Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – h/t to Zapruder
The last time I checked, the earth does not retroactively change it’s near surface temperature.
True, all data sets go through some corrections, such as the recent change RSS made to improve the quality of the satellite record which consists of a number of satellite spliced together. However, in the case of the near surface temperature record, we have many long period stations than span the majority of the time period shown above, and they have already been adjusted for TOBS, SHAP, FILNET etc by NOAA prior to being distributed for use by organizations like GISS. These adjustments add mostly a positive bias.
In the recent data replication fiasco, GISS blames NOAA for providing flawed data rather than their failure to catch the repeated data from September to October. In that case they are correct that the issue arose with NOAA, but in business when you are the supplier of a product, most savvy businessmen take a “the buck stops here” approach when it comes to correcting a product flaw, rather than blaming the supplier. GISS provides a product for public consumption worldwide, so it seems to me that they should pony up to taking responsibility for errors that appear in their own product.
In the case above, what could be the explanation for the product changing?
From ICECAP.US
Nov 22, 2008
Point of No Return
By Matthew Knight, CNN
A team of international scientists led by Dr James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, say that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are already in the danger zone. Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere currently stand at 385 parts per million (ppm) and are rising at a rate of two ppm per year. This is enough, say the scientists, to encourage dangerous changes to the Earth’s climate.
As a result we risk expanding desertification, food shortages, increased storm intensities, loss of coral reefs and the disappearance of mountain glaciers that supply water to hundreds of millions of people. The Aletsch glacier in the Alps. Melting of mountain glaciers is accelerating worldwide.
The report, “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” appears in the latest edition of the Open Atmosphere Science Journal and brings together the expertise of ten scientists from the United States, the UK and France. It is a departure from the previous climate estimates which predict that perilous CO2 levels will be reached later in the century. Drawing on improved paleoclimate records and current global observations has prompted the authors to reach new conclusions about what constitutes a safe level of CO2.
Dr Hansen told CNN: “In the paleoclimate data, the Cenozoic data is the most alarming—burning all the fossil fuels clearly would send the planet back to the ice-free state with sea level about 250 feet higher.” Hansen thinks these sorts of changes would take several centuries, but he said we would have to deal with a “holy mess…as ice sheet disintegration unfolded out of our control”.
In light of the new data the authors believe that merely stabilizing CO2 emissions might not be enough to avoid catastrophic changes. “Humanity must aim for an even lower level of greenhouse gases”, the report concludes. To achieve these reductions they propose phasing out coal-fired power stations by 2030 and scaling down the use of unconventional fossil fuels like tar sands. Reforestation programs on degraded land and instigating the widespread use of natural fertilizers could also help to draw down CO2 by around 50 ppm. Dr Hansen says it’s impossible to say when we will reach the point of no return. See story here.
Icecap Reality Check: In actual fact, the change in CO2 is natural and due primarily to warming oceans. As Dr. Segalstad has said you could burn all the fossil fuels on the planet and the CO2 would not rise more than 20% more due to the fact the oceans are an infinite buffer. The enhanced CO2 has allowed for a greening of the middle latitude, more reliable precipitation (from the hydrological cycle) and more drought resistant plants and crops and the ability to feed more of the world’s population. In greenhouses, they pump in CO2 to 1000 ppm or higher to get more growth. Most all of the warming in the 1980s and 1990s was at night and in the winter in higher latitudes, which has been welcomed.
Since 1998, temperatures stopped rising and since 2002 have been falling. It appears the only point of no return is Hansen objectivity.
Maybe it’s easier and more emotionally satisfying to just engage in ad hominem attacks because you can not refute the evidence right in front of you. Call your opponent crazy. In need of a tinfoil hat. Then you win the argument. Is that what you believe?
The problem is, nobody ever presents any evidence for this huge, worldwide conspiracy, encompassing most of the worlds climate scientists, and every major scientific organization in the world. A lot of assertions, but not a lot of evidence.
