Guest post by Willis Eschenbach
One of the claims in this hacked CRU email saga goes something like “Well, the scientists acted like jerks, but that doesn’t affect the results, it’s still warming.”
I got intrigued by one of the hacked CRU emails, from the Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth to Professor Wibjorn Karlen. In it, Professor Karlen asked some very pointed questions about the CRU and IPCC results. He got incomplete, incorrect and very misleading answers. Here’s the story, complete with pictures. I have labeled the text to make it clear who is speaking, including my comments.
From Jones and Trenberth to Wibjorn Karlen, 17 Sep 2008 (email # 1221683947).
[Trenberth]Hi Wibjorn
It appears that your concern is mainly with the surface temperature record, and my co lead author in IPCC, Phil Jones, is best able to address those questions. However the IPCC only uses published data plus their extensions and in our Chapter the sources of the data are well documented, along with their characteristics. I offer a few more comments below (my comments are limited as I am on vacation and away from my office).
[Karlen to Trenberth]Uppsala 17 September 2008,
Dear Kevin,
In short, the problem is that I cannot find data supporting the temperature curves in IPCC and also published in e.g. Forster, P. et al. 2007: Assessing uncertainty in climate simulation. Nature 4: 63-64.
[My comments] Here is the figure from Nature, Assessing uncertainty in climate simulations, Piers Forster et al., Nature Reports Climate Change , 63 (2007) doi:10.1038/climate.2007.46a
Original Caption: Figure 1: Comparison of observed continental- and global-scale changes in surface temperature with results simulated by climate models using natural and anthropogenic forcings. Decadal averages of observations are shown for the period 1906 to 2005 (black line) plotted against the centre of the decade and relative to the corresponding average for 1901–1950. Lines are dashed where spatial coverage is less than 50%. Blue shaded bands show the 5–95% range for 19 simulations from five climate models using only the natural forcings due to solar activity and volcanoes. Red shaded bands show the 5–95% range for 58 simulations from 14 climate models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings. SOURCE: http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0709/full/climate.2007.46a.html
Here is the IPCC figure he is referring to, Fig. 9.12, once again with the black lines showing the instrumentally measured temperatures:
Original Caption: Figure 9.12. Comparison of multi-model data set 20C3M model simulations containing all forcings (red shaded regions) and containing natural forcings only (blue shaded regions) with observed decadal mean temperature changes (°C) from 1906 to 2005 from the Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit gridded surface temperature data set (HadCRUT3; Brohan et al., 2006). The panel labelled GLO shows comparison for global mean; LAN, global land; and OCE, global ocean data. Remaining panels display results for 22 sub-continental scale regions (see the Supplementary Material, Appendix 9.C for a description of the regions).…
Note that around the globe, temperatures are shown as rising from 1900 to about 1930, falling or staying level until the mid ’70s, and then rising sharply after that.
So these are the curves that Professor Karlen is attempting to reconstruct. Note that the IPCC chapter identifies these as “sub-continental regions” and shows separate data for ocean regions.
[Karlen] In attempts to reconstruct the temperature I find an increase from the early 1900s to ca 1935, a trend down until the mid 1970s and so another increase to about the same temperature level as in the late 1930s.
A distinct warming to a temperature about 0.5 deg C above the level 1940 is reported in the IPCC diagrams. I have been searching for this recent increase, which is very important for the discussion about a possible human influence on climate, but I have basically failed to find an increase above the late 1930s.
[Trenberth] This region, as I am sure you know, suffers from missing data and large gaps spatially. How one covered both can greatly influence the outcome.
In IPCC we produce an Arctic curve and describe its problems and character. In IPCC the result is very conservative owing to lack of inclusion of the Arctic where dramatic decreases in sea ice in recent years have taken place: 2005 was lowest at the time we did our assessment but 2007 is now the record closely followed by 2008.
Anomalies of over 5C are evident in some areas in SSTs but the SSTs are not established if there was ice there previously. These and other indicators show that there is no doubt about recent warming; see also chapter 4 of IPCC.
[My comment] As I will show below, everything he says about the ocean and the sea ice and the sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is meaningless. The IPCC figure is solely for the land.
[Karlen] In my letter to Klass V I included diagram showing the mean annual temperature of the Nordic countries (1890-ca 2001) presented on the net by the database NORDKLIM, a joint project between the meteorological institutes in the Nordic countries. Except for Denmark, the data sets show an increase after the 1970s to the same level as in the late 1930s or lower. None demonstrates the distinct increase IPCC indicates. The trends of these 6 areas are very similar except for a few interesting details.
[Trenberth] Results will also depend on the exact region.
[My comments] I cannot find the NORDKLIM graphic he refers to, so I have calculated it myself. I used the NORDKLIM dataset available at http://www.smhi.se/hfa_coord/nordklim/data/Nordklim_data_set_v1_0_2002.xls. I removed the one marine record from “Ship M”. To avoid infilling where there are missing records, I took the “first difference” of all of the available records for each year and averaged them. Then I used a running sum to calculate the average anomaly. I did not remove cities or adjust for the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. Here is the result:
You can see that, as Professor Karlen said, this does not show what the “Northern Europe” part of the IPCC graph shows. It is exactly as Professor Karlen stated, in the NORDKLIM data it rises until 1930, there is a drop from 1930 to 1970, followed by an increase after the 1970s to a temperature slightly lower than the 1930s. (In fact, the rise from 1880 until 1930 dwarfs the recent rise since the 1970’s). Here, for comparison, is a blowup of the “Northern Europe” graph from Fig. 9.12 above:
This claims that there is a full degree temperature rise from 1970 to 2000, ending way warmer than the 1930s. You can see why Professor Karlen is wondering how the IPCC got such a different answer.
[Karlen] I have in my studies of temperatures also checked a number of areas using data from NASA. One, in my mind interesting study, includes all the 13 stations with long and decent continuously records north of 65 deg N.
The pattern is the same as for the Nordic countries. This diagram only shows 11-yr means of individual stations. A few stations such as Verhojans and Svalbard indicate a recent mean 11-year temperature increase up to 0.5 deg C above the late 1930s. Verhojansk, shows this increase but the temperature has after the peak temperature decreased with about 0.3 deg C during the last few years. The majority of the stations show that the recent temperatures are similar to the one in the late 1930s.
In preparation of some talks I have been invited to give, I have expanded the Nordic area both west and east. The area of similar change in climate is vast. Only a few stations near Bering Strait deviates (e.g. St Paul, Kodiak, Nome, located south of 65 deg. N).
My studies include Africa, a study which took me most of a summer because there are a large number of stations in the NASA records. I found 11 stations including data from 1898-1975 and 16 stations including 1950-2003.
The data sets could in a convincing way be spliced. However, I noticed that some persons were not familiar with ‘splicing’ technique so I have accepted to reduce the study to the 7 stations including data from the whole period between 1898-2003. The results are similar as to the spliced data set andalso, surprisingly similar to the variability of the Nordic data.
Regression indicates a minor (if any) decrease in temperature (I have used all stations independent of location, city location or not).
[Trenberth] Africa is notorious for missing and inaccurate data and needs careful assessment.
[Karlen] Another example is Australia. NASA only presents 3 stations covering the period 1897-1992. What kind of data is the IPCC Australia diagram based on?
If any trend it is a slight cooling. However, if a shorter period (1949-2005) is used, the temperature has increased substantially.
The Australians have many stations and have published more detailed maps of changes and trends. There are more examples, but I think this is much enough for my present point:
How has the laboratories feeding IPCC with temperature records selected stations?
[Trenberth] See our chapter and the appendices.
[My comment] I have looked at these. The source for Fig. 9.1.2 is given as “(HadCRUT3; Brohan et al., 2006)”. HadCRUT3 is produced jointly by CRU and the Hadley Centre.
[Karlen] I have noticed that major cities often demonstrate a major urban effect (Buenos Aires, Osaka, New York Central Park, etc). Have data from major cities been used by the laboratories sending data to IPCC? Lennart Bengtsson and other claims that the urban effect is accounted for but from what I read, it seems like the technique used has been a simplistic
[Trenberth] Major inner cities are excluded: their climate change is real but very local.
[My comment] It is true that the IPCC Chapter 3 FAQ says this:
Additional warming occurs in cities and urban areas (often referred to as the urban heat island effect), but is confined in spatial extent, and its effects are allowed for both by excluding as many of the affected sites as possible from the global temperature data and by increasing the error range (the blue band in the figure).
To check this claim, I took the list of temperature stations used by CRU (which I had to use an FOI to get), and checked them against the GISS list. The GISS list categorizes stations as “Urban” or “Rural”. It also uses satellite photos to categorize the amount of light that shows at night, with big cities being brightest. It puts them into three categories, A, B, and C. C is the brightest.
It turns out that there are over 500 cities in the CRU database that the GISS database categorizes as “Urban C”, the brightest of cities. These include, among many others:
AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND
BANGKOK METROPOLIS, THAILAND
BARCELONA, SPAIN
BEIJING, CHINA
BRASILIA, BRAZIL
BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA
BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA
CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND
DHAKA, BANGLADESH
FLORENCE, ITALY
GLASGOW, UK
GUATEMALA CITY, GUATEMALA
HANNOVER, GERMANY
INCHON, KOREA
KHARTOUM, SUDAN
KYOTO, JAPAN
LISBON, PORTUGAL
LUXOR, EGYPT
MARRAKECH, MOROCCO
MOMBASA, KENYA
MOSKVA, RUSSIAN FEDERA
MOSUL, IRAQ
NAGASAKI, JAPAN
NAGOYA, JAPAN
NICE, FRANCE
OSAKA, JAPAN
PRETORIA, SOUTH AFRICA
RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA
SAO PAULO, BRAZIL
SEOUL, KOREA
SHANGHAI, CHINA
SINGAPORE, SINGAPORE
STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN
TEGUCIGALPA, HONDURAS
TOKYO, JAPAN
VALENCIA, SPAIN
VOLGOGRAD, USSR
So the CRU is using Tokyo? Beijing? Seoul? Shanghai? Moscow? Their claim is entirely false. In other words, once again the good folk of the CRU are blowing smoke. I can understand why it took me a Freedom of Information request to get the station list.
[Karlen] Next step has been to compare my results with temperature records in the literature. One interesting figures is published by you in:
Trenberth, K., 2005: Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global Warming. Science 308: 1753-1754.
As you obviously know, the recent increase in temperature above the 1940s is minor between 10 deg N and 20 deg N and only slightly larger above the temperature maximum in the early 1950s. Both the increases in temperature in the 1930s and in the 1980s to 1990s is of similar amplitude and similar steepness, if any difference possibly slightly less steep in the northern area than in the southern (the eddies slow down the warm water transport).
Your diagram describes a limited area of the North Atlantic because you are primarily interested in hurricanes. The complexity of sea surface temperature increases and decreases is seen in e.g. Cabanes, C, et al 2001 (Science 294: 840-842).
[Trenberth] As we discuss, there is a lot of natural variability in the North Atlantic but there is also a common component that relates to global changes. See my GRL article with Shea for more details. Trenberth, K. E., and D. J. Shea, 2006: Atlantic hurricanes and natural variability in 2005. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L12704, doi:10.1029/2006GL026894.
[Karlen] One example of sea surface temperature is published by:
Goldenberg, S.B., Landsea, C.W., Mestas-Nuoez, A.M. and Gray, W.M., 2001: The recent increases in Atlantic hurricane activity: causes and implications. Science 293: 474-479.
Again, there is a marked increase in temperature in the 1930s and 1950s (about 1 deg C), a decrease to approximately the level in the 1910s and thereafter a new increase to a temperature slightly below the level in the1940s.
One example of published data not supporting a major temperature increase during recent time is: Polyakov, I.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Alekseev, G.H., Bhatt,U.S., Colony, R.L., Johnson, M.A., Maskshtas, A.P. and Walsh, D., 2003: Variability and Trends of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875-2000. Journal of Climate: Vol. 16 (12): 2067ñ2077.
He included many more stations than I did in my calculation of temperatures N 65 N, but the result is similar. It is hard to find evidence of a drastic warming of the Arctic.
It is also difficult to find evidence of a drastic warming outside urban areas in a large part of the world outside Europe. However the increase in temperature in Central Europe may be because the whole area is urbanized (see e.g. Bidwell, T., 2004: Scotobiology – the biology of darkness. Global change News Letter No. 58 June, 2004).
So, I find it necessary to object to the talk about a scaring temperature increase because of increased human release of CO2. In fact, the warming seems to be limited to densely populated areas. The often mentioned correlation between temperature and CO2 is not convincing. If there is a factor explaining a major part of changes in the temperature, it is solar irradiation. There are numerous studies demonstrating this correlation but papers are not accepted by IPCC. Most likely, any reduction of CO2 release will have no effect whatsoever on the temperature (independent of how expensive).
[Trenberth] You can object all you like but you are not looking at the evidence and you need to have a basis, which you have not established. You seem to doubt that CO2 has increased and that it is a greenhouse gas and you are very wrong. But of course there is a lot of variability and looking at one spot narrowly is not the way to see the big picture.
[My comment] Professor Karlen was quite correct. The claims made by the CRU, and repeated in the IPCC document, were false. Karlen was looking at the evidence.
[Karlen] In my mind, we have to accept that it is great if we can reduce the release of CO2 because we are using up a resource the earth will be short of in the future, but we are in error if we claims a global warming caused by CO2.
[Trenberth] I disagree.
[My comment] No comment.
[Karlen] I also think we had to protest when erroneous data like the claim that winter temperature in Abisko increased by 5.5 deg C during the last 100 years. The real increase is 0.4 deg C. The 5.5 deg C figure has been repeated a number of times in TV-programs. This kind of exaggerations is not supporting attempts to save fossil fuel.
I have numerous diagrams illustrating the discussion above. I don’t include these in an e-mail because my computer can only handle a few at a time. If you would like to see some, I can send them by air mail.
I am often asked about why I don’t publish about my views. I have. Just one example of among 100 other I could select is: Karlen, W., 2001: Global temperature forces by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases? Ambio 30(6): 349-350.
Yours sincerely
Wibjorn,
[Trenberth] I trust that Phil Jones may also respond
From: P.Jones
To: trenbert
Subject: Re: Climate
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:39:07 +0100 (BST)
Cc: Wibjorn Karlen
[Jones to Professor Karlen, same email]Wibjorn,
I’m in Athens at the moment. Unless you’re referring specifically to the Arctic the temperature curves in IPCC Ch 3 all include the oceans.
[My comment] Absolutely not. The legend for Fig. 9.1.2 (see above) says “(see the Supplementary Material, Appendix 9.C for a description of the regions)” Appendix 9.C in turn describes the calculations:
6. Apply land/ocean mask on observations. Plots describing observed changes in land or ocean areas were based on observed data that was masked to retain land or ocean data only (necessary to remove islands and marine stations not existent in models). This masking was performed as in Step 3, using the land area fraction data from the CCSM3 model.
