It seems no matter where you look, “hockey stick” shapes pop out of data related to climate. Today, the most extraordinary day in climate science seen in quite some time, was no exception.
And, the day is not over. But honestly I’m too tired to continue. Thus I’m going to present the dataset gleaned today in raw form, but without the final endpoint. There’s no smoothing nor splicing of dissimilar datasets, but granted it is not a complete dataset. I’ll have complete data tomorrow.
Readers will recognize that even though the endpoint has not been established, the conclusion from the graph is clear. We are living in times of extraordinary data, never before seen. It’s accelerating, and worse than we thought.
UPDATE: the final number at midnight Nov 20th, 2009 was 187,988 hits.
Sometimes, there is irony.
In other news, WUWT’s post on the CRU data hack was the number one post on WordPress today, beating out CNN, People magazine, and other well known media outlet posts.
I wish to offer my sincerest thanks to the WUWT moderation team. Thanks also to readers who spread the word and participated in the largest ever thread.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lindzen Trashes “Global Warming”
After nine climate scientists, all believers in global warming, are interviewed by Tom de Castella in the Financial Times today, Dr Lindzen has his say.
The FT doesn’t want me to reproduce the whole article, so here’s the link, and Dr Lindzen’s contribution:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f1d9f856-d4ad-11de-a935-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
The sceptic
Name: Richard Lindzen
Age: 69
Nationality: American
Position: Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Expertise: Atmospheric dynamics
Richard Lindzen is by turns charming and cantankerous. “That is the stupidest question I’ve ever heard!” he yells when I ask whether global warming is occurring. Later, as I outline the layman’s notion of what warming means, he barks: “Stop this bullshit!” When I cite a spokesman for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change saying the world warmed by 0.6°C over the 20th century, he puts it down to the natural variability of the climate.
Raised in the Bronx and educated at Harvard, Lindzen is the most respected of the climate change naysayers among other scientists. Arguing that CO2’s impact on climate has been overstated, he says that emissions can keep growing with no consequences. The pre-industrial level of CO2 was 280 parts per million, we are now at 380ppm and the negotiators at Copenhagen want to stabilise it at about 450ppm. But Lindzen says we can safely climb past 10,000ppm. Even if for some reason there is an impact, we will have ample time to see it coming, he claims.
Contrary to what the models say, he argues that the world has not warmed over the past decade. We’ve underestimated natural variability, he says. And in the context of “only” 0.6°C of warming, the argument that man has caused most of it is not tenable. His critics say his emphasis on the past 10 years is a red herring.
Assertions of climate change were not based on a 10-year trend but on a 30- to 50-year period.
Lindzen is convinced that global warming will one day be exposed as a con. “I hope,” he says, “it’s in my lifetime.”
Personal stance: Drives a small car, uses energy-saving light bulbs and says he probably uses less energy than “the climate change activists in Washington with their Mercedes”.
Daniel o Connell( the Irish liberator) said “educate that you might be free”.
Keep it up the war is still to be won.
Pyromancer76 wrote:
“Now, what’s next? How about scientists taking back all their professional societies — deep-six those board members who voted for AGW or “global warming” or climate change”, demonized CO2, and supported the IPCC and Copenhagen without a vote of the membership. Everyone should be “purged” and new bylaws written and approved by the memberships to prevent a similar conspiracy from happening again.”
Yes, the republic has no need for such scientists. Here’s something I just posted on the “Breaking” thread with the aim of preventing science’s bureaucracy from getting the bit in its teeth and running off half-cocked:
A reform I suggest would be to create a board of overseers, chosen more or less at random from the membership of scientific societies, to oversee their boards of directors and executives, and to counteract, like a balance wheel, activities of extremist/activist infiltrators.
I also posted this: “Science” needs to climb down from its high horse and pay attention to its responsible critics (like academics involved in Science and Technology Studies—i.e., the sociology of science), especially the reform proposals of constructive critics like Henry Bauer. (E.g., he’s suggested that there should be a “science court” where disputed or fringe issues could be debated and evaluated by expert panels.) My own main suggestion is that scientific funding agencies should be split up into half a dozen competing smaller agencies, to encourage more long-shot funding (such as DARPA backs) and to discourage the development of monolithic group-think.
Without lots of institutional reform, “science” is liable to become just another professional “conspiracy against the laity.”