To assume now, with the $Billions at stake, that no one is conspiring to game the system is foolish at best.
There may be some out there who are trying to game the system. But who has more to gain or lose? A tenured, salaried climatology professor (who gets paid either way), or a coal/oil company executive? Who do you think made more money last year- Jim Hansen, or the CEO of Exxon-Mobil?
I’m not much for conspiracy theories, but if I was, I’d follow the money.
I never bought the conspiracy thing. I think it’s more of a “class action” herd mentality. I don’t think GW is a scam (not even by those who attempt to profit off of it), I do regard it as a profound error not unlike the errors of the Club of Rome or Paul Ehrlich, or even Malthus.
I will observe, however, that (except for Malthus) none of the above ever admitted error, then or now. That won’t happen this time, though, or at least it won’t go unremarked, because the 40-year skeptical side on these issues won’t quietly let it slide this time – stipulating that the same old crew is wrong yet again for the same old reasons.
Chris V. (17:49:58) :
Ron de Haan (16:48:01) :
“In an earlier post, you said:
The legislation will end our freedom and our way of life, and turn our democracies in “eco socialist” dictatorships with unlimited powers. Having control over CO2 is having control over the economy, the food chain and…life.
I have no idea what the Brits are doing (Kyoto pass?), but I hardly see how a carbon cap and trade system, or a revenue-neutral carbon tax (as Hansen has suggested) will “end our freedom and way of life”.”
Chris V,
It’s very simple Chris,
Our entire life, economy, life style and development of the last 150 years has been based on carbon fuels for which we have created a carbon infrastructure that has taken us generations to build. Without the carbon based energy this development would not have happened.
The clowns that now are in control have made us clear they want to destroy this infrastructure. The President elect has personally stated he will bankrupt coal which represents 40 to 50% of the electricity production and about 125.000 jobs.
The alternatives (they talk about solar and wind) won’t meet our demands in a century because there simply is not enough time to build the numbers we need.
Another aspect is that both solar and wind are in need of back up.
So, in order to make a long story short they simply plan to pull the plug on our economy.
If you reduce 80% of your carbon emissions you will be severely restricted in your liberties. This is because your ability to consume energy will be cut off as well.
If you plan according the Obama proposal:
“Obama has called for annual targets that would aim to reduce emission levels to 1990 levels by 2020 and then by an addition 80 percent by 2050”.
As a consequence there won’t be a single drop of gasoline available in the US by 2050.
Since our food production (machinery, but also food processing, transport and storage and the animal stocks) is also going to be regulated a lot of people will go hungry.
Why do you think the UN is asking people to stop eating meat?
Today they ask and advice, tomorrow with all the regulations in place they demand and enforce.
I really hope you are going to understand what’s going, why it’s going and why we are turning red in the face of pure anger. This is because the whole show is based on lies and manipulation.
In regard to the Kyoto Card the following.
In 2006 the British Government performed an investigation how to control the individual carbon footprint of it’s citizens (the effect is reversed: how to control the citizen by his carbon foot print).
The guy who performed the investigation is now heading the environmental office.
If you can not resist to qualify a person as “nutty”, this is the guy that asks for it.
In the US the name is EPA. For details look at the link below.
If you have the time take a close look at what the EPA is up to and than tell me if what they are preparing will not limit your freedom.
Take a look at http://green-aganda.com and click some links.
Maybe this will open your eyes.
A whole list of EPA articles can be found on http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/07/politburos-new-5-year-plan.html and ICECAP.US
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021983/Every-adult-Britain-forced-carry-carbon-ration-cards-say-MPs.html
I also am not sure I buy the conspiracy theory. The AGW science community is eerily similar to the superstrings physics community. There are a few bright people who started doing research, then system became enamored with the initial postulates, the peer review process breaks down, and bright young scientists get swept up into the beast. It is very hard to hear dissenting voices in either the climate crowd or the theoretical physics crowd.
Having said that, there are a few very unscrupulous people who are exacerbating the problem tremendously.