Note that the ocean is entirely masked out of the observations.
And the regions are described as:
Note 2: List of Regions
The regions are defined as the collection of rectangular boxes listed for each region. The domain of interest (land and ocean, land, or ocean) is also given.
REGION, DESIGNATOR, COVERAGE, DOMAIN
Global, GLO, 180W to 180E, 90S to 90N, land and ocean
Global Land, LAN, 180W to 180E, 90S to 90N, land
Global Ocean, OCE, 180W to 180E, 90S to 90N, ocean
North America, ALA, 170W to 103W, 60N to 72N, land
North America, CGI, 103W to 10W, 50N to 85N, land
North America, WNA, 130W to 103W, 30N to 60N, land
North America, CNA, 103W to 85W, 30N to 50N, land
North America, ENA, 85W to 50W, 25N to 50N, land
South America, CAM, 116W to 83W, 10N to 30N, land
South America, AMZ, 82W to 34W, 20S to 12N, land
South America, SSA, 76W to 40W, 56S to 20S, land
Europe, NEU, 10W to 40E, 48N to 75N, land
Europe, SEU, 10W to 40E, 30N to 48N, land
Africa, SAR, 20W to 65E, 18N to 30N, land
Africa, WAF, 20W to 22E, 12S to 18N, land
Africa, EAF, 22E to 52E, 12S to 18N, land
Africa, SAF, 10E to 52E, 35S to 12S, land
Asia, NAS, 40E to 180E, 50N to 70N, land
Asia, CAS, 40E to 75E, 30N to 50N, land
Asia, TIB, 75E to 100E, 30N to 50N, land
Asia, EAS, 100E to 145E, 20N to 50N, land
Asia, SAS, 65E to 100E, 5N to 30N, land
Asia, SEA, 95E to 155E, 11S to 20N, land
Australia, NAU, 110E to 155E, 30S to 11S, land
Australia, SAU, 110E to 155E, 45S to 30S, land
So no, that excuse won’t wash. Once again Professor Karlan is quite correct. The observations simply don’t match the CRU/IPCC claims. Phil Jones’ story about the regions including the ocean is false.
[Jones] Fennoscandia is just a small part of the NH. When I’m back next week, I’ll be able to calculate the boxes that encompass Fennoscandia, so you can compare with this region. As you’re aware Anders did lots of the update work in 2001-2002 and he included all the NORDKLIM data. I can send you a list of the Fennoscandian data if you want – either the sites used or their data as well.
I guess you’re attachments are in your direct email, which I come to later.
One final thing – we are getting SST data in from some of the new sea-ice free parts of the Arctic. We are not using these as we’ve yet to figure out how to as we don’t have normals for these ‘mostly covered by sea ice in the 1961-90’ areas.
Cheers
Phil
[My comments]Now, I have not taken a stand on whether the machinations of the CRU extended to actually altering the global temperature figures. It seems quite clear from Professor Karlen’s observations, however, that they have gotten it very wrong in at least the Fennoscandian region. Since this region has very good records and a lot of them, this does not bode well for the rest of the globe …
My best to everyone,
w.
Good work Willis. You got a mention in despatches by Christopher Booker today. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
Professor Wibjorn Karlen would seem to be a refutenik.
Frankly this is scary. Are we living in a democracy, or is a group of about 2,000 people running our lives and feeding us information as it pleases?
Keep up the good work!
Hugh
This will grow further,more and more data and people will come forward.This will be the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room at Copenhagen. He has bad Flatulence too…
Fine work.
To any journalists reading this, do you want to go on being the spoon-fed handmaiden of liars and frauds who would enslave and impoverish humankind, to the detriment of your own circulation/viewership? Or do you want to be out front, scooping the scandal of the millennium? Follow leads like this, and you can bust this scheme wide open.
The first mainstream media organ that chases this story as vigorously as they’d pursue a tobacco or pharma corporation engaged in similar fraud will have a loyal audience for decades to come.
I’m going to try to ask this question as politely as possible:
When peer reviewed by scientists who were not part of the “CRU peer review team”, has anything reported by the CRU been shown to be accurate or acceptable?
At this point, it would sure seem that all that came from the CRU peer review team is suspect, is it not?
Looks like the climate data is being changed
Looks like the temps are only fluctuating.
hang on – but the bandwidths in the nature paper account for decreases in the standard error but overall shows a warming trend – as does your graph. Despite the variation all the figures show an overall warming trend. Have I missed something here?
Professor Wibjorn Karlen did a fine job and it would be very interesting to get his take on this.
This article might raise a laugh or two.
The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
Read the whole article, with pictures, here
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth….To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”
Having raised the prospect of world-wide famines, they go on…
“…Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions…”
And now it’s time to suggest some solutions…
“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”
You are a complete moron.
Dear Mr Eschenbach
A very good post.
Professor Manley’s Central England Temperature record between 1659 to 1973. Quarterly Journal Royal Meteorologist Society 100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Manley scroll to page 14 pdf
Now the Met Office Hadley centres graph
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/
There is something wrong?
The first series of graphs shows no hockey stick the second does.
Maybe it is because the good scientist was a geologist and not a climate scientist 🙂
Dear Moderator for my post it would be very helpful if you could post the graphs? Or if Anthony has covered previously then a link?
I have posted this previously but would appreciate if you Mr Eschenbach or someone else could have a look?
OT. Sorry, I don’t know if anyone else has posted this but the UK Met Office have released the Winter forecast:
“For northern Europe, including the UK, there is a 20% chance of a colder winter, a 30% chance of an average winter and a 50% chance of a milder winter.”
Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is what’s called hedging your bets! As for rain, they say:
“For northern Europe, including the UK, signals for precipitation are weak, with near equal chances for each of the three categories. There is a 30% chance of a drier winter, a 35% chance of an average winter and a 35% chance of a wetter winter.”
We’re all weather forecasters now.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/seasonal/2009/winter/
O/T but I seem to have been banned from LGF, having posted a few sceptical comments…
Excellent points by prof. Karlen. We often hear horror stories about melting Greenland, Arctic, permafrost. fountains of methane or whatever BS. But when I looked for station data at NASA GISS station selector page, I have found exactly the same overall trend as in Polyakov or NORDKLIM: temperatures barely reached those in 40ties.
Those charts in the IPCC report are pure art, or straightly put, fabricated data with no real basis. But hear what that a$$ Trenberth responds:
[Trenberth] You can object all you like but you are not looking at the evidence and you need to have a basis, which you have not established. You seem to doubt that CO2 has increased and that it is a greenhouse gas and you are very wrong.
I think that the real global climatic warming/cooling during the 20th century should look a lot like the Arctic, with smaller amplitude. Truly rural stations in Central Europe show we are barely above 1940s as well.
One has to think, how the HadCRUT global mean hockey stick is fabricated, even without the fact that many stations are urban, e.g. skewed upwards. It must be Mann made factor, or the added value™ for sure.
My, my, look at those odd ~11 year wiggles in the pink line. Now remind me what has a period of about 11 years…
When we take NZ raw data v adjusted, as with this series, then it seems that the CRU technique to replicate global temperatures is adjusted in every respect, so It seems to be a global phenomenon to massage observed data, which then becomes processed by CRU and passed onto the IPCC. Note that this already processed data contains fudges and manipulations before its re-processed
The only fix to the problem is to have all raw data from 1850-present, with independent statisticians to process it.
When Trenberth says that c02 causes warming then the IPCC claims that 0.2C is attributable to AnthroCo2 over 150 years. (lets not bring in the water vapour multiplier fraud here)
My comment is that 0.2C over 150 years averages as 0.0013C per year or 0.013 per decade and such paltry numbers when offset against recorded yearly and decadal temperature changes couldn’t have done anything of repute, even presuming that c02 since 1850 did cause this change, which is scientifically implausible.
Thank you Willis. You are putting in sterling groundwork to show people we need to rebuild the temperature records – transparently.
I confess I didn’t follow the part about sea measurements being excluded and have to take your word for it 🙂
I’d like to again draw people’s attention to this U-tube on the Urban Heat Island effect, done by comparing pairs of GISS US temperature records. It is something that schoolchildren like Pete who opens the video can check – and it is very well done as science and as presentation.
Appreciating the full effect of UHI is also IMO one of the first jobs needing doing, to show with science that there is no AGW to worry about. First because it is simple and basic and checkable by lots of people, and by itself is enough to undo AGW and question all the rest of the science. IMHO. And with that comes the Surface Stations work.
This essential work we can continue to do as “amateurs” while the “professionals” institute the necessary reforms and restructuring of Science that we need for checkable transparency.
Very clear presentation of the issues these emails have raised. Excellent work W.E. I am confident that time will reveal more of this type of deception. These are not just a “couple of e-mails among colleagues”, as is the claim. The perpetrators of the lie should be very worried indeed. The public has to be made aware that even with the “augmented” rise in temperature, we are still within the bounds of natural variability. This shows clearly that Co2 has little or nothing to do with temperature. Sadly, even an ice age would not convince a majority of the most fervent believers.
Those crazy Vikings eh?
Of course they have been espousing global warming denialism for quite some time.
Apparently they published (non peer reviewed) sagas around AD 1200 purporting to show a Medieval Warm Period!
If the results don’t match the theory, change the data.
Can we please stop perpetuating the term “hacked emails”? I’ve heard no evidence of a “hack” and it portrays the CRU as the victim. The emails and program source code files were leaked by an inside whistle-blower.
Two things come out of this for me. First, anywhere where independent analysis is done, like this posting, like the work that E.M. Smith or A.J. Strata is doing, like the NIWA/CCS study, the independent analysis always comes out with lower recent warming figures than the IPCC-accepted studies, i.e. no crisis.
Second, we’re using different methodologies to each other to come up with those figures. Which ones are right?
Rather than decrying this latest miscarriage of justice, I think we would be better off discussing what is best practice for measuring the data properly.
CRU have announced that they will be releasing the full dataset that they use over the coming months, possibly along with the methods, although we have those thanks to FOI2009.
We can also be pretty sure that when that happens they will also have a full explanation for applying the methods they do to come up with the temperatures that they have. But will those methods be right?
Unless we can come up with a robust set of principles for handling things like station additions and deletions, elevation and microclimatic changes, UHI effects, then we’re still going to be none the wiser as to whether the plaqnet has heated up and by how much. Anthony’s work with surfacestations.org and his upcoming paper on those is going to be crucial to setting up these principles, if we are going to avoid the back and forth point scoring that just ends up generating more heat than light.
Add it to the pile.
We are building a fraud case here.
Thanks for the insights, tremendous job.
Just seems to get worse and worse for CRU and crew.
Good stuff Mr Eschenbach.
From IPCC Chapter 3 FAQ says this:
From IPCC Chapter 3 FAQ says this:
“Additional warming occurs in cities and urban areas (often referred to as the urban heat island effect), but is confined in spatial extent, and its effects are allowed for both by excluding as many of the affected sites as possible from the global temperature data and by increasing the error range (the blue band in the figure).”
Willis Eschenbach has just demonstrated that major urban sites are retained in the record and not eliminated. Further, no attempt seems to be made to compensate for these retained heat islands as IPCC Chapter 3 says that the compensation is by way of an increased error band. Who looks at the error band when you still have that little black line relentlessly wriggling its way to the top right hand corner of the graph? The urban heat island enhancement is still present in these graphs as it is in all the other derivatives and these are the results that people look at and refer to.
It is hardly surprising therefore that Phil Jones does not want his raw data nor his “value added adjustments” to be revealed. I suggest that all or most heat islands are retained and no compensation is made to them.
So which gives the more faithful reflection of the temperature record, Phil Jones’s urban conurbation record, or our other erstwhile favourite, or should I say favorite and still waiting in the wings, James Hansen’s Nasa/Giss world airports record?
Willis Eschenbach has just demonstrated that major urban sites are retained in the record and not eliminated. Further, no attempt seems to be made to compensate for these retained heat islands as IPCC Chapter 3 says that the compensation is by way of an increased error band. Who looks at the error band when you still have that little black line relentlessly wriggling its way to the top right hand corner of the graph? The urban heat island enhancement is still present in these graphs as it is in all the other derivatives and these are the results that people look at and refer to.
It is hardly surprising therefore that Phil Jones does not want his raw data nor his “value added adjustments” to be revealed. I suggest that all or most heat islands are retained and no compensation is made to them.
So which gives the more faithful reflection of the temperature record, Phil Jones’s urban conurbation record, or our other erstwhile favourite, or should I say favorite and still waiting in the wings James Hansen’s Nasa/Giss word airports record.
I find the fraud and lies presented as fact by these charlatans of the CRU, IPCC and GISS to be an affront against humanity. How many young people have been targeted by these liars and heir supporters who wish to profit from the climate hoax. For the last 8 to 10 years students have been told a lie.
Exposing the AGW myth is good news really. AGW will not turn the planet into a burned out cinder, We’re not all gonna die. Thank goodness the USA did not sign the Kyoto accords and now we can put the dangers of Copenhagen to rest. How do we undo the damage. How do we tell students that everything they have learned with respect to AGW is false. It’s time to rewrite the science text books.
There will still be those who will continue to try and beat their AGW dead horse down the road.
We need a refutenik symbol to identify the resistance to the Copenhagen treaty. It must look cool and recognizable and can be reproduced quickly.
We need to organize a mass rally against them so get on twitter; face book and other new media get the word out. That we will resist you, the truth will come out and the guilty punished.
p.s My quality control seems about as good as that of a typical East Anglian University dabbling in climate science. I hope the moderator has proof read my recent submission and removed my duplication. If so please delete this comment also.
Great work, Willis. Claims that this is not intentional have just been made moot. You’ve shown clearly that the culprits were shown real data that did not match their claims. Rather than looking for scientific reasons why this might be the case, they lied and went on their merry way.
I wonder if the difference in the charts matches up with the “valadj” vector?
Wow, Willis. That is twice that you have laid out the story in easy digestible fashion, and promptly been ignored by the ‘newsmakers’. What gives?
It would be interesting to hear from a psychologist about this type of lie/conspiracy.It seems impossible to me that something of this scale could get off the ground unless the perpetrators knew they had ongoing political protection. 2. Is it known which ‘scientists’ were consulted by the BBC in coming to their decision that the Science was ‘settled’ and it was no longer necessary to give equal airtime to sceptics? (In the BBC Trust document: ‘From Seesaw To Wagonwheel’).Maybe a FOI request is in order?
I remember Steve McIntyre saying that once he got Jones’ data he didn’t expect to find much wrong with it.
It really is worse than we thought.
“[Trenberth] You can object all you like but you are not looking at the evidence and you need to have a basis, which you have not established.”
Does Trenberth mean a starting point from which to begin your investigation – ie wanting to test the theory that more CO2 = more warming? If Prof. Karlen is acting as part of the peer review process by trying to review the data and conclusions no such basis is needed. You do not need to have a competing theory to investigate someone else’s published material.