I just posted a question on the Whitehouse Blog, asking if the President will have any comment on this Hadley scandal. It will be interesting to see if they gen something up, and what form it might take, given the administrations position on Climate Change. I’m not holding my breath, but just prodding them a bit. Might be worthwhile if everyone else did the same.
Let me give you a tentative congratulations, subject to peer review of course! This is the price of success, Anthony. We see a hockey stick and we try and knock it down!
Good one.
Not bad not bad at all. It seems the voice of reason works.
Anyway me thru looking for merminks me and mine we hunts the fearsome blubber whales that steals too much oxygen and emits too much poison methane.
Fearsome Beasties.
When we leave safe arbour, they bless our poons.
The great hunt begins, not bad for a Lubber, not bad at all.
Now we hunt.
Slightly off topic, but we shouldn’t get too excited about recent expose on the CRU!
What Jones et al could be looking to is the classic British tactic. Bring in the Police, which they have done, have an exhaustive (& by definition expensive) investigation will take place, all data will sub-judice, & therefore illegal to view or discuss, after an 18 month investigation, bodies will be selected for interview & charges made, then their lawyers will counter & demand at least 6 months for trial preparation, a trial date will be set for 9 months later, then a lengthy drawn out trial will be undertaken, say 3 months with recesses & adjournments, then the defence lawyers move for a mis-trial, then a new date is set, another 6 months goes by. By that time those concerned will be able to fabricate something better to cover their rear ends. Perhaps I am too old & cynical? Thank goodness for the internet!
I’ll bet RC is also a hockey stick, going down, on the other hand ———-\
Ecotretas
The sad part of all this, it that 90% or more of the population don’t know what is happening. They only look at little clips on the news that mann ops men is killing the planet and change channel to look at Oprah.
The media will simply talk less about the warming.
All this is a fight between two groups of elites.
— In one corner, you have the skeptics with a excellent knowledge of the sciences involved.
–In the other corner you have alarmist of all sorts who feel guilty and need to buy indulgence.
Another hockey stick I would love to see would be in the number of news stories in the main stream media, but I don’t see this as possible. Mainly because it takes honesty and humility to admit you where wrong.
Amongst all the praise being heaped on WUWT, CA and the rest as they lay out the implications of this material (which I’m delighted to endorse), let’s not forget the folk who got it in the first place – technically competent and politically astute with it. Look at the timing.
I wonder if we’ve seen all of it yet – there might be more.
This is fantastic news: but if the MSM ignore it then we should all re-read 1984 by George Orwell.
Seems that it is not so good for your job position to disagree with global warming movement:
> On something completely different – just agreed to review another
> crappy
> paper by Chappell/Agnew on Sahel Rainfall. Chappell is out of a job –
> and still
> he tries to write papers saying the Sahel drought might not have
> happened!
>
> Both are just time wasters – but necessary to do unfortunately.
>
> Weekend away with the family now – back Monday!
>
> Cheers
> Phil[/quote]
Sahel HAS seen more rain!!!! thats not debatable. But not in line with AGW horror.
text 1188557698
I think (bearing in mind that it’s late on Saturday night and I’ve had friends around for a dinner party – excellent wine, but the food I cooked was ordinary) that this blog has reached a tipping point and Anthony has got only 92 months to save the world. Or is it Charles has only got 92 months? Though it might be Gavin? Or Mike? Keith even? Somebody? Someone should do something about this. Someone else. Such are the evils of strong drink. I’m going to bed.
@ur momisugly ctm . 🙂 Ok, I can take a joke. 🙂 It would be nice tho, if somebody would put it in the context I mentioned. After all, the issue does have impacts outside of the scientific world.
I would like to join with the others in extending my heart-felt congratulations to WUWT and, of course, CA and all the others. This is an astounding development. The emails provide a damning indictment, but they’re probably just the tip of the iceberg. Most likely the really damaging emails were on their private accounts and so will not be revealed.
There could also be some interesting revelations when all the data files have been explored and analysed, but that will take time. I note that in one of the internal zips there are many files with names that contain the word ‘CENSORED’. Old hands at CA and WUWT can probably hear the alarm bells ringing. It will be *very* interesting to see what Steve M makes of these!
In the past I’ve felt very pessimistic about the whole rotten business of climate ‘science’, but I do see some reasons for hope. Here’s one. I’m a long-time reader of the Daily Telegraph, one of the UK’s leading newspapers. I have been disgusted by the Telegraph’s biased and one-sided coverage of climate change. But it may be changing.