Chris V. (20:24:14) : Who do you think made more money last year- Jim Hansen, or the CEO of Exxon-Mobil?
Hansen is a bad example. He got caught up in something over his head. If you want to follow the money you must look over his head. Take a hard look at T. Boone Pickens (wind and alternative), Soros (mining companies, by bribing international powers to close competing mines for polution), and Gore (alternative energy investment company). Look carefully at what they do and where they invest their money. Look carefully at who they fund and which politicians they buy. The profits they will make as a result of these “reforms” is absolutely staggering (billions each). Many times larger than payout of the CEO’s of the seven sister oil companies put together.
evanjones (21:02:55) :
“I never bought the conspiracy thing. I think it’s more of a “class action” herd mentality. I don’t think GW is a scam (not even by those who attempt to profit off of it), I do regard it as a profound error not unlike the errors of the Club of Rome or Paul Ehrlich, or even Malthus.
I will observe, however, that (except for Malthus) none of the above ever admitted error, then or now. That won’t happen this time, though, or at least it won’t go unremarked, because the 40-year skeptical side on these issues won’t quietly let it slide this time – stipulating that the same old crew is wrong yet again for the same old reasons.”
Evenjones,
A few years ago I shared your view on this subject.
Forty years ago we had the cold war and the Club of Rome made it’s first report.
The scientists that presented themselves as “global cooling alarmists” had a “neutral” status.
We are now confronted with a well promoted “AGW consensus” carried by the UN, UN IPCC, the new US Government and the complete industrialized world, the media, thousands of NGO’s, Foundations and environmental organizations, institutions and universities.
Besides the “consensus” about AGW there is also a consensus about over population, the number of inhabitants our planet could endure at a sustainable level, a consensus about future religions, a consensus about future government and how to engage a transformation process. AGW is a strategic tool of the transformation process as is the current economic crises.
In short, a lot has happened in forty years.
http://green-agenda.com provides several interesting links that provide more insight in the consensus.
I do not mind what we call it, consensus, conspiracy or hoax.
One thing is for sure: we will be screwed.
From http://www.seablogger.com
*
From http://www.seablogger.com
Heliogenic
Sunday, 23 Nov 08, climate
No matter Obama’s sensible appointments to some policy posts. No one will be able to reverse the harm done by shutting down carbon and nuclear energy development, while frittering away federal funds on inefficient and inadequate “alternatives.”
The author of Heliogenic Climate Change has been hyperactive since the election, compiling instances of the massive international initiative against carbon. Read his whole page; you are sure to be sweating by the time you finish, no matter how wintry your weather. Anti-carbon ideologues don’t care who is impoverished, or what nations might succumb to anarchy in the cramped, agrarian world of their vision. They imagine themselves called to save the planet — but who will save the planet from them?
Old Coach said:
Take a hard look at T. Boone Pickens (wind and alternative), Soros (mining companies, by bribing international powers to close competing mines for polution), and Gore (alternative energy investment company)…..The profits they will make as a result of these “reforms” is absolutely staggering (billions each). Many times larger than payout of the CEO’s of the seven sister oil companies put together.
T. Boone Pickens is in his 80’s- he will be dead before his wind ideas make any money (and he knows it). Gore and Soros will make “billions”? Maybe, maybe not. But I do know that Exxon Mobil made 40 billion in profit last year alone. Add on to that the profits of the rest of the oil companies, the coal companies, electric utilities…
Like I said, follow the money.
Ron de Haan (22:39:53) said:
AGW is a strategic tool of the transformation process as is the current economic crises.
So the current economic crisis has also been manufactured by this vast, worldwide conspiracy?
Ummm… OK.
Chris V. (08:39:32) :
Ron de Haan (22:39:53) said:
AGW is a strategic tool of the transformation process as is the current economic crises.
“So the current economic crisis has also been manufactured by this vast, worldwide conspiracy?”
Ummm… OK.