Thank you Willis. It would seem the only sensible thing to do now is file the IPCC reports in the round cabinet.
Regarding this countering argument in the AGW media about the recent polar ice melting:
Forgive me if you have covered this, but I have long wondered about that “flatline” reading on the U of C’s Cryosphere Today “365-day Current NH Sea Ice Area” chart which occurred just before mid-November. (The IJIS website actually shows TWO of these flatliners, one in October and another in November).
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
Is this a dropout? If so, why did they just pick up again where they left off as if nothing had happened?
Also, I notice Cryosphere Today is using 30% concentration sea/ice as their defnition of sea ice. Again, I may be wrong, but I thought they had been using 15% concentration until recently.
Talk about misdirection. In trying to follow the exchanges, I felt like a mutt chasing his tail.
I’m beginning to wonder, has anyone OUTSIDE of the HadCru/Mann nexus actually been able to replicate the results? Has anyone done the calculations themselves and come out and said they agree (and shown their workings)?
Willis – Second great post in a row. Very helpful pulling together of the issues. What is interesting is how below my radar Prof. Karlen’s comments are. Was anyone else aware of his viewpoint? Had he tried to publish – I found the email comments a bit confused on this point. It would be interesting to get Prof. Karlen’s viewpoint on the CRU emails and data issues.
Again I say thank you to all the good scientists out there(here).
Anthony et al,
I cannot even begin to tell you how much I appreciate what you’ve been doing here. I don’t mean just since climategate either. However, the work during climategate has indeed been stellar.
Thanks to you all and a few others, I always knew global warming was not happening on the scale the warmmongers said (if at all) and that humans had little or nothing to do with it and little or no power to alter it. As an engineer, I’m disgusted by these socalled scientists. I realize that they can likely only be prosecuted for the FOI refusals/delays/denials/and data deletions but I do hope they ARE prosecuted and recieve maximum sentences. In my opinion, it’s the only way to restore the reputation of science and scientists in general.
It’s getting warmer:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/11/its-getting-warmer.html
“[Trenberth]Hi Wibjorn
It appears that your concern is mainly with the surface temperature record, and my co lead author in IPCC, Phil Jones, is best able to address those questions. However the IPCC only uses published data plus their extensions…”
Would that be peer review ‘published data’ or any data publicly available? If it’s only the peer review process manipulated by CRU, then they could completely control the IPCC results even if an unbiased scientist participates in the IPCC process.
Any chance Wibjorn could be persuaded to get his temp analysis published, either with or without a comparison with IPCC’s results? If it gets published, sooner or later a comparison will be published by someone.
You can find him here:
http://stockholmsinitiativet.se/eng/about-us/who-we-are/
With all that smoke & mirrors I am surprised the CRU Team didn’t rediscover N Rays.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html
Of course the IPCC doesn’t include much information on natural or solar changes. Those are outside its role. It’s supposed to investigate human-induced climate change, not natural climate change.
I take it the IPCC ‘Figure 9.12. Comparison of multi-model data set 20C3M model simulations containing all forcings (red shaded regions) and containing natural forcings only (blue shaded regions),’ which show temperature observations tracking in the red shaded regions and departing drastically upward from the natural forcings (blue shaded regions), are a prime piece of evidence presented by the IPCC to support the AGW hypothesis, at least since 2006.
Given the rest of the CRU leaked e-mails I’d say this is now a piece of discredited evidence. How much more will it take to bring down the whole IPCC house of cards?
I have big problem with this nordclim dataset. Does any Finland city have average temperatures over 23 deg in july? It’s impossible! (See row > 577 in first sheet).
I find this exchange of e-mails possibly the most damning of all those I’ve so far read.
If anyone can read what Trenberth has written and still believe these people aren’t working like Trojans to hide a manifest falsehood, then they reading from the same script as he is.
For a long while I’ve resisted the international conspiracy theory as being too far-fetched. However, the more I read of this stuff, the more I star to think I was wrong.
This is neo-Marxist post-modernism working its way through academia and politics, finally having found the vehicle it has been looking for to create a post-capitalist, post-democratic world.
It didn’t need a secret meeting to arrange, just the poisoning of several generations of ‘elite’ minds, leaving them ripe for the perfect plan when it came along.
AGW is that perfect plan.
Dr. Karlen must be feeling a little vindicated now.
I think the whole point of this problem is that: whether or not Jones et al is correct or not, there is a cloud on the data. Even if 99% of all other data is correct and peer reviewed as much as possible, the problem with the CRU emails and data is that all of the information must be re-done, re- peer reviewed and that all the methodology and data be open and public.
Whether you “believe” in AGW or don’t is irrelevant.
Should any question come up in the actual hard science, it must be repeated and settled. Only then can we use the data with some degree of confidence.
My personal problem is that Jones, Mann et al have not been forthcoming in the release of data and methodology, and until they do, no one including the IPCC can use their input.
Therefore, in the short run IPCC reports and data should not be used, particularly in Copenhagen. Cancel the meeting and get it right.
My winning £10 on the lottery?
Stacey, I believe this is the pdf you were referring to…
http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qj74manley.pdf
theduke (08:09:41) :
I remember Steve McIntyre saying that once he got Jones’ data he didn’t expect to find much wrong with it.
It really is worse than we thought.
My sentiments exactly. I didn’t really expect there to bw major fabrication and fiddling.
RE to woodentop who said “O/T but I seem to have been banned from LGF, having posted a few sceptical comments…”
join the crowd at http://www.theblogmocracy.com
all are welcome, of course.
Aquote from 2006 met office report.
National Climate Information Centre
Climate Memorandum No 21
A spatial analysis of trends in the UK climate since 1914 using gridded datasets.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/about/UK_climate_trends.pdf
“As expected, the most significant trends (at the 1% level) are for increasing temperature, with mean temperature increases varying from over 0.8 °C for the Midlands and East Anglia since 1914, down to 0.4 °C in North Scotland. However, there was virtually no trend in mean temperature between 1914 and 1987, and it is only since 1987 that the temperature has notably started to increase. The winter is the only season which has not seen significant increases during the 1914 – 2004 period.”
when did Phil Jones etc. get into senior positions, matbe you never find a trend unless you want to
I think Anthony’s surface station prjoect will be able to show the impact of UHI, when completed.
How’s it going? Do you need another donation?
REPLY: writing papers…though nothing got done in the last week sinc eclimategate exploded. – A
>>SteveS (08:05:26)
>>It would be interesting to hear from a psychologist about this type of lie/conspiracy.It seems impossible to me that something of this scale could get off the ground unless the perpetrators knew they had ongoing political protection.
And you would be correct. This game has been rigged all along by the powers that be at the UN since 1972 and the Stockholm conference. The leader of that conference is the same guy who has been driving (and making a fortune while doing it) the global warming farce, Maurice Strong.
Strong has long been a proponent of global governance and the need to control and tax every aspect of our lives in the name of saving the planet.
Maurice Strong in 1974-
“The ethic of abundant resources must give way to the ethics of scarcity and conservation” … “Economic growth is not the cure, it is the disease”
Global warming is a means to an end and these “scientists” have been used by very powerful players and protected to deliver the exact results they needed to implement their schemes. This is a lot bigger than just a couple of rogue scientists and as usual it’s all about money and power.
The irony is that while Trenberth is pushing the party line with Dr Karlen, he’s the one squawking “where’s all the warming gone?” in the CRU emails.
And there I thought it was just me. I can only claim to have looked at the v2.mean data but I was also at a loss to see where the “alarming” rise conclusions came from. I started out just looking at the UK but having found nothing started adding in surrounding countries (Norway, Iceland, Finland and so on). I’m still looking.
It will be interesting to compare, in the unlikely event that we ever get to see it, the final CRU database on a station by station basis with the publicly available station data.
Couldn’t find one. Helsinki (1829 on) looks to have a July mean of about 17°C (+/- 4°C in extreme years) over the whole near enough 200 year record. (from V2.mean)
Might I make a suggestion:
The University of East Anglia has announced its own enquiry. This is obviously not as satisfactory as an independent enquiry but let’s give them a chance to clean their own stables since this might be the only enquiry that happens on this side of the pond.
My suggestion is that Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Willis Eschenbach and everybody in the community who is able to comment on the science and/or maths prepare a paper (or perhaps separate papers) covering all of the relevant points arising from this scandal and send them to whoever is announced as the person conducting the enquiry.
That way if these issues are not covered in the investigation report we will know what sort of a report it is. If they are covered perhaps it will at last be possible to put Climate Science on a footing in line with the actual evidence or lack of it.
This fellow:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
has studied how using -just- station closures can influence the data.
[Karlen] In my mind, we have to accept that it is great if we can reduce the release of CO2 because we are using up a resource the earth will be short of in the future, but we are in error if we claims a global warming caused by CO2.
Could this be what it is all about? Oil is running low and thats the reason we have to cut down? Im starting to think :S
How about Dr. Karlen to lead the enquiry into this affair?
Skeptic Tank (07:46:52) :
“Can we please stop perpetuating the term “hacked emails”? I’ve heard no evidence of a “hack” and it portrays the CRU as the victim. The emails and program source code files were leaked by an inside whistle-blower.”
Your comment hits a good point. I have seen no confirmation with supporting evidence that there was a hack into the UEA/CRU system. There are a lot of statements that UEA/CRU was hacked, but they have the appearance of being just assumptions rather than result of any full investigations. Did I miss something in the past week?
John
Willis Eschenbach….
Thank you very much.
The leaked emails are the Rosetta Stone of this matter.
Researching natural phenomena such as climate must be very frustrating for scientists who have preconcieved agenda to verify conclusions reached 20 years ago; particularly when the weather or data does not come up to expectations. A charge of deliberately falsefying the evidence however may be difficult to prove as the climate change timescale is geophysical for which human history is the mere blink of an eye. We must therefore rely on the email evidence and not be fobbed off with remarks that they were just loose remarks between colleagues.
Pretty scary. Did I understand correctly that there is no list of stations published anywhere used to construct any of these graphs? I remember seeing a paper showing that US temperatures around 2000 were negligibly above the 1930’s (in contrast to the rest of the world), but the US as a whole doesn’t show up in any of these graphs. Maybe the IPCC authors deliberately broke the world up into unusual regions whose temperature record would not be common knowledge.
Smashing!
Contrast Karlen’s methodical, objective “looking at the data”…to Trenberth’s emotional, shady responses and his damning, DAMNING circular reasoning ..all on the immortalized words of an email exchange.
Wow.
Thank you, Willis for your efforts here.
I hope you release your report here to every scientific organization, every journal, every forum, every blog, every news reporting agency…
I knew it was bad, but I had no idea it was THIS bad.
Charge!!!
To quote my friend Pamela Gray:
Go, go, go!!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
RE: AnonyMoose (08:33:33) — if the IPCC does not know about natural contributors to global warming, how can they discern how much global warming is due to natural versus human causes? The unfortunate truth is that any observed warming is *assumed* to be caused by humans by CAGW proponents because they refuse to be thorough and filter out the natural effects to gleam the human component.
First we had Global Warming.
Next we had Climate Change.
Presently we have Climate Data Change.
Next up… Climate Scientist Address Change.
When climate discussions go bad – http://theweatheroutlook.com/twocommunity/forums/t/29662.aspx
This forum is a renowned hotbed of climate alarmism, and since Climategate the alarmists have been getting increasingly strident in their abuse of realists. So the forum is close to being closed.
My oh my – to coin a phrase ‘it’s worse than we thought’.
Willis – those charts are well – [snip]
I’m just an interested observer with well developed dodgy science antennae.
The scale of what the CRU [and maybe others in NZ etc] have been doing is gobsmacking.
On almost every parameter they’ve fiddled the data – either tweaking temps to suit, removing data they didn’t like, leaving in data [such as major UHIs] that distorted it but said they’d taken it out and on it goes.
And then, just to be sure – they perverted the peer-review process so they marked each others homework.
It’s like Enron traders blacking out California deliberately so they could ramp the prices. If you haven’t seen ‘Enron – the Smartest Guys in the Room’ – it’s one of my personal favourites – their hubris was amazing, and not that different from the CRU.
Partington (09:09:18) :
“How about Dr. Karlen to lead the enquiry into this affair?”
Well, he is responsible for the temperature section for the Stockholm Initiative:
http://stockholmsinitiativet.se/vetenskap/
Excellent work!!
But you have to stop doing this, my jaw can’t drop any lower… 😉
Ern Matthews (08:01:03) :
“We need a refutenik symbol to identify the resistance to the Copenhagen treaty. It must look cool and recognizable and can be reproduced quickly.”
How about that U-Turn (up-then-down arrow) symbol used at the head of the prior thread, the one titled “U-CRU”?
Joanna Lumley (07:02:01) :
“hang on – but the bandwidths in the nature paper account for decreases in the standard error but overall shows a warming trend – as does your graph. Despite the variation all the figures show an overall warming trend. Have I missed something here?”
I agree. We should not fall into the tempting trap of saying that ALL or MOST of the warming is an artifact. That’ll set us up to be knocked down by the AWGers citing abundant natural-proxy proof of increasing temperatures over the 20th century. The main importance of the thumb the Team has put on the scale is not how much it’s offset the readings, which is minor, but what it implies about their objectivity and trustworthiness, which is major, as indicated by the post below:
JohnWho (07:00:04) :
“I’m going to try to ask this question as politely as possible:
When peer reviewed by scientists who were not part of the “CRU peer review team”, has anything reported by the CRU been shown to be accurate or acceptable?
At this point, it would sure seem that all that came from the CRU peer review team is suspect, is it not?”
Jerry (09:28:21) :
Pretty close, but first we had the Coming Ice Age, starring a few AGW notables.
My, how the wind blows back & forth.
We now need Climate Data Reform and Recontruction of the the Rural Climate Network.
Jim Watson (08:15:43)
I don’t think your memory is playing tricks, I recall 15% as well. So I looked in the Crysphere archive and extracted this from http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/guide/Data/walsh.html
Expert User Guidance
………… Because most of the direct observations of sea ice (1870-1971 period) are from ships at sea, they are generally the most complete near the ice edge. The conditions north of the ice edge are often assumed to be 100% covered during this period. The satellite era has shown otherwise with concentrations between 70-90% frequently occurring well north of the ice edge in the post-1972 data. For this reason, we recommend using a measure of ice extent, when doing historical comparisons of hemispheric sea ice coverage for periods which include data prior to 1972. This is done by assuming that all grid points with ice concentrations greater than some threshold (15% is commonly used) is assumed completely covered by sea ice.
If they have now switch arbitrarily to 30% then the ice coverage will appear to have declined substantially, whereas in reality nothing has changed except the definition.
Yet another case of manipulating the perception of climate change!
Love the result graphs on the front page – see what lovely correlations are possible when you get to bend the model AND the data?
SO much easier than science isn’t it? You know: pesky reality showing that you’re wrong, competent peers to point out your theory’s shortcomings (delusions).
Nope, clearly these ‘scientists’ (I use the term loosely) show the future – Gaol/Jail and bankruptcy (moral and financial).