A short month ago I would have made this true claim: that in its coverage of climate change the telegraph *never* gives the other side of the story. But I’m happy to say I can no longer truthfully make that statement. A few recent examples in the printed Telegraph:
1. Recently one of their main writers, Simon Heffer, stated explicitly that he does not believe in AGW.
2. Another of their main writers, Charles Moore, today has an excellent article on the moronic nonsense of wind power. He comes perilously close to saying that he is a climate sceptic.
3. Yesterday the Telegraph carried a short climate change report. About half of the report was devoted to comments by Viscount Monckton.
4. Today the Telegraph has a two-page spread about Nigel Lawson, who was Margaret Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer. It uncritically mentions his sceptical beliefs about climate change.
One could say that these things are ‘unprecedented’. Perhaps the tide really is starting to turn. However, in today’s printed version there is not the slightest whisper about the CRU story. This is a bit ironic, for it was the Telegraph that blew the story about MP’s expenses wide open earlier this year. This story, just like CRU, was made possible by a leak of confidential data.
Chris
I would just like to say well done. I have read this blog for a while and seen the way in which you have been insulted and abused on other sites.
Vindication I’m sure feels good.
Well done for everything.
WUWT, globalization at its best ! Thank you Sir Anthony.
The MSM have picked up on this. The Mail website has it on the front page (not your personal hockey-stick, the CRU email hack).
A commenter noted that the BBC is sending 35 people to Copenhagen. The city of Boulder, Colorado is sending 2.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/good-intentions-horrible-optics.html
From: J Shukla To: IPCC-Sec Subject: Future of the IPCC: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:46:33 -0500 Cc: Ian.allison@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, neville.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx……
great stuff:
“”There is now greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance in the work of IPCC, which could provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for action”.
1. While it is true that a vast majority of the public and the policymakers have accepted the reality of human influence on climate change (in fact many of us were arguing for stronger language with a higher level of confidence at the last meetings of the LAs), how confident are we about the projected regional climate changes?
I would like to submit that the current climate models have such large errors in simulating the statistics of regional (climate) that we are not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for “action” at regional scale. I am not referring to mitigation, I am strictly referring to science based adaptation.
For example, we can not advise the policymakers about re-building the city of New Orleans – or more generally about the habitability of the Gulf-Coast – using climate models which have serious deficiencies in simulating the strength, frequency and tracks of hurricanes”……….
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=861&filename=1202939193.txt
Anthony, Anthony, Anthongy, [ tsk, tsk, tsk]
If we have learned only one thing from this blog, it is this. When the data is not favorable to AGW, it must be read UPSIDE-DOWN.
Thus, yesterday was the LEAST busy day on WUWT.
Congrats on a great feat – this looks like some of the best news for a couple of months. But to all those already popping champaign bottles, I’d say: hold your horses. This matter isn’t about science, it’s about politics, and power. There’s too much at stake, too much has been invested by the likes of Mr. Gore and whoever is backing them.
I’d say this will end up white-washed in the end, also thanks to the means through which the data was obtained. Just look at for instance Charlie Sheen’s 20 Minutes … Or the Lisbon Treaty – a year ago this looked like a sheer insanity that could hardly be taken seriously by anyone who actually read it; problem is almost no one did, including politicians (most of whom were actually ready to sign even before the text was available to anyone, themselves included). Or the Codex Alimentarius, etc.
Also bear in mind that this news spreads like wildfire only in the English speaking world, but when it comes to all the other languages populations it will be slowed down and distorted by the media reporting it (that’s already happening, as there’s no point for them to re-print the original English texts and they seldom link to the original source even if ‘legit’ or official) – it’s the same as if the rest of the world didn’t have access to the original raw data to be able to ‘peer review’. So passing this info onto the non-English speaking nations will be up to local personalities trusted enough by sufficient numbers in local populations, but also depending on those personalities’ view of the whole matter.
Just my 5 cents, sorry for a lengthy post 🙂
You could do a slap shot from center ice with that hockey stick!
What is the evidence that the files were hacked? An assertion by Jones? I believe it was an inside job.
How likely is it that a hacker would have the coincident ability to obtain the files from outside and know what files would be of interest? And also be aware enough to use the loaded term “FOIA” in the filename?