Chris,
If it is your intention to run the economy into the ground, a financial crises provides you with the momentum and opportunity.
One example was published by Anthony.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=bail+out+co2
More recently we saw the additional “green” requirements set for the Detroit bail out of 25 billion US$.
Other undermining policies are the refusal to develop US carbon energy resources (oil and natural gas, the refusal to build new power plants, the refusal to develop and build nuclear energy etc. etc.
Development of wind parks and solar farms and power lines is also frustrated.
In the meantime the Global Economy and financial institutions are still haunted by the derivatives (CD) and credit default swap (CDS) crises of approx. 160 trillion dollars approx. 10 times the value of the worlds GDP.
This is still a global time bomb.
Since a large amount of the speculation is directed at future currency speculation you better hope for stable currencies for the next 3 to 5 years.
There is still sufficient liability in the market to bankrupt complete nations.
Chris V: Yep. Follow the money. Gore was worth 1-2 million in 2000 (via election disclosure data). He is now worth over 100 million (according to Forbes). He founded, and is on the board, of a company worth several billion. A supposedly green company.
Gore uses a private jet., to go from engagement to engagement. For which he receives 100 to 200k per talk.
Exxon made 40 billion, by spending 450 billion.
that’s a lot of jobs, in 450 billion of costs.
I guarantee that Gore did not spend 1 billion, to make that 100 million.
T. Boone Pickens wants nothing but money and power. The money he donates to charities and OSU is for tax purposes. He made his billions by extortion. Literally! It was legal at the time. Anyone thinking that he does anything for posterity or to help human-kind is either naive or has not followed his career.
I grow tired of people harping about the “huge profits” of oil companies. I can stomach it when the average person is bitter, because they have not studied the businesses in detail, and are only parroting what they hear from media and politicians. So, Chris, you get a pass here. What makes me thoroughly sick is when senators and politicians start whining about the big salaries of the CEO’s of oil companies. The CEO’s of oil companies have to answer to their stock holders much the same way that senators and congressmen have to answer to their constituent voters. The oil CEO’s have a current approval rating of over 95% from their constituents. Can you name a senator with an approval rating of over 30%? Not easy! Now you tell me, who is being overpaid here…
Well, this is not the correct post to address this rant, but I sure wish there was some way to educate the public about how companies work, and how they have to reinvest their profits in exploration and production.
Well, I guess ‘conspiracy’ was the wrong word to use. It seems to push too many buttons. So I’ll be glad to use a less emotion-laden word that means the same thing.
From my dictionary:
Conspiracy: noun A secret plan by a group to do something harmful or unlawful.
Another online dictionary definition: “An act of two or more persons, conspirators, working in secret to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotation.”
Another: “A secret plot or plan of two or more people to do evil.”
Another: “A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights.”
“Collusion” may be a better word: “Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, esp. in order to deceive or cheat others.”
In any event, and despite Chris V’s denial, there is very strong evidence of an AGW
conspiracycollusion to transfer wealth, defraud taxpayers, and lower Western living standards.Strong evidence is provided by the Wegman Report [linked above], which specifically lays out the social connections between the very small clique of climate grant beneficiaries in a rigorous statistical manner.
Prof. Wegman makes it clear, to anyone with minimal reading comprehension, that the climate peer review system has been gamed for the financial benefit of the proponents of AGW. As a result, taxpayers are being defrauded; we are paying for a faulty product [the hockey stick, etc].
We can just as well call that collusion. And it results in exactly the same benefits to the perpetrators as a conspiracy.
Excuse me now, I have to go out and buy some more Reynolds Wrap. Mustn’t forget to keep the shiny side out.
Smokey (14:03:18) said
:In any event, and despite Chris V’s denial, there is very strong evidence of an AGW conspiracy collusion to transfer wealth, defraud taxpayers, and lower Western living standards.
Strong evidence is provided by the Wegman Report…
The Wegman Report says nothing of the sort.. Where does the Wegman Report mention anything about a collusion to transfer wealth, lower western living standards, etc.???