These clowns deserve to be the posterboys of corruption & incompetence for generatons to come.
TEMPERATURE ANOMALY GRAPH FOR ALL NORDIC COUNTRIES
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/wrgb3.jpg
is in a very good agreement with a Geomagnetic cumulative graph representing three critical areas that may affect flow of the Arctic Ocean currents, as shown here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-temGMF.gif
and with its constituent components:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-GMF.gif
Observe the CRU’s application of the Finagle Variable Constant to Climatology:
Finagle’s Constant:
Change the universe to fit the equation.
Finagle’s constant is used as a multiplier of the zero order term.
The Bougerre Factor:
Change the equation to fit the universe.
The Diddle Coefficient:
Change things so that the equation and the universe appear to fit without requiring any change in either.
We are assured that the CRU homogenized data comports with the “corrected” data from NOAA/NASA(GISS).
It is obvious that “raw” data requires “cooking” before public consumption.
This post on Climate Progress struck a little close to “home”:
“sod says:
November 29, 2009 at 7:28 am
oh and Judith, i have a couple of questions.
have you taken a look at the flood of posts and completely insane responses on WUWT?
haven t you seen enough of this tobacco lobby tactics, of sowing baseless doubts?
have you wondered, how many cutting edge PhD thesis will not be discussed in and surrounding Copenhagen because people are distracted by stolen e-mails, taken out of context?
isn t it time to take a strong stance against this abuse, by people with clearly false opinions?
ps: could you explain to anthony watts (and us, btw) what the meaning of “error>5°C” is? (it is the basis of the surface stations project, and not one person understands its meaning)”
I would have suggested to sod that he actually POST A QUESTION here instead of asking someone else to do this for him…but my posts are not allowed there anymore 🙂
JimB
p.s. Anthony…I had no idea you didn’t understand what the actual basis of the surface stations project was.
Can’t make it up.
JimB
Willis,
I have some comments on the the global temperature record at http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=308#comments
Summary:
1. Mitchell’s 1970 temperature reconstruction is inconsistent with CRU and GISS.
2. Spirina’s independent 1971 temperature reconstruction is inconsistent with CRU and GISS.
3. Both reconstructions look a lot like Briffa;s censored MXD time series.
Greenland is worse. Even Gisstemp shows a cooling there:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1937&year2=2000&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
Very fine work, Willis. Even if CRU won’t (can’t?) cough up its data, it may well die the death of a thousand cuts.
Well, you’re wrong.
Paul Krugman, economist, columnist and author, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and op-ed columnist for The New York Times, 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize winner in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography says you are all wrong about the e-mails AND the science.
He explained it all this morning on ABC’s Step-on-all-of-us’ show.
/sarc
.
.
The following comment about real costs to society, is pertinent across all of the topics discussed in these numerous threads.
An economist (?) called Keeney, suggested that when society spends about $3 million of its wealth in a wasteful manner (needless regulation, stupidity, graft, corruption, earmarks, science fraud, etc), rather than where it will do society some true benefit – usually preventive medicine and even education – then premature loss of one life will be the cost to our advanced society. It’s a zero sum game. Today, that figure is probably closer to $5 million or more.
If all of this financial waste, following the Climate alarming follies, amounts to about $2 trillion, then it suggests that about 400,000 premature and needless deaths in our society will be the real cost. And what is the benefit to society of this climate alarmism? …Not only zero benefit at best, but undoubtedly even negative benefit, i.e. even more cost. Benefit to the environment, is also close to zero! We can’t afford it!
It is all cost, without any gain whatsoever. And the true cost of such alarmism to society is said to be much, much higher than just $2 trillion.
For some perspective; U.S. regulatory costs in 2005 were approximately $1.13 trillion, equal to almost half of all of the government’s discretionary, entitlement and interest spending ($2.47 trillion), and much larger than the sum of all corporate pre-tax profits — $874 billion. Much of the expenditure on regulation in the US, is ill-spent on the most expensive cures that do the least good, as Tengs et al. showed in their accessible papers.
One commenter noted that to save the most lives at least cost, one just needed to abolish the EPA. I suggest we get rid of CRU, as well as GISS, at least in their present forms, for the same reason.
Ern Matthews (08:01:03) :
“We need a refutenik symbol to identify the resistance to the Copenhagen treaty. It must look cool and recognizable and can be reproduced quickly.”
I got it! An image of Copenhagen’s mermaid looking disgustedly at the warmists’ convention in the city (indicated by a building topped with wavy lines (a warming convention in cartoons) with a clothespin on her nose and (optional) making a thumbs-down gesture.
Fennoscandia? The discussion consists of:
Okay, Firefox can’t find any other references on this page. Willis generated a graph of all Nordic countries, and there’s one from the IPCC for Northern Europe.
Wikipedia says:
So I’m not sure what region Willis has plotted (I’ll assume he left out Greenland and Iceland). I haven’t drawn the bounding box of “Europe, NEU, 10W to 40E, 48N to 75N, land” Is that another definition of Fennoscandia?
Willis Eschenbach
Well done Sir.
Who needs a Kindle!
“D.King (10:08:30) :
…
Who needs a Kindle!”
I DO!…I use mine to read this site when I’m away from the home office 🙂
JimB
So in raw dataset after raw dataset we see current temperature about the same or less than earlier this century. Without the “homogenization” adjustments the data matches Solanki’s solar correlation very well and AGW could not then be discerned in the data which, if honestly reported, would mean the end of the grant money. Means, motive and opportunity as they say.
Taking this out of my memory but as far I remember the highest recorded temperature in Sweden, one of the nordic countries, is 38C and was set in Målilla.
What year you ask? 1938.
Still not beaten.
Additional info is that Sweden is probably one of the most climate alarmistic countries in the world.
Very little that is not pro AGW is written in newspapers in Sweden even if it does happen. For example Tiger woods family problems and car crash has got many times more news coverage than climategate has.
Go figure why ppl belive in AGW, it’s all they hear.
I am informing ppl at my work about climategate and many can’t belive it is true. So you probably have got a bunch of new readers who are checking out what is really happening.
Here is something very disturbing and will require an urgent and open parliamentary commission of investigation in the United Kingdom.
It seems that the official information being disbursed to the government departments and subjects of Her Majesty regarding the projections for climate change and adaptation requirements is corrupted by association with the apparent fraud committed by the CRU. This resource needs to be taken offline immediately until the legal status of CRU and Phil Jones in particular becomes clearer.
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/868/9/
The output from this resource is intended to guide UK energy and government policy in its response and adaptation to AGW, with cost projections in the hundreds of billions of pounds in taxation and expenditure.
UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) is an UK Met Office resource (funded by the UK government Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) providing “climate information …… using probabilistic projections of climate change based on quantification of the known sources of uncertainty.”
The following link identifies Phil Jones at CRU as the lead author of the “Projections of future daily climate for the UK from the Weather Generator”
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/941/522/
The following link identifies Phil Jones at CRU in a peer review capacity:
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/946/670/
Trends Report Reviewers
Prof Phil Jones, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
Briefing Report Contributors
Prof Phil Jones, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
Briefing Report Reviewers
Prof Phil Jones, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
Climate Change Projections Report Reviewers
Prof Phil Jones, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
Weather Generator Contributors
Prof Phil Jones, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
Weather forecasting and climate ‘science’ has gone to the dogs in the UK. The Met Office predicts in its seasonal forecast a 50% chance of a milder than average winter in the UK
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/seasonal/2009/winter/
It’s OK to laugh here… they can’t even forecast next weeks weather.
However, Phil Jones’ UKCP09 weather generator can tell me that in the year 2080 under a low emmissions scenario, there is a 90 percent probability that the change in mean winter temperature will be plus 3.9 centigrade in Yorkshire & Humber
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/513/527/
This isn’t bad science, this is BS and fraud and needs to be closed down immediately.
RIch, JimB rich (on so many levels!)
Considering this come from ‘sod’ which at one time stood for ‘Seed of Doubt – Iraq’ * (the last I checked he had ceased operations on his little blog page and it since has disappeared from Google listing).
* Response by Anthony to sod in this post on 4-30-2009 about his blog.
.
.
REPLY: yeah “sod” is a troll, substance-less. He can’t even admit to his own failures at blogging, so his mission now is to sow “seeds of doubt”. – A
Well this is my effort to attack the scam – email to my MP;
Remember that you should ONLY address your MP.
Your signature should include your name AND address
Your MP has to acknowledge (& deal with) written communications – they have as yet no requirement to answer fax or emails – so if they ignore the email – go back to the 20th century & hope the Post Office is not on strike ! – You could also go to a ‘surgery’ or the local party offices…
The only other approach is to address the Speaker – with a complaint that your MP does not respond (so first email & write then the Speaker) – but for watt its worth – here is my attempt…
AGW : Cru : pause for thought
…
From:
…
View
To:
I trust that you have heard about the release of emails and documents from the University of East Anglia ; Climatic Research Unit
Since the emails have not been claimed to be false; I would like to know from the relevant government departments answers to the following points.
Some emails are quite specific in what appears to be instructions/requests and admission as to the intent to delete information requested under an FOIA request gor information. Since CRU is publicly funded; it is probable that all materials stored on their computers and with in the university’s IT system would be covered by the laws governing such requests. Will the relevant authorities be investigating these emails in light of this apparent blatant and cynical attempt to circumvent the law ?
The scientific method demands that all data and calculations; methods and all information relevant to any theory be made publicly and freely available so that others may see how the results of a theory have been arrived at. Since some of the emails specifically appear to evade this basic requirement should not all work that has emanated from the CRU be considered NOT to be scientific in nature; and there fore require urgent review by an independent and balanced body of multi disciplined scientists who would have the job of reviewing all the CRU’s work to see if the conclusions that were reached have any grounding in proper scientific debate ?
In view of the content of some of the emails appearing to be attempts to prevent the publication of views contrary to those held by the CRU; is this not proof that the science on AGW is NOT settled; nor can it possibly be agreed by consensus. To maintain there is consensus and broad agreement whilst actively attempting to silence those who disagree is obviously a dis-honest position; if there were consensus and/or the science was settle just who (and why) were they trying to silence, the very fact that they conspired to silence the opposition destroys the credibility of CRU.
I look forward to receiving both your reply and the replies from the ministries concerned.
Finally; since some of the emails appear to show that bids for academic grants were deliberately and wilfully mis-represented; can we expected a statement and action regarding the de-frauding of the public purse by these actions ? At the very least I would have expected the police to have seized CRU’s IT infrastructure in an effort to ensure that no further evidence is destroyed.
<>
Claiming Central Government will do it anyway is not a reason : it is a coward’s way out
Not everything digital is better
Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex and intelligent behaviour. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple and stupid behaviour. – Dee Hock
Foreign Aid – Taxes paid by poor people in rich countries for the use of rich people in poor countries.
Fred from Canuckistan . . . (08:32:41) :
“With all that smoke & mirrors I am surprised the CRU Team didn’t rediscover N Rays.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html ”
American Thinker article says “You don’t fabricate data (as one CRU scientist did while compiling weather-station data. Running into problems, he states, “I can make it up. So I did.” He adds an evil smiley face. This e-mail has gone under radar up until now. It can be found in the comments on James Delingpole’s blog.).” and links to http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/ where if one searches on “make it up” one finds a comment which says one of the emails or files says “Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ’supposed’, I can make it up. So I have .” and is followed by an evil smiley.
But, I can’t find any such comment when i search here http://www.eastangliaemails.com/
help?
I bet “deconstructionists” aren’t applauding this deconstruction.
I’ve tried to post a question twice now here. It’s not even showing up as awating moderation. Did comments close? Have I done something to disallow commenting?
In France, Courtillot had to redo the work from raw stations in Europe because Jones refused for 4 years to communicate the raw data CRU used…
And he showed a completely different picture than IPCC…
A little bit of good news re influencing the Conservative Party supporter base in the UK.
Over here – one of the most widely read and most influential blogs is run by a publisher/media pundit Iain Dale [he’s also trying to run for office].
He gets about 25k hits a day and as you’d expect, most of these are politically very savvy/media peeps.
He’s just reposted today’s Times article on Climategate. And signed it off with “No Thanks”
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/11/trust-us-say-climate-change-scientists.html
JackStraw, you have hit the nail on the head. A person really doesn’t need to know anything about science to see where the money and power are flowing. It is all well and good to discuss how science should be done, as that is an important topic by itself, but the bottom line here is politics, money, and power. That is what is pushing against Climategate becoming anything significant.
If you corner a bear, you better hope you have something other than a pocket knife with you. Truth, justice, and the American way (which I hope doesn’t offend our dear friends in Canada and elsewhere) is not going to be enough in this fight. We need big guns, in the shape of politicians and influential people, to back us up. However, there is nothing in Climategate for those people. They have more to gain from global dominance than from siding with anyone else. What are the chances of a global popular uprising against the current status quo? About as much chance as going against a bear with a pocket knife.
Is this not proof that global warming is Mann made.
Jim,
I got quite a chuckle out of “tobacco-lobby tactics”.
I had no idea he’d already been here…thanks for refreshing my memory 🙂
It appears that he’s found a home, as he posts on that particular blog frequently.
JimB
Kirls (10:46:29) :
It’s a code comment – try HARRY READ ME – think it’s in there.
this is breathtaking.
many sceptics accepted some temperature rise since the 30s due to ‘coming out of the little ice age’, land use changes, solar activity, and a small contribution by greenhouse gases.
it was considered that increases were overstated due to urbanisation, poor siting of stations and incorrect data adjustments. however, nobody really thought that there was no increase at all.
My comment likely will not enhance the discussion here, but where else to post?
I’ve been reading the posts and comments on realclimate.org and comparing them to the articles and comments posted here.
The argument at RC.org seems to be, whatever one may think of our data and methods, substantial evidence gathered and published by third parties exists and confirms our conclusions.
Cf. here, where the argument seems to be, most published papers are the fruit of a poisoned tree of data handles at some point the CRU crew or their cronies, and therefore are not trustworthy. Ergo, AGW is unfounded.
Fair assessment?
So whither from here?
Reconstruct actual raw data from the existing stations and do the math and plotting anew?
How can we non-scientists have faith in the new data/information?
How can global warming be discerned from so few data sources?
What of visual clues about warming, e.g., retreating glaciers and earlier springs?
It is all very confusing. It is no wonder no MSM have truly taken on the story — it is not reducible to single-serving stories.
Excellent post, Willis! I’m e-mailing this to a friend who still cannot be convinced that CAGW is a scam. People just don’t understand how information can be controlled, and are suspicious of conspiracy claims, envisioning a huge community of scientists independently beavering away and confirming the IPCC’s “science”.
I’ve been giving some thought to the “leaked” e-mails. The person involved was obviously a Brit.: why else would the BBC be selected as the first recipient? I also think it was an inside job as the person involved was probably a minor player in the team .. perhaps the frustrated programmer himself? … who had no understanding of the biases of the BBC before seeing how the events unfolded, and had to educate himself as to where to find the best places for this to get out, thus finally settling on Jeff Id and others. The timing is actually unfortunate: had the BBC acted as this person presumably supposed it would, the scientific community would have had more time leading up to Copenhagen to analyze and internalize the extent of the scam. As it is the experts here at WUWT (of which I am not one) are scrambling to get to grips with the enormity of the deception, and to get the MSM to pay attention. It’s probably too late to have the impact it should before Copenhagen. A shame! And to agree with others here – it’s worse than we thought!
off topic, yahoo is reporting that the developing nations are starting to make monetary demands over Copenhagen: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_bi_ge/climate_follow_the_money
Have gained a very diverse andhuge amount of information from your site.
Not sure how to forward a link, but I think your audience will enjoy this!
Dane Skold,
The key thing that the dendroclimatology has done is: Eliminate the Medieval Warm Period.
If you think about it, that single thing influences the answers to your other questions.
1) Iff (meaning: if and only if) there was a strong medieval warm period, then our current models are inadequate. (They don’t allow such a strong warming without a concurrent increase in carbon dioxide.) The best computer models still have issues with the warming of the 1940’s.
2) Iff there was a strong MWP, then the current glacial retreats are historically uninteresting. We know there were fields of grain planted under what is now permanent ice in Greenland – weather happens.
“A few stations such as Verhojans and Svalbard indicate a recent mean 11-year temperature increase up to 0.5 deg C above the late 1930s”.
It must be noted that the Svalbard airport station data have been homogenised. Recoring began in 1975, and for earlier years (back to 1911) most data have been taken from a station about 4 km away, but in pretty different topology, and from another station 10’s of km away. For several years data only from stations even further away have been used, and even from Greenland. Some years lack data altogether and have been reconstructed by interpolations. Even though Svalbard airport acts as a reference climate station and is interesting for climate studies, one should have the hidden uncertainties in mind. So we can only say that some years in the 30’s were about as warm as recent years, but it’s hard to tell for sure which year, recent or in the 30’s, was the warmest, even though the Svalbard homogenised series will indicate the year with a 0.1 degree resolution.
Still Warming Eh ? ?
And Winston looked at the sheet handed him:
“Adjustments prior to 1972 shall be -0.2 degrees and after 1998 shall be +0.3 degrees.”
Winston wondered at the adjustment to the data. At this point, no one even knows if the data, prior to his adjustments, was raw data or already adjusted one or more times previously.
It didn’t matter. All Winston was sure of is that one of the lead climatologists needed more slope to match his computer model outputs. He punched out the new Fortran cards and then dropped the old cards into the Memory Hole where they were burned.
“There!” Winston exclaimed to himself. “Now the temperature data record is correct again; all is double-plus good.”
Richard M (08:03:17) :
Great work, Willis. Claims that this is not intentional have just been made moot. You’ve shown clearly that the culprits were shown real data that did not match their claims. Rather than looking for scientific reasons why this might be the case, they lied and went on their merry way.
Dittos, Willis. What you have done – displaying or describing what actually occurs or has occurred – should be something that the elite Climate Scientists necessarily do in order to be Scientists. But they don’t.
[You have also provided some more “context” for Dr. Curry. Since she is Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Ga. Tech, I have no idea why she wouldn’t have already had enough of her own “context” – including checking some of the basic data such as Professor Karlen did – in order to make a more definitive call as to the lack of credibility of Climate Science, but I’m still giving her a pass and a little more time to finally say or do something to try to bring the Scientific Method back into Climate Science.]
“[Trenberth] You can object all you like but you are not looking at the evidence and you need to have a basis, which you have not established. You seem to doubt that CO2 has increased and that it is a greenhouse gas and you are very wrong.”
I think that this is the key line in all of this.
Here is what I hear [Trenberth] saying:
I say that CO2 is increasing.
I say that if CO2 increases, then temperature increases.
Therefore, the temperatures increased. Case closed.
Here is what I hear [Karlen] saying:
I have all of the data for the particular area that we are discussing and I have looked and looked at the data and I can’t find the increase. I’m just telling you what the data says.
All this is dodo.
Look, CRU & GISS and the cabal of AGW ‘scientists’ attacked the truth from 2 sides at once.
1. Adjust the raw global temperature readings to increase the rate of late 20th Century warming.
2. Minimize the natural variability of climate attributable to solar by fabricating the handle of the ‘Hockey Stick’ curve (and later similar curves).
From there, all error is magnified.
Amazing!
I just wrote this letter to Bishop Hill:
Your Ecclesiastical Eminence, in these times of strife a great evil, stealthily perpetuated on the masses, and long suspected by a growing band of sceptics, has finally been revealed.
In the days of the reformation, the ruling classes sought to hide the message of benevolence by banning the Word to all but the ruling priestly classes and spread lies and claims of infallibility by rendering their interpretation of the message, hidden to all but a select few.
The spread of communication and openness were ultimately victorious but only after great strife, as the vested powers fought to retain their priviledges by clamping down on freedom, glossing over the revelations and attempting to perpetuate their lies.
Today also we are faced with this momentous battle against a terrible untruth which harms many for the benefit of a few.
Your Eminence, the media all but blanks out the lies revealed in the email messages and the interpretation of them is left to the very persons who stand exposed to deceit. The scientific journals and associations of science have been infiltrated and corrupted and are now controlled by this evil cabal.
The battle is thus left to the lowly citizens of the blogosphere, who with their spades and their pitchforks must storm the impregnable fortress of the Bastille.
I appeal to you that you, as in the past, use your gifts of lucidness and clarity to expose their lies for all to see, even those who are confused by the language of the deceivers.
There are media blackouts, complete silence by large sections of the press, even Google is censoring their search engine and Wikipedia gives the Realclimate version of “hiding the decline” and has locked further editing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
They do say “This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved.
This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.”
So I ask you to do a piece on “hiding the decline”. This has confused many in the sceptic camp, who view this as the deceivers hiding a decline in present temperatures instead of showing an actual rise.
This misinterpretation is being used by the deceivers to cover up their actual deceit.
As I understand it “hiding the decline” refers to hiding an inconvenient decline of temperatures when using proxy tree data to “reconstruct” temperatures of the past 1,000 years. This reconstruction shows the temperatures declining in the past 50 odd years instead of increasing as in the instrumental records. Rather than throw out the whole reconstruction as dubious, the deceivers graft on the past 50 years from the instrumental records onto the reconstruction, something that they know is bad science and something that they expressly said they had never done.
So “hiding the decline” actually refers to a methodology whereby they use a spurious reconstruction to “get rid of” or hide the Medieval Warm Period, which inconveniently shows global warming, as of today, occurring quite naturally.
Also most importantly, contrary to the claim in RealClimate that “trick” and “hiding the decline” was merely a “poor choice of words” and the hiding was done “in plain sight”, actually heinous deceit and concealment was indulged in.
Please use your powers and the cohorts of your parish to storm the Bastille of the Wikipedia “Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident”
Sincerely – Richard
Now it appears that “hiding the decline” may have even more sinister connotations.
Excellent work by Willis Eschenbach! I’ve forwarded this to colleagues to show them how it is possible that an entire scientific community could have been duped or silenced. Still having to battle their skepticism about the whole thing.
In today’s Toronto Sun, despite Lorrie Goldstein’s long-term skepticism and his excellent account of Climategate, there is a “news” article the essence of which is that Climategate is being exposed as a conspiracy by global warmists. But since global conspiracies of a scale that would be involved for the entire scientific community to be complicit cannot possibly exist, then Climategate is actually just a few unsavoury e-mails amongst a group of friends. Definitely the spin doctors are in high gear.
Lots of work ahead of us, and thanks to Willis Eschenbach and others for working in the trenches on this.
To me this dialog is an excellent example of the small AGW cabal trying to get other scientists signed on to their agenda. Most of these have not done the kind of work that Karlen has, so the arm waving, and the “look at HadCrut” tends to work with them. But when they run into a truely informed scientist, it no dice. Nevertheless, this explains a lot about all of the so called scientists that have signed on to AGW. They simply don’t know, and they have taken the word of people like Trenberth, Jones, Mann, Schmidt, Briffa, etc. But when these swayed people are then asked their opinion, it sounds like most scientists are on board. Then, when people are told of all the scientists who agree with AGW, they assume that it actually means something.
@ Kirls Thank you for posting the link direct to the paper
@ John Silver,the link you provide to the Stockholm also has petition on the site which seems to have numerous scientists and engineers supporting the petition.
In my earlier post regarding Manley’s CET and the current Hadcrut temperature I should have made clear that Manley’s paper has in addition to the graphs the temperature data to 1659 to 1973. I believe it was the mid 90’s when Professor Jones got involved with the CET
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/
On the above link there is a statement saying based on Parker et al. I can’t locate the graph prepared in this paper?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/ukweather/
This is a link to an article by Professor Jones there is still something strange about the graphs but look what happens when they use a temperature anomaly graph? See first link.
Mr Moderator
I hope I am not flogging a dead horse here, but I am intuitively convinced there is sufficient data which could be used to show manipulation and at least the data is available in the Manley paper?
I could post this at Climate Audit but I know that Mr McIntyre dislikes people constantly delegating to him.
Sorry for the rambling post?
Some people may think I am pointing to a conspiracy:-)
Apparently, Climategate has reduced the AGW crowd’s argument to this…
In other words… It has had no effect… 😉
I feel such an idiot Mr Eschenbach has already dealt with CET in “007
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/004482.html
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh
Larry Geiger (11:32:49) :
Here is what I hear [Trenberth] saying:
I say that CO2 is increasing.
I say that if CO2 increases, then temperature increases.
Therefore, the temperatures increased. Case closed.
Exactly – as far as I can tell that’s about the full extent of the AGW “science”, simply a mantra which they only repeat over and over again in their “studies”.
Add to that, “and we’re all gonna die, so we better become enslaved or commit suicide first”, and there you have it, the whole bleeping AGW enterprise.
Larry:
“Here is what I hear [Trenberth] saying:
I say that CO2 is increasing.
I say that if CO2 increases, then temperature increases.
Therefore, the temperatures increased. Case closed.”
Yes, this one surprised me also. It equates to the most childish and naive arguments that you get from uninformed AGW bloggers on the net. Trenberth accuses Karlen of disputing that CO2 is rising. Karlen does nothing of the sort. And he accuses Karlen of disbelieving that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Again, Karlen does nothing of the sort. Karlen is simply saying that the data doesn’t show the warming. Trenberth is unable to show him that it does, other than with the classis appeal to authority. But Karlen is an authority himself, so Trenberth strikes out. Basically, Trenberth is resorting to a personal attack in the hope of intimidating Karlen to his point of view. I saw Trenberth try to do the same thing to Roy Spencer in a congressional hearing. And he tried to convince the congress that “it’s worse than we though”, based only on a couple of years of Arctic melt. He ignored Antarctic ice expansion; he ignored the flat temperature trend; he ignored the flat ocean temperature trend, and he ignored the fact that sea level rise has started to flatten. And he didn’t mention that most of the Arctic change had to do with winds and currents. It’s hard to tell who is fighting for Baghdad Bob’s job the hardest, Trenberth, Jones, or Mann.
The most telling aspect of this excellent piece is that each time Karlen asks questions he is highly specific on his points while most of Trenberth’s responses are exceedingly vague.
I posted this on Climate Audit…seemed it might be appropriate here too.
I agree with Lucy when she said…
“reconstructing the whole of Climate Science on the grounds of checkable, auditable transparency that Steve has been advocating.”
This, of course, should have been part of the process from the beginning. I have always wondered how “reputable” scientists were able to get away with refusing to release their data or why their conclusions were accepted without open examination of their methods. While I’m encouraged by recent events, I’m worried that the entrenched idealogists will continue to ignore basic science fundamentals such as access to data unless some external pressure forces them to change.
Considering that politicians are still using the “consensus” argument, it seems to me that one of the first steps to be undertaken is a compilation of a list of climate articles in “peer reviewed” journals which have relied heavily on compromised CRU data. I suspect that the validity of each of these articles will have to be reevaluated.
This sounds like a good project for a graduate student somewhere.
Can someone point me to where I can view this email exchange?
So, is there any truth to the rumours that I’m starting that the head of the CRU is to be replaced?
The replacement wil have the same alarmist views on AGW, but have more scientific credibility; Marcus Brigstocke
(for my colonial cousins; he’s a lefty comedian who, on a politics programme last week, started spouting off on the ‘disappearing ice caps’ and ‘we’re all doomed’)
Roger Knights (09:42:31): We should not fall into the tempting trap of saying that ALL or MOST of the warming is an artifact. That’ll set us up to be knocked down by the AWGers citing abundant natural-proxy proof of increasing temperatures over the 20th century.
What “natural” proxies prove increasing temps? Note the CRUsplice to hide the decline in the post-1940 proxies. The Hockey Team Hoaxers, with all their $billions, couldn’t find proxy evidence of increasing temperatures over the 20th century, so they substituted their jiggered station “data”.
Are you talking about polar bears? Nope, their population has risen. Allegedly declining snow packs, palm trees allegedly moving north, ducks suddenly in the pond, or whatever the alleged GW proxy, it’s probably false, or exaggerated, or biased in any number of ways, or fails to account for confounding factors, or uses junk statistics, or is otherwise worthless for rational inference.
The stain and stink of the Biggest Science Hoax Ever has polluted more than one branch of Science. The very Method of Science has been abused and perverted across the board in various environmental sciences from marine biology to alpine ecology and everywhere in between.
All of Academia and the General Public need to drink the antidote to the CAGW kool-aid: the prune juice of uncompromising rationality.
Courtillot was indeed refused the data; the two emails that mention him have some interesting things to say:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=857&filename=1200493432.txt
Dr Jones:
‘I also told him where he can get station data at
NCDC and GISS (as I took a decision ages ago not to release our station data,
mainly because of McIntyre). ‘ booo hooo, let mummy wipe your eyes
And Jones again:
‘I’m just happy I’m in the UK, and our Royal Society knows
who and why it appoints its fellows!’
Yes, this explains a lot.
Courtillot interviewed on Climategate, in French:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbaiod_2parlons-net-avec-vincent-courtillo_news
Willis, thanks for drawing everything together in such a readable way.
My concern is that most established media won´t even mention this scandal. What good does evidence of fraud do if 80% of the population is unaware of the scandal and still worship IPCC? UN is like god in Sweden and anything connected to UN is unfortunately a sacred cow.
First, my thanks to everyone for your kind comments. One comment …
pd (08:35:12) :
pd, the information on temperatures in the NORDKLIM dataset is in °C times 10. The highest July in the Finland record was 21.5C, set in 1914.
Willis Eschenbach – [My comments]Now, I have not taken a stand on whether the machinations of the CRU extended to actually altering the global temperature figures. It seems quite clear from Professor Karlen’s observations, however, that they have gotten it very wrong in at least the Fennoscandian region. Since this region has very good records and a lot of them, this does not bode well for the rest of the globe …
Many of the most sceptical of the sceptic scientists had not ventured to suggest that CRU have actually altered global temperature figures.
But the evidence mounts that this is precisely what CRU, the keepers of the Global Temperature records, have done.
@Tilo Reber
“.. Trenberth accuses Karlen of disputing that CO2 is rising. Karlen does nothing of the sort. And he accuses Karlen of disbelieving that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Again, Karlen does nothing of the sort. Karlen is simply saying that the data doesn’t show the warming. Trenberth is unable to show him that it does, other than with the classis appeal to authority. But Karlen is an authority himself, so Trenberth strikes out…”
I don’t think you understand Climate Science.
1) Professor Wibjorn Karlen disagrees with CRU
2) Professor Wibjorn Karlen is therefore a ‘denier’
3) Deniers do not believe in global warming or CO2.
4) Therefore, Professor Wibjorn Karlen does not believe in global warming or CO2.
50 And he eats puppies alive…
QED…
you forgot that he is paid by Exxon!!
“Kirls (10:48:22) :
I’ve tried to post a question twice now here. It’s not even showing up as awating moderation. Did comments close? Have I done something to disallow commenting?”
Kirls, unlike some other sites that shall remain unnamed, WUWT mods don’t just delete posts. Sometimes posts will get caught up in the spam filter. Many times I’ve seen posts that apparently contain offensive or abusive or inappropriate content get snipped, but they leave your name and the time, so you know what happened.
I think that’s a fair way of dealing with things. My guess would be that WUWT is getting absolutely hammered with new viewers and new posters.
Hang in there. This is a great place to watch and to learn. People here have differences of opinions, some of them strong, but things still remain civil.
JimB
TEMPERATURE ANOMALY GRAPH FOR ALL NORDIC COUNTRIES
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/wrgb3.jpg
is in a very good agreement with a Geomagnetic cumulative graph representing three critical areas that may affect flow of the Arctic Ocean currents, as shown here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-temGMF.gif
and with its constituent components:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-GMF.gif
with additional graph for the 1590-2010 period
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-GMFh.gif
Dodgy Geezer, you show better deductive logic than the CRUdders.
Have you considered a career in climate research?
Money’s good, field trips are plentiful, and if you keep to the party line then competence is clearly not a requirement.
Roger Knights (09:42:31): We should not fall into the tempting trap of saying that ALL or MOST of the warming is an artifact. That’ll set us up to be knocked down by the AWGers citing abundant natural-proxy proof of increasing temperatures over the 20th century.
What Willis Eschenbach has pointed out, at least in the Fennoscandian region, the temperature rises until 1930, then drops from 1930 to 1970, followed by an increase after the 1970s to a temperature slightly lower than the 1930s, and the rise from 1880 until 1930 dwarfs the recent rise since the 1970’s.
This is quite contrary to Jones and Trenberth’s version published in the IPCC!
This follows from the data and not the analysis, which Willis Eschenbach shows is irrelevant and quite faulty.
I hope you have got that?
So whereas, yes I would say the balance of evidence does indicate that we have warmed recently and are in a warm period, because of the cover-up and frauds being revealed by the day in the emails, we cannot say with any certainty today that the current warming is unusual even within the instrumental records.
I came across this article on peer review on RealClimate, posted in January, 2005 by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/
An interesting excerpt from this article:
“Put simply, peer review is supposed to weed out poor science. However, it is not foolproof — a deeply flawed paper can end up being published under a number of different potential circumstances: (i) the work is submitted to a journal outside the relevant field (e.g. a paper on paleoclimate submitted to a social science journal) where the reviewers are likely to be chosen from a pool of individuals lacking the expertise to properly review the paper, (ii) too few or too unqualified a set of reviewers are chosen by the editor, (iii) the reviewers or editor (or both) have agendas, and overlook flaws that invalidate the paper’s conclusions, and (iv) the journal may process and publish so many papers that individual manuscripts occasionally do not get the editorial attention they deserve.”
retreive my post please…
REPLY: done some time ago
It’s worth noting that NORDKLIM says:
“Globally averaged, the annual mean temperatures at the end of the 20th century were more than 0.6 °C above those recorded at the end of the 19th century (WMO, 2000). Reconstructed temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere for the last 1000 years indicate that the 20th century was unusually warm, and that the 1990s probably was the warmest decade during the millennium as a whole.
The series presented by WMO (2000) show that the temperature increase both globally and in the Northern Hemisphere has mainly occurred in two periods, from ca.1900 to the 1930s and since the mid 1960s. Both globally and in the northern hemisphere, the present temperature level is substantially higher than in the 1930s. In the Northern Hemisphere north of 30N, the temperature level at the end of the 20th century is ca. 0.5°C higher than in the 1930s.”
http://www.smhi.se/hfa_coord/nordklim/old/rapport0900.pdf
(page 44)
Is the WMO in on the fraud too?
Thanks- I should wait for a bit next time
Gendeau (12:22:35) :
So, is there any truth to the rumours that I’m starting that the head of the CRU is to be replaced?
The replacement wil have the same alarmist views on AGW, but have more scientific credibility; Marcus Brigstocke
(for my colonial cousins; he’s a lefty comedian who, on a politics programme last week, started spouting off on the ‘disappearing ice caps’ and ‘we’re all doomed
Gendeau
To say Marcus Brigstock is a comedien is rather pushing it. He is a typical breed withing the UK who are not funny people like Mark Thomas and Mark Steel. They are all united by a lefty self hatred which make AGW right up their street-something to hate Bush, Big Oil nay America and England for and by god they do. All of them in the pay of Pravda-opps sorry the BBC who nurture these nasty little pieces of work , For those outside the UK please understand that the BBC is funded by a klicense fee wich is essentially a tax and these west hating so called comedians are essentially state funded.
Very nice work and thank you for your persistence, and to Dr. Karlin. It really is atrocious when a required element of a true scientist’s arsenal is a FOIA request.
Has anybody tried to create a temperature trend at least for his country, based on only truly rural stations? I think John Daly did that for US, based on few rural stations.
Here I compared our rural station located on Lomnicky peak with Bratislava and Wienna stations:
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/190772/vielomba.jpg
Other Slovak stations used in GISS are all located at airports – Sliac, Poprad, Kosice, Bratislava.
I add my small voice to those giving thanks for Willis’ excellent dissection. And to think he does it all, rumour has it, from a Pacific island! Ain’t this here InterWeb marvellous?
Ern Matthews (08:01:03) :
“We need a refutenik symbol to identify the resistance to the Copenhagen treaty. It must look cool and recognizable and can be reproduced quickly.”
Here’s my latest idea: Heat waves rising (wiggly vertical lines) + a question mark, indicating doubt about warming.
Or a picture of Hansen or Gore with a red slash line across them, or a thumb-down.
Lawrence (13:07:06)
Agreed with most of what you said (but I think he can funny).
But I was trying to make a serious point and raise a smile at the same time
He’d make a more credible head of the CRU than the current one…(sounds of wind, a clock tolls in the distance…tumbleweeds roll across the scenery)
Sigh
Willis,
The data feild for nightlights applies ONLY to sites in the US, and some parts of mexico and canada.
There are two ways of classifying sites in GISS. One uses population: Rural, Small, Urban. Every site in the world is given one of these codes (A,B,C) in The US ( parts of canada and mexico) Hansen applied a “nightlights” code: Dark, Dim, Bright.
You can see the relevant threads in CA where I explain this.
““Running into problems, he states, “I can make it up. So I did.” He adds an evil smiley face.”
“But, I can’t find any such comment when i search here http://www.eastangliaemails.com/ “
That comment was in the Harry Read Me file, not the e-mails.
Icarus (13:01:40) :
Icarus, an interesting point. The lesson is that in climate science, one needs to watch the pea under the thimble very closely. NORDKLIM is quoting from WMO. So far, so good.
Is the WMO in on the fraud too? Well, when you go to the document that NORDKLIM is citing, you find that they got their information from … you guessed it …
Icarus (13:01:40) :
Icarus, good question. But in climate science, you need to keep a close eye on the pea under the thimble. NORDKLIM quotes the WMO. So far, so good.
But when you go to the document that NORDKLIM sites, you find that the WMO got their information from … you guessed it …
Sigh …
(I tried posting this, but it didn’t show … if it is there but not showing, please delete the double.)
Mike D. (12:24:20) :
“Roger Knights (09:42:31): ‘We should not fall into the tempting trap of saying that ALL or MOST of the warming is an artifact. That’ll set us up to be knocked down by the AWGers citing abundant natural-proxy proof of increasing temperatures over the 20th century.’
“What “natural” proxies prove increasing temps?…
“Are you talking about polar bears? Nope, their population has risen. Allegedly declining snow packs, palm trees allegedly moving north, ducks suddenly in the pond, or whatever the alleged GW proxy, it’s probably false, or exaggerated, or biased in any number of ways, or fails to account for confounding factors, or uses junk statistics, or is otherwise worthless for rational inference.”
Well, I suspect there’s been some exaggeration, but glaciers have clearly retreated on the whole, flora has moved its domain northward and upward, etc. This is so settled, and so vetted by an enormous number of scientists, and so accepted by nearly all skeptics, that would would be very rash to challenge it–suicidal, in effect. The increase can be accounted for by natural variation, as prof. Akasofu and others, such as the book Chill, have maintained. I.e., the rebound from the LIA, on which has been superimposed the warm cycle of the PDO plus other oceanic warm phases. (Incidentally, Akasofu also pointed out the anomalous temperature behavior of Greenland.
Richard (12:59:34) :
…………….
“What Willis Eschenbach has pointed out, at least in the Fennoscandian region, the temperature rises until 1930, then drops from 1930 to 1970, followed by an increase after the 1970s to a temperature slightly lower than the 1930s, and the rise from 1880 until 1930 dwarfs the recent rise since the 1970’s.”
I didn’t mean to dispute the rise in that region. What I should have said was, “We should not fall into the tempting trap of saying that ALL or MOST of the GLOBAL warming is an artifact.”
While I agree that jumping to conclusions is a bad idea it should be remembered that when we are talking about 0.6°C over a century it really doesn’t take much of a “thumb on the scales” to make all the difference.
That seems to be the main point Karlen makes at the start. He can’t recreate the IPCC graph(s) and the current era looks to him much like the 30’s/40’s. A few tenths of a degree here and there are all it takes.
One reason why the instrumental record is so important is that when it comes to “citing abundant natural-proxy” many of them are calibrated to the instrumental record.
Willis,
Everything that I have read to date lacks what you’ve done here; put it together and illustrate why this represents a larger problem than most realize.
Thank you for your effort!
It is in the (in)famous HARRY_READ_ME.txt not the mail.
steven mosher (13:38:57) :
Thanks, Mosh. Dunno … I got my info from the list of sites released by Phil Jones of the CRU. He uses GHCN data. GHCN has their own “Dark/Dim/Bright” categories. See here for the GISS and GHCN lights.
My only use for the lights was to see what big bright cities were in Phil Jones “Stations Used” list. There’s lots and lots. Beijing. Tokyo. Seoul. Plenty.
Well done Wills, this is just as good as your first piece, which was referred to Bookers Telegraph artcle.
So now you have provded us wth evdence that FOIA requests where being deliberately thwarted by the CRU at UAE.
You’ve also shown in this post evdence that the global temperature data presented via the IPCC was fraudulent.
We now just need a good way of exposing this to the mass of the public.
The CRU/GISS/IPCC cartel and the politicians behind them are few, and we are many – heads will soon be rolling.
I’m jumping in here quickly, as I am short of time, and so haven’t read all the comments, and apologize if this hasn’t been brought up before. Those IPCC diagrams are “10 year decadal averages” which is why their shapes are so different than what one normally sees. I don’t know if that is a full explanation or not. I’ll look again when I have more time.
Roger Knights (14:10:42) : Richard (12:59:34) : “What Willis Eschenbach has pointed out, at least in the Fennoscandian region, the temperature rises until 1930, then drops from 1930 to 1970, followed by an increase after the 1970s to a temperature slightly lower than the 1930s, and the rise from 1880 until 1930 dwarfs the recent rise since the 1970’s.”
I didn’t mean to dispute the rise in that region. What I should have said was, “We should not fall into the tempting trap of saying that ALL or MOST of the GLOBAL warming is an artifact.”
Roger Knights I think you are missing the main point here.
Karlen says: “In attempts to reconstruct the temperature I find an increase from the early 1900s to ca 1935, a trend down until the mid 1970s and so another increase to about the same temperature level as in the late 1930s.
A distinct warming to a temperature about 0.5 deg C above the level 1940 is reported in the IPCC diagrams. I have been searching for this recent increase, which is very important for the discussion about a possible human influence on climate, but I have basically failed to find an increase above the late 1930s.”
Trenberth replies – Waffles about data gaps, arctic curves, sea ice, SST’s, refers him to IPCC (the classic cop out of the warmers). SST’s and sea ice have nothing to do with the graphs which are about land temperatures.
Karlen says In my letter to Klass V I included diagram showing the mean annual temperature of the Nordic countries (1890-ca 2001) presented on the net by the database NORDKLIM, .. Except for Denmark, the data sets show an increase after the 1970s to the same level as in the late 1930s or lower. None demonstrates the distinct increase IPCC indicates. The trends of these 6 areas are very similar except for a few interesting details.
He goes onto say he checks NASA data for many areas and his studies include Africa, Australia and What does he find? – The same pattern as in the Nordic countries, large increases till the 1930’s, falls till the 70’s and then increases to about the same levels as the 1930’s.
This is contrary to the IPCC graphs!
So to come back to your point. We cannot make a statement that “ALL or MOST of the GLOBAL warming is an artifact”.
“Global warming” is a fact.
What we cannot be sure of now, anymore, is that current “global warming” is more than any period even in the last 100 years.
A “fact” that I was absolutely sure of, till I read this post this morning. Now I reserve judgement – the jury is out.
Willis Eschenbach (14:08:58):
Icarus (13:01:40) :
It’s worth noting that NORDKLIM says:
“Globally averaged, the annual mean temperatures at the end of the 20th century were more than 0.6 °C above those recorded at the end of the 19th century (WMO, 2000). Reconstructed temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere for the last 1000 years indicate that the 20th century was unusually warm, and that the 1990s probably was the warmest decade during the millennium as a whole.
The series presented by WMO (2000) show that the temperature increase both globally and in the Northern Hemisphere has mainly occurred in two periods, from ca.1900 to the 1930s and since the mid 1960s. Both globally and in the northern hemisphere, the present temperature level is substantially higher than in the 1930s. In the Northern Hemisphere north of 30N, the temperature level at the end of the 20th century is ca. 0.5°C higher than in the 1930s.”
http://www.smhi.se/hfa_coord/nordklim/old/rapport0900.pdf
(page 44)
Is the WMO in on the fraud too?
Icarus, good question. But in climate science, you need to keep a close eye on the pea under the thimble. NORDKLIM quotes the WMO. So far, so good.
But when you go to the document that NORDKLIM sites, you find that the WMO got their information from … you guessed it …
Sources: P.D. Jones, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre
So even NORDKLIM endorse the CRU data. Interesting.
Willis Eschenbach (14:21:54) :
ya Willis there were two things I could never track down: GHCN version of dark,dim,bright AND the brightness index. Dont know what they represent
but I doubt they are any better at predicting UHI than population is.
The basic problem with the nightlights approach is this. The argument goes like this.
We know that the urban environment changes the local temp, warming it.
We know that the amount of warming is a function of several things: population (waste heat) , impervious surfaces (concrete) boundary layer
disruption ( urban profile). Also, we know that some urban heat islands
have cool parks.
A variety of researchers have tried to come up with some kind of scheme for classifying sites. Some looked merely at population and so you get the population codes: rural,small,urban. But population doesnt tell the whole
story. population is only a proxy for UHI. And the population categories are not very granular. So hansen wanted something that related to population density. At first he was going to look at vegetative index collected by satillites. But then he switched to night lights. But nightlights are only a proxy for population. In short nighlights doesnt tell you any more than population does about potential UHI. Nightlights was tested as a predictor of population density. Further the nightlights data is circa 1995. Its like this.
Population explains SOME of the UHI effect. And nightlights is a predictor of population density. What hansen never showed was that nightlights was a better predictor of UHI than population.
Nightlights makes no sense when you already have population. especially when you have HISTORICAL population figures.
What were nightlights like in NYC back in 1880?
Yeah….right…..how come the friggin ice keeps melting then?
Tony (15:56:03),
What ice? The ice in your cocktail?
In a discussion of global warming, global is what matters: click
Smokey (16:02:35):
What ice? The ice in your cocktail?
“We use monthly measurements of time-variable gravity from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002 and February 2009. We find that during this time period the mass loss of the ice sheets is not a constant, but accelerating with time, i.e., that the GRACE observations are better represented by a quadratic trend than by a linear one, implying that the ice sheets contribution to sea level becomes larger with time. In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
Velicogna, I. (2009), Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19503, doi:10.1029/2009GL040222.
Also:
Cumulative specific mass balance for glaciers worldwide. The cumulative specific mass balance curves are shown for the mean of all glaciers and 30 ‘reference’ glaciers with (almost) continuous series since 1976. Source: Data from WGMS:
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/img/5-9.jpg
Tony (15:56:03) : Yeah….right…..how come the friggin ice keeps melting then?
Ice melts when its warm. Do you/ anyone have the ice extent figures from the 1930’s for a comparison?
Icarus,
Thank you for your citation, which is at odds with the NOAA graph I posted [and since you were answering my global sea ice post we can just forget about your second link, which refers to glaciers].
Your cite is also contradicted by this: click
And by this: click
And by this: click
And by this: click
And by this: click
And by this: click
And by this: click
And if you think some scientists don’t fib, here’s a blink gif with raw [more ice] vs “adjusted” [less ice] sea ice data: click
Answer to my own question:
“The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), published in November 2004, was a uniquely detailed study of Arctic climate compiled by 300 scientists over three years. The study found that while temperatures in the Arctic have increased significantly since 1980 (Figure 1), there was also a period in the 1930s and 1940s when temperatures were almost as warm. If one defines the Arctic as lying poleward of 62.5° north latitude (Polyakov, 2003), the 1930s and 1940s were the warmest period in the past 100 years. Looking at Figure 1, one cannot dismiss the possibility that temperatures in the Arctic oscillate in a 50-year period, and we are due for a cooling trend that will take temperatures below normal by 2030.”
ACIA – “It is suggested strongly that whereas the earlier warming was natural internal climate-system variability, the recent surface air temperature changes are a response to anthropogenic forcing. There is still need for further study before it can be firmly concluded that the increase in Arctic temperatures over the past century and/or past few decades is due to anthropogenic forcing.”
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce.asp#Past100Years
I don’t normally bother with trolls.
But if you believe that you can extract useful data from variations within the limit of experimental error of the Grace system pray go ahead. NASA likes to publicise this kind of thing but are careful to qualify it.
I have no doubt you can even show the drift in the results to have a 90% confidence level.
Which means we have a 90% degree of confidence in the fact that the instrumentation drifts within these limits.
We do not know how or why.
That is nothing to do with the actual measurement. That has not changed.
For someone who implies he has some kind of scientific education I really don’t know where you get these wild ideas from.
Kindest Regards
Not sure why you do what you do to the raw data Willis – derivative ?? why??
You certainly do not get the same result as me using the same data!!!!!!!!
Any way here’s what I get using a 17 year sliding average filter applied to the average of the monthly data differenced to 1961 to 1990 average.
this is all data from the file less iceland and ship M
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6627/nordikallnoticelandship.png
this is same data removing all altitudes above 50m
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5748/nordikbelow50m.png
This is the same data removing all altitudes below 50m
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/5932/nordikabove50m.png
This is the same data (all alt) below 60 north
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7210/nordikbelow60n.png
This is the same data above 60 north
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/6634/nordikabove60n.png
Data is available as excel sheet (40Mbytes)
Note that 17 year average disables the plot 8years from each end of plot
Apologies meant to say that these sites
4210 4216 4250 4270 4320 4339 4360
have been removed as these do not have a site name in their index
With all this it is an interesting plot and poses the question what happened in this region from 1825 to 1960 to cause the 0.6C hump.
There is no evidence of this in Lerwick in the UK (60.15N 1.15W)
Why?
As I’ve stated ever since I heard of the attempted measurement of a global mean temperature with instruments that only had a margin of error of +/- 0.2C. Are you kidding me? The margin of error is probably more like +/- 1.0C. I mean, c’mon…really. How did they come up with there .2C margin anyways? So many factors affect each individual sensor that the idea of ‘homogeneousness’ in the data set is perposterous on it’s face. This needs to be robustly challenged.
Smokey (16:52:14):
Icarus,
Thank you for your citation, which is at odds with the NOAA graph I posted…
Not really, since it reported “ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets”, not sea ice extent. Different things.
…[and since you were answering my global sea ice post we can just forget about your second link, which refers to glaciers].
Why should we forget about glaciers? They’re made of ice too, and they seem to be melting quite fast.
Your cite is also contradicted by this: click …
Again, you’re citing sea ice extent, not ice mass.
Should have been 1925 not 1825 in my 17.41 post
But here is some nowegian spaghetti. All data plotted with 17 year runing average
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/9033/nordikallspaghetti.png
Icarus,
You have no reliable numbers on sea ice mass, and neither does anyone else including those in your cite [see a jones above]. So you can forget that mumbo jumbo. It’s simply another case of moving the goal posts after the first shot missed — the first misfire being the endless hand-waving about arctic ice, while ignoring the entire southern half of the planet.
You replied twice to my sea ice comments arguing about glaciers. Glaciers are an entirely different subject. But since glaciers are making you jump up and down, here are some facts:
Glaciers have been generally retreating since the LIA. Further, whether glaciers are advancing or retreating is a function of precipitation at higher altitudes, not CO2. Finally, if CO2 was causing glacier retreat, then all glaciers would be similarly retreating. They’re not.
Glaciers and tree rings are the easiest things in the world to cherry-pick. That’s why the alarmist crowd loves them so much. But glacier retreat is not the result of CO2, no matter how much you want to believe.
We constantly see pictures of a glacier moraine in scary articles preaching climate doom. But the planet doesn’t just have a few dozen glaciers in Switzerland. There are over 160,000 glaciers world wide. When you have a side by side comparison, get back to us. And don’t forget the Southern Hemisphere.
a jones (16:56:32) :
…if you believe that you can extract useful data from variations within the limit of experimental error of the Grace system pray go ahead. NASA likes to publicise this kind of thing but are careful to qualify it.
Presumably the author has some confidence in the results as she was involved in determining error estimates several years earlier –
“The GRACE satellite mission is mapping the Earth’s gravity field at monthly intervals. The solutions can be used to determine monthly changes in the distribution of water on land and in the ocean. Most GRACE studies to-date have focussed on producing maps of mass variability, with little discussion of the errors in those maps. Error estimates, though, are necessary if GRACE is to be used as a diagnostic tool for assessing and improving hydrology and ocean models. Furthermore, only with error estimates can it be decided whether some feature of the data is real, and how accurately that feature is determined by GRACE. Here, we describe a method of constructing error estimates for GRACE mass values. The errors depend on latitude and smoothing radius. Once the errors are adjusted for these factors, we find they are normally-distributed. This allows us to assign confidence levels to GRACE mass estimates. ”
Wahr, J., S. Swenson, and I. Velicogna (2006), Accuracy of GRACE mass estimates, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06401, doi:10.1029/2005GL025305.
The results are also in broad agreement with studies from other researchers using different methods –
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php
Ahhh yes, the ole “broad agreement” argument. Typically means the error bars are so large, you can make anything agree with it.
I am not sure what the point of arguing about sea ice/ land ice and glaciers are in the matter of AGW. As someone pointed out succinctly the Earth has warmed slightly. Glacier’s melting or retreating do not prove AGW. Ice Sheet gains or losses do not prove AGW.
Sceptics have not (at least not the ones I have spoken to) disagree that the Earth has warmed a bit in the last century. If the Earth warms there will be effects. To use effects of Earth Warming to justify the theory behind why you think the earth warmed is like trying to prove I shot my Neighbour simply because I have a gun in my house.
The theory is I shot him (AGW) the evidence so far is I own a gun, and my proximity, the result is the man dying. Police will not convict on this alone. They need evidence my gun was involved, that it may have been fired, that me personally had both the opportunity and motive to do so etc.
In this case we have the effects (Glaciers receding somehwat, temperatures in some places) We have the basic cause – being that the Earth has warmed (being the gun) the next step is to prove that AGW shot Global Warming – so to speak. In doing so, arguing “hes dead look you can see hes dead” ad nauseum proves nothing than he is dead – not that AGW shot him.
Now the evidence that AGW was responsibe, and carrying on this lovely exercise is cirumstantial. The Primary evidence (the most likely circumstantial evidence) that has been spouted by AGW proponants is that
a) In a Laboratory environment, extra CO2 causes a greenhouse effect; and
b) Temperature records over the past 30 years show “accelerated and/or unusual warming” that cannot be explained by natural variations.
In being perfectly honest, these really are the ontly two pieces of evidence relied upon for the connection between CO2 and Temperature increases of the Earth. Therefore if it can be shown that in a Real World situation, CO2 does not cause the warming expected as in Laboratory Conditions and/or that the warming of the last 30 odd years was accountable by natural causes or not unusual in climate terms, then what we are left with is “Climate Change”.
These documents and leakage from CRU show that the basis for evidence that shows that the recent warming is both unnatural in origin and unprecedented may not be accurate or indeed may be nullified. If this is the case, the result is that the theory of AGW loses (at the very least) on of its legs to stand on. Using the previous analogy, its a bit like having a witness come forward and declare they saw AGW at a local club chatting up a woman when Global Warming was shot. Is the witness reliable? we have to check that. If it turns out the witness is reliable – then at the very least, everyone, including MSM and Politicians have to face the fact that there is a good chance AGW was not to blame.
And to be clear, as I said previously – what these documents may refute is that AGW was the driver for the warming we have seen – not refuting that any warming has taken place. If you wish to argue the point that you believe that AGW was responsible in spite of the witness coming forward, by all means, but sidetracking into Glacial or Ice Retreats, local temperature highs and the like cannot be used as proof of AGW and by doing so create your own strawman to refute. (Ie Premise is AGW, Glacial Retreat shows warming occured therefore AGW is real?)
How disgusting. A peer within the scientific community asking questions and getting the run around, then finally told to read the IPCC report, which didn’t contain the data the professor wanted. While I’m sure this sort of thing occurs in science and other fields, it amazes me that, once uncovered, these people still arrogantly claim they have nothing to hide. Sack the lot of them they are wasting taxpayers money. Their repeated refusals to release their data sets makes them undeserving of the title scientist.
Michael R (19:12:57) : – I agree it is a pointless argument. Ice melts when its warm.
The real point is – was it as warm or warmer in the past? If it was then the ice melted then too. Climate changes. It has in the past without our help. We need to explain that first before jumping to the conclusion – we done it.
Every now and again some Greenie in New Zealand starts to shout how the melting of the glaciers is accelerating. Except, of course, some years they are growing. They come, they go. Mostly they are going, but then again not so long ago they reached the sea, and the bulk of their melting was long prior to CO₂.
The “melting glaciers” is a real hit with the public, who don’t think it through. Take ice out of the fridge and put it on the bench and it will melt. That doesn’t prove the room is warming.
It was worth reading twice.
So there is more than 1 Ian Plimer in the world.
Richard wrote:
“What we cannot be sure of now, anymore, is that current “global warming” is more than any period even in the last 100 years.”
Well, it’s nice to think so, but even if that’s the pattern (highest temperatures in the 30s) in Africa and Australia as well, it would be quite a leap from that to saying that the global temperatures also follow that pattern.
Then there’s the possibility that our guy in the fight may be wrong about the temperatures.
It would be wiser to wait until there’s more of a consensus here of WUWT among us climate contrarians that there has been no real rise above the 30s before arguing aggressively in favor of this claim.
And even if there is a consensus here, it would still be wise to hold our fire on this matter until the other side won’t be able to make a plausible case to the uncommitted that our extraordinary claim is just nuts. We want to keep the other side on the defensive and not give them a chance to counterpunch.
The key points to hammer on are that the CRUsaders have engineered the “consensus” by their meddling with journal politics, and that they have exhibited an unprofessional, biased, and discreditable tendency to shut out and evade evidence contrary to their conclusion—and therefore their judgment is untrustworthy. For instance, as Keith said a bit above, “How disgusting. A peer within the scientific community asking questions and getting the run around, then finally told to read the IPCC report, which didn’t contain the data the professor wanted.”
That is something the average man can understand, and it is something that would convince him that the whole matter needs to be examined and critiqued by disinterested panels of scientists. That’s the goal we should keep in mind–a do-over. There’s never going to be an outcome where our side wins with a knockdown blow on the technical merits of our case.
Instead, science and society are going to need a face-saving way of backing out of their entanglement with these clowns–which we can offer them by asking them to call for a second opinion. (Who could object?) We can best do that by convincing them that their trust has been abused by underhanded practices and deaf-to-reason fanaticism. This is what will stir the masses to anger, and to some extent annoy the fence-sitters in the media: being deceived by their supposed betters, who have acted in a high-handed fashion and haughtily abused the public’s trust.
We should avoid raising any side issue that the warmists can “make an issue of” and use to distract the public’s attention from those crucial weak points.
Hugh said, “Frankly this is scary. Are we living in a democracy, or is a group of about 2,000 people running our lives and feeding us information as it pleases?”
I’d say that Hugh has hit the nail on the head. I think we took our first wrong turn sometime in the 1960s, when public schools went to hell in a handbasket and the idea of teaching children to be “independent thinkers” became nothing more than a quaint, archaic notion. Have you visited a public school lately? How are those kids going to have the intellectual wherewithal how to challenge authority and question spoon-fed media pablum?
Too many people happily accept without question whatever they’re told.
Scary.
Rose Thornton
http://www.uglywomansguide.com
Mann and Company are claiming that the FOI requests were simply attempts to waste their very valuable time and so ignoring the requests was the proper thing to do in the wider interests they were working on.
That is nonsense. Surely a small team of good scientists could have been in the loop at all times, up to date with the serious , innovative, hard tasked and hard working principal scientists . They would have understood the ongoing science and would have been able to supply any requirements covered in an FOI request without disrupting the flow of the high level science.
I wonder why Mann and Jones told such a stupid lie.
Oops: I should have said “so the other side,” not “until the other side.”
“[Karlen] In my mind, we have to accept that it is great if we can reduce the release of CO2 because we are using up a resource the earth will be short of in the future, but we are in error if we claims a global warming caused by CO2”
So then, from the above, it seems that it is the conservation of a resource . . . “fossil fuels” . . . that is the real goal.
Their answer is to convert to “renewable resources” which at present cost many times the cost of using fossil fuels; coal, natural gas, and petroleum . . . which from what I have been able to discern, we in the US, at least, have in great abundance . . . in the centuries of future use catagorie.
It would seem that these people who are willing to lie to cause the (needless) conservation of fossil fuels have a notion that technology will not increase in the next 300 or 400 years . . . so we must severely cut back on fossil fuel use now . . . at whatever cost to humanity now.
Clearly, from the above, the point is to claim (falsely) that Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening, and claim (falsely) that AGW is caused by increased carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel combustion, to force a severe reduction in the use of fossil fuels.
Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
Roger Knights (03:36:25) : – Yes I agree with you totally there. Very premature to say instrumental temperature records may have been manipulated to such an extent.
But the emails have revealed that the CRUsaders have meddled and manipulated journals, and they have shut out and evaded evidence contrary to their conclusion – and therefore their judgment is untrustworthy as you have pointed out.
The proxy records they rely on to claim the current warming period is unprecedented in the last 1,000 years lies in tatters and hanging by a thread, or on on a lonely tree in Siberia if you wish. And that is where their shameful evasions, manipulation, judgement and conclusions already stand exposed.
Icarus (15:31:37) :
So even NORDKLIM endorse the CRU data. Interesting.
I dont’ think referencing and endorsing are the same thing.
tom s (17:52:57) :
“As I’ve stated ever since I heard of the attempted measurement of a global mean temperature with instruments that only had a margin of error of +/- 0.2C. Are you kidding me? The margin of error is probably more like +/- 1.0C. I mean, c’mon…really. How did they come up with there .2C margin anyways? So many factors affect each individual sensor that the idea of ‘homogeneousness’ in the data set is perposterous on it’s face. This needs to be robustly challenged.”
the .2C estimate is for 1sd. It is documented in Folland et al 2001.
back in 2007 when we were first asking for the data and code I noted a tactic of the AGW crowd that I termed “running for the ice” It goes like this: if you question the land sea record the AGWers will RUN FOR THE ICE. They will start to point at ice loss data. basically they are trying to run away from the problems with the land sea data. The problem with this tactic is that it is a retreat from what should be the best evidence. If you want to retreat from the fight over the land sea data and head for the ice then I have these questions:
1. Can you please point me to the raw data and the processing algorithms for the ice data? ( I SAID RAW DATA)
2. How far back does the ice data go? 30 years or so. Can you say anything
about the ice loss being unprecedented in the past 1000 years?
3. Why does ice melt? what role does the wind have to play? what role do currents play? what role does temperature play? Opps. you can’t understand
ice melt without looking at a temperature record. But alas you’ve left the defense of that record and run for the ice.
Basically, the ice loss/gain data is SECONDARY support for AGW. It’s getting warmer ( the land and sea record say so), Therefore we expect to see ice loss. Now, if you abandon your primary evidence, the land sea record, and try to argue that it’s getting warmer because the ice is melting, then you have retreated to secondary evidence of warming and you’ve lost the ability to say important things.
But let’s stipulate that the ice is melting and its melting because its getting warmer. How much warmer? can you go from ice loss data to a trend in temperature? probably not. You see the main point of contention is NOT whether or not it is getting warmer. The question is HOW much warmer? For that question you need the land sea record. And so after a brief scuffle on the ice we return to the principle question in AGW: how much warmer? Show us the raw data and show us the processing algorithms. OR we reserve judgement on the question of how much warmer.
Climate scientists have been calculating the global temps since 1987. And whats their record of performance? They lost the raw data and they won’t release the code ( noaa and CRU) Now, you ask me why this debate last so long. Incompetence.
Steve M. (12:29:49) :
Don’t you know how things work in climate science? If you don’t endorse something, you don’t reference it.
In fact, you collude with your buddies to purposely ignore it.
This series of exchanges excites and informs me. I’s way over my head reading much of what you all present and yet I read real good. I can follow argumentation well and my eyes do not glaze over when the posting turns technical. I learned a ton of stuff and in my own little corner of the world. I can AND WILL carry a good summary and solid description of your comments to friends who won’t invest the time this thread has demanded. My small bit. Thank you for equipping me so well.
The wheels have surely come off the GW HoaxWagon but some voodoo inertia keeps it moving forward but I’m finally hopeful that truth-and our nurturing of it- determines our fate. Keep up the good work.
The symbol should be a hockey stick. Surely that symbol is easily recognizable and has been discredited.
My grandson has been required to sit through Mr Gore’s movie three times this school year. He has lost at least 12 class hours watching that propaganda and then being required to write affirming papers on the movie.
I’m not a scientist, but I can see this behavior in the scientific community is disgraceful. Worse yet are those that try to cover over their errors, as this journalist is attempting. To call this “a tempest in a tea cut” is equally disgraceful.
Thank God for the InterNet.
Roger Knights (03:36:25) :
Richard wrote:
Roger, you raise a vital point. All that I am showing above is that the issue is not clear cut, and that what is sold is not always what the data shows.
As to whether the earth is warming, I think it is, and overall the earth has been warming for three hundred years or so. See the work of Akasofu, for example.
There are two questions in all of this. 1. How good is the data? 2. How good is the analysis and the results? Anthony Watt’s surfacestations projects shows that the data isn’t all that good, but that’s all we have to work with.
The validity of the analysis is a separate question. I suspect that it is pretty good, but has a number of questionable “adjustments”. In addition, there are theoretical problems with gridded data that have received insufficient attention. Finally, McKitrick has shown that about half of the warming is attributable to economic development (more parking lots, houses, fewer trees, less wind, more houses heated, etc.)
So although the generally good agreement between satellite and ground records tells me that the ground records are close to getting it right, the long term trends are likely overestimated. And although there is generally good agreement between the three analyses (CRU, GISS, and NOAA), they differ between them in long term trends.
I have just started an investigation of using cluster analysis instead of gridding to determine temperature averages. I’ll likely post on it at some point. In the meantime, there’s a site that let’s you look at adjusted and unadjusted CRU data at AIS. I encourage people to take a look.
Thanks for a valid point, don’t overstate what I show. I only show what I show.
Willis Eschenbach (23:33:51) :
in my post bill (17:24:04) :
I gave many plots using the same (?) data that you used. None of which agreed with your plot.
Can you explain the difference please.
Thomas Johnson (22:45:37) :
…….
My grandson has been required to sit through Mr Gore’s movie three times this school year.
I hope you are in the US – if you are in the UK then the school has broken the law. The UK High Court found that Gore’s film was nothing better than Party Political Propaganda with 11 major factual mistakes that made it WRONG.
Perhaps those of you in the US should try & use the UK High Court’s decision to at least force the schools to stop / cut down on the political propaganda ?
bill (17:24:04) :
Bill, you raise a good question. Using the derivative is called the “first difference” method. If you don’t use it you get erroneous results. See Peterson for a full explanation.
w.
Willis:
1. I assume the graphic you object to is marked NEU. If this refers to northern Europe then the data you reference does not include much of N.Europe. From my investigation the 1935 hump decreases with measurements further south. So NEurope I would assume include GB, N France Genmany Netherlands etc. These are not included in your referenced data source.
If these were included the hump wou;d reduce!
2. Method:
I removed the one marine record from “Ship M”. To avoid infilling where there are missing records, I took the “first difference” of all of the available records for each year and averaged them. Then I used a running sum to calculate the average anomaly. I did not remove cities or adjust for the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. Here is the result
This does not seem to explain how you obtained anomaly, and averaging the derivative over the year seems to be a bit dubious – to start with you are throwing away the monthly data very early on in the analysis.
The method I used:
1. For each of the reference years (1961 to 1990) average all available months data (eg average [jan 1961, jan1962, … jan 1990]) Obviously missing data will change this average fractionally – in the data you referenced the worst station over this ref period returned 20 measurements.
2. Each months data for a station has the reference month (1961 to 1990) subtracted to give the monthly anomaly.
3. All reporting stations are then averaged month by month.
4. A moving average is then applied to the monthly average. Any missing average causes a non plot of +-0.5 of the moving average period (this also terminates plotting at the ends of the record)
This method retains full monthly granularity up to the time the moving average is applied. No infilling is performed. Missing data causes minor errors in averaging but no assumptions (as with infilling are made)
This method seems sound to me and plot outputs are between yours and ipcc’s.
Using derivatives on very noisy data seems like a problem to me!
How about these facts? Where’s the email that changes the chemistry of the elements and sources involved?
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
Filed under: Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases Paleoclimate — eric @ 22 December 2004 – () ()
Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion.
Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.
One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.
Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.
Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.
Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***
In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.
For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
—————————
marky48 (08:28:34) says :
“How about these facts?”…
.
How do I get the three minutes of my life back for reading that pointless waste of time?
The central fact was never mentioned: that there is zero empirical evidence that carbon dioxide has any measurable effect on the planet’s temperature. Zip. Nada. None. ZE-RO.
When someone provides a real world, testable, reproducible and falsifiable experiment demonstrating a specifically measurable cause and effect between X amount of CO2 increase and X amount of warming, wake me. But so far, the ultimate authority — planet Earth — is cooling at the same time that harmless and beneficial CO2 rises.
In the mean time, arguing about the fluctuations in a tiny trace gas is a pointless waste of everyone’s time.
It is with a wizard like you there smokemon. I addressed this. You were even corrected by a member here. Look at the absorption number 781,000 and the annual increase 11,700. That’s half the human contribution. It ain’t rocket science.
Perhaps Herr Watts could address this since folks use this graph incorrectly. It’s about the net increase and the source.
Well, maybe is is rocket science?
http://climate.nasa.gov/Eyes/
What do you guys use for your measurements?
[snip] says “As I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, the GHG emmissions from the eruptions of Mt St Hellens and Pintatubo exceded the total of human emissions by a factor of many times”
That is completely wrong. The largest amount of volcanic GHG, water vapor, emitted by Pinatubo (491 Mt) was far less than the 20,000 Mt of water vapor emitted by fossil fuel burning each year. The story with CO2 is even more wrong: 42 Mt of CO2 from Pinatubo versus 150,000 Mt natural and 7100 Mt manmade CO2 annually.
In reply to post re temperatures in Finland in July – I’ve just checked Wikepedia
(cos Iwouln’t have a clue otherwise) and it says that July and early August 25 to 30 degrees occurs on the ‘warmest days’ of that period. so I guess that means Finland could have a 23 degree average for July, doesn’t it? I guess it depends how many warm days in the month?
If anyone out there can do maths or understands this please comment.
confused but riveted
re Finland in July temperatures, I was commenting on post by pd
That same Wikipaedia entry says Finland is gaining territory at a rate of 7km a year through ice. Huh? I thought the stuff was supposed to be melting and drowning little islands – is it actually going to Finland?
The obvious is now evident. What can the non scientific based community of ‘non believers’ do now?
I am surrounded by those who quietly doubt but would never ripple the waters by being open about it.
It is clear that some of the recording sites were chosen for their readings to be higher ie close to reflected or man made heat sources etc. as well as the fudge factors, built in adjustments etc.
Stay strong but help us – who are not experts. Your website is excellent, and challenging as it should be.
Does this argument hold water without implicitly accusing a large number of scientists of being liars?
Karlen is arguing that he can’t reconstruct the european trend. First observation: the inability of a particular person to reconstruct a result does not imply the result is invalid.
Instead, let’s search the literature for other reconstructions which support the IPCC graphs. A quick method: search Google Scholar for “european temperature reconstruction”.
European Seasonal and Annual Temperature Variability, Trends, and Extremes Since 1500 – all by researchers at the University of Bern, Switzerland.
That’s the top hit. Of course not all of them have much to say on the issue, and few have more than abstracts on-line. But just try to find one that agrees with Karlen.
Unpublished findings mean nothing – even if you can get them published in a vanity journal, that is better than nothing. All you’ve found here is the confused questions of a researcher. Did he publish this finding? Or did it just die, and Karlen stop responding once he figured it out…
Sam, we don’t need multiproxy reconstructions, we need the temperature records for a direct comparison. To say “unpublished findings mean nothing” is to assert that questions mean nothing. In fact, the unadjusted temp graph result HAS been published – here. No net warming over mid20th century.
We are now seeing reviews and challenges in these areas – Alaska, England, United States, Australia (Darwin), New Zealand, Finland, Hawaii, South America.
We see the satellite doesnt match the surface records.
We have the CRU Team admit that land temp increases are 2X the sea changes since 1970s.
We are seeing these biases/errors – Neglect/mal-adjustment of Urban heat Island effect; IPCC claiming they are not using urban stations when they are; adjustments ‘out of thin air’ or in some cases (eg case of GrandCanyon) inappropriately adding to the warming trend of rural stations to match urban trend (!!); movement of stations and removal of colder/high altitude stations (eg removal of Bolivia). All these biases and errors amazingly go in one direction – they magnify the warming.
We know also that in the past 70 years, there was no more than 0.5C temp increase. A mere 0.005C/yr bias could triple the amount of warming versus 1940. If the Nordic case were replicated on the global level, the entire “signature” for man-made warming would be an artifact of bad adjustments. Where is the proof and validation that this is not happening?
The 20th century global temperature record has apparently been tampered with, and cannot be trusted unless and until a thorough review of the adjustments applied to it has been conducted.
Rubbish. It’s already been shown that the anomaly found using only the highest-quality stations in the US comes up with an almost identical result for the one where you do include them, thus validating their method of removing the signature of the UHI from the data.
I’m following the challenges in New Zealand, and they are a dishonest attempt by a well-known pack to discredit the NIWA. Claims that the unadjusted data and method of adjustment were not available have turned out to be unfounded.
But there are other ways we can confirm that the planet is warming than the temperature record. The retreat of glaciers, for instance. