years.
Last fall, arctic sea ice was the highest ever for any of the past ten years. Why ignore that inconvenient truth? Now, as arctic sea ice approaches it annual maximum near the end of March, there is nothing unusual at all about the increase.
Tony, it was a bit of a sarcastic comment about the past, referencing current 30 percent DMI ice. 2014 and 2015 was near an all time high for Great lakes ice. The southern oceans have been cooling for a long time. Arctic sea ice is flat since 2007, and maybe even on the upswing. (there is no death spiral) Global sea ice has averaged above the mean for over two years as of 2015.
The 30 percent DMI graphic is current, more accurate with costal sections masked out, less volatile then the 15% metric, a month ahead and above ay other previous high.
But, in 1999, NOAA issued the following release:
“NOAA 99-1
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Stephanie Kenitzer or Patricia Viets
1/11/99
1998 WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD, NOAA ANNOUNCES
Global temperatures in 1998 were the warmest in the past 119 years, since reliable instrument records began, the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced today. The previous record high surface temperature was set last 1997. The global mean temperature in 1998 was 1.20 °F (0.66°C) above the long-term average value of 56.9°F (13.8°C).”
This indicates that GAT in 1998 was higher than 62.45o F that Mr. Watts has calculated for 1997. I was fooled into thinking that it was only 58.10o F but the base line for the 1997 announcement differs from that for the 1998 announcement.
Hence if we are to believe the latest announcement by NOAA it has lowered the 1998 record by more than 5.63o F (3.130 C)
If NOAA can lower Global Average Temperatures by more than 3o in only seventeen years why do they worry so much that anthropogenic CO2 might increase GATs by as much a 2o C in more than one hundred years?
Don’t worry guys, in 2030 they will tell us the average temp in 2015 was not 56.82 or 58.62 but 53.34. As of right now we nailed the 2015 temperatures but in the future we will know that climate scientists in 2015 were lying and we will have to downgrade the temps. That’s all Gavin did here, he realized they lied in 1997 and had to adjust it down. In 2030 he will realize he lied in 2015 and will have to adjust it down. 2030 is the hottest year evah, 54.33
But meanwhile, all stated temperatures should be takes as accurate within 0.00001 degrees.
The canonical GAST is 288K. That’s 15C, or 59F. Maybe astronomers use that number, I don’t know why anyone would use GAST for any practical reason.
Most of the ocean volume below the thermocline is near 4C. Extra-tropical surface oceans may be anywhere from 10C to 20C depending on the seasons. Surface temps of the tropical oceans are almost always in the 20s, and can reach 30C. The poles are -30C (243K) or colder. The tropopause is near -50C, which is 223K. The stratosphere is actually warmer, due to sunlight heating the ozone layer. Adding more CO2 to the stratosphere would add more radiating (cooling) ability.
Another thing that is kinda funny…Remember 2014 was also the hottest year evah! Now look at the USCRN graph above. 2014 was unremarkable except that it may have been reduced so that 2015 could “beat” it by a “record” margin. The whole thing is a joke because they know the “hottest evah” claim immediately gains so much traction. Now if El Niño peaks next year it may actually still be warmer than 1998, but I’ll wait to see what RSS and UAH have to say about that this time next year.
I realized later that comparing the hottest year evah to the USCRN US data only is an error. However one can compare the hottest claim in 2014 and 2015 to this graph.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2015_v6-1.png
In war, the first casualty is the truth.
In science the first casualty is pretty much any hypothesis. It’s how it works – scientists explicitly set out to falsify an hypothesis.
CC the original hypothesis on AGW was CO2 warming footprint according to the models would be upper atmospheric warming in the tropics, that did not happen, the is some warming there but not to the extent the models predicted in science that prove the orignal hypothesis wrong so they should have came up with an different hypothesis, they did not they ignored the lack of warming and went on. Since we now know there was some warming the upper atmosphere I would propose to you and them yes that is the signature of CO2 warming but the original Hypothesis had to high of a climate sensitivity to CO than two to three degree C of warming for each doubling it probable less that 1.5 C per doubling but the AGW crowd cannot accept that because it the measurement are correct and the doubling is less than 1.5 C there is no cause for alarm, so I propose to you that it not skeptic that threw out the scientific method it the warmest that did.
Please note that NONE of the climate models match the data and thus by your own standards have been falsified. The facts are simple
1) IPCC reports based on those models show projected temperatures well above those actually measured.
2) The models all predicted that there would be a hot spot in the troposphere, the satellites don’t see it.
3) The models project accelerating sea level rises – no such acceleration has occurred.
4) The models project that most warming will occur in polar regions leading to massive ice loss, In reality The reduction in Arctic ice has stabilized and the total ice mass in the Antarctic as INCREASED. West Antarctica has seen some ice loss but that is due to a combination of ocean currents and geothermal heat. Average temperatures in Antarctica in fact show a slight cooling effect for the majority of stations and a slight warming at others. Even the IPCC acknowledge that there is no clear sign of the warming that is supposed to be happening in the south polar regions.
The all time highest Antarctic Sea Ice extent happened in 2014. The El Nino event produced a limited reduction last year but as of Jan 2016 the measured area is back to its average area.
These simple easily verifiable facts are what causes widespread scepticism of the claims of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I’ll leave you with some quotes from the late great Richard Feynman
“If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part.”
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. ”
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
And exactly what events/conditions, and data would result in the CAGW hypothesis being falsified? From what I’ve been seeing the answer is none! And thus CAGW is not science. But if there are ways it could be falsified then please tell us what they are.
This is one reason “anomaly” is the “data” used to compare temps. Without also including average temp, and how that temp has been changed/adjusted, there is no easy way to compare between data sets. This should surprise no one.