You are making a ridiculous leap of logic. Aside from it’s criticisms of Manns methods, the Wegman Report says that many of the people doing climate reconstructions have worked with Mann, and each other, and use some of the same data sets. That’s it.
Well guess what- paleoclimate reconstruction is a rather specialized, and tiny, field. It’s not surprising that many of these researchers have worked together at various times in their careers.
Now, if you want to argue that the paleoclimate community could use some new blood and some new ideas, that’s one thing. If you want to argue that there are problems with the methods they are using, that’s another. But to conclude from the Wegman Report that there there is some sort of vast conspiracy going on, involving dozens of researchers from different institutions…
If that’s the best evidence of “collusion” you’ve got, then you ain’t got nothin’.
If I were you, I’d buy generic aluminum foil. It’s cheaper, and I’m guessing you go through a lot of it. 😉
Les and Old Coach-
I am not criticizing the oil companies. They are entitled to make a profit, like anybody else.
My point was that there are “monied interests” on both sides.
Soros, Pickens, etc. MIGHT make money, but coal, oil, etc. will DEFINITELY lose money.
As in most situations (like changes in the tax code), most of the money and those with the most to lose are on the side of the status quo.
Chris V. @16:17:53 :
Relax, boy. It’s only a matter of your reading comprehension.
You claimed that there was no evidence of *ahem* collusion. So I provided some very strong evidence: the Wegman Report [read the section on
collusion“cliques”].What you did was to simply read more into what I wrote than was there. I provided the Wegman report as one example of collusion. You were looking for a “gotcha.” So you got excited and assumed, instead of understanding that I was saying that collusion results in things that are bad for society. Wegman discusses the likelihood of a transfer of wealth from taxpayers into the pockets of a clique that is gaming the system for its personal financial gain. I can go into greater detail on the rest if you like; just ask.
Prof. Wegman simply provided evidence of likely/apparent collusion. You are misrepresenting what Wegman [very carefully] lays out: the incestuous relationships between grant recipients, which results in each passing uncritical peer review for the other, for the purpose of obtaining public grant money. In my book, that is fraud.
An explicit example of peer review fraud in the climate sciences can be found here. I rest my case.
Chris V says:
Actually, that is simply wrong. Oil and coal will not lose money. It will just become more expensive to generate electricity with oil and coal, but that cost will be passed on to us consumers.
Graeme Rodaughan: “Where do you stand on the proposal that current climatic conditions are within/or outside of natural climatic conditions?”
Since humans are the major contributors to the 30-plus percent increase in CO2 levels, the current climate is clearly outside of “natural” climatic conditions.
Smokey: “What you did was to simply read more into what I wrote than was there.”
What you wrote was: “…there is very strong evidence of an AGW conspiracy collusion to transfer wealth, defraud taxpayers, and lower Western living standards… Strong evidence is provided by the Wegman Report.”
In other words, by your own definition of collusion: “Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, esp. in order to deceive or cheat others”, the Wegman Report provides very strong evidence that AGWers are consciously attempting to defraud taxpayers and lower Western living standards.
“…instead of understanding that I was saying that collusion results in things that are bad for society.”
So when you claimed that “there is very strong evidence of an AGW conspiracy /collusion to transfer wealth, defraud taxpayers, and lower Western living standards” it was just a slip of the keyboard. You really meant to say: “collusion is bad for society’.
Brendan H:
Citation, please.
Coal and oil won’t lose money, but we will have to pay much more for it because a protection racket is getting into the game. If you really think that the enormous extra, artificial costs will help anyone, I have some oceanfront property for you. It’s in Arizona, but the sea levels are rising, right?
The extra revenues generated by these schemes, will end up in the same
place as the social insecurity “lockbox”.
The racket is getting money from tobacco taxes, from lotteries and a million other fees which has always been promised to education and child healthcare. By the time these monies are collected, they conveniently forget the promises, and our money ends up in the general fund. This little tiny bit of wisdom is lost on radical environmentalists, who believe that the government will actually use this money to mitigate global warming. If an environmentalist cannot grasp this simple truth, how can anyone expect them to have any understanding whatsoever? <rant over.
Mike and Richard-
How would you feel about a revenue-neutral carbon tax?
Tax oil and coal based on their carbon content. At the end of the year, refund all the tax collected back to the taxpayers, with everybody getting an equal share of the revenue.
This would encourage conservation and development of fossil-fuel alternatives without taking any money out of the private economy.
Mike Bryant (06:02:08) :
“Coal and oil won’t lose money, but we will have to pay much more for it because a protection racket is getting into the game.”
Mike,
I agree with your remarks.
Cost for energy, distribution etc. in the end will be paid by the consumer.
Unfortunately we have a much bigger set of problems this time.
The climate that is currently created is not encouraging large investments.
This means that the energy continuity is at stake.
Solar and wind have a storage problem.
This means that every Kw of energy they produce is in need of a back up power plant. This means that the cost will double or even triple.
This will reduce the competitive capacity of the US and reduce exports.
The consumer spending more of his income on energy and more expensive products
will lose spending power which has a negative effect on the economy.
The effect is that we kill the economy without solving a single problem.
AGW is a hoax that serves an eco socialist/communist agenda which is directed against people.
Few people make the connection between the so called fight against AGW and the planned leftist coup that is going to wreck our lives for the year to come.
We have to stop this madness, not only because it effects our lives.
The effects for developing nations, most of them in Africa will be devastating.
Food prices will go sky high, further land use will be directed for bio fuel production, poverty and famine will threaten the life of billions.
The driving force behind the AGW Hoax is the United Nations.
The basic concept of cutting energy aimed to reduce human activity and productivity thus reducing the population comes from the Club of Rome.
The last twenty years a complete network of organisation, institutions
education centers, NGO’s and think tanks have emerged that support the transformation process.
They fund elections (Soros, Buffet, MoveOn who suported Obama and Clinton, Soros has hundreds of organizations involved in political activity, influencing opinion, manipulating complete markets and countries), they advice Governments, they support the AGW Hoax in the media, support research, (WWF, Greenpeace) they undermine planned projects that do not fit their ideas and attack opponents.
The legislative basis is formed by UN Chapter 21 which is now signed by almost all countries world wide.
The network isolates politicians and government officials.
The international meetings like Kyoto are not public.
The science presented is bias and corrupt.
The consulting organizations sell the same message and direct their advice in accordance with the consensus (if it exists or not).
For decision makers within our Governments the hoax becomes a reality.
And so for the millions of people that are brainwashed by the media that carry the same message.
The AGW hoax is now sold in news programs (the North Pole does not excist anymore, all the ice is gone!, the polar bears are drowning), documentaries, the weather reports but also in TV commercials. Green, sustainable, good for the environment. environmental friendly, all empty statements that only support the AGW hoax. People are asked to conserve energy, water, stop eating meat, stop flying, use public transport instead of your own car.
Every event from storm to flood is labled with AGW/Climate change.
This is not a clever way for a Government to create a new cash cow.
This is a very well planned transformation of our societies aimed at a drastic reduction of energy consumption thus leading to a drastic reduction in population.
This is a revolution.
Smokey-
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Peter (10:52:19) :
“Can I point out that some of your statements have not exactly been highly accurate.”
I see you didn’t use an example to prove your point. This is a typical ploy used, state something as fact with no supporting evidence. I’m used to being disagreed with all the time, even when i have been proved right. An example would be back in late September I predicted that there would be no La Nina this winter. i was shot down for his, again in October with two conributors saying that because one indicator suggested a La Nina (i.e. cherry picking the one indicator to prove their view) then one was inevitable. Guess what, there is no La Nina and there will not be one for some time. Sticking my neckout again I would say an El Nino is likely later next year.
So, again, an example please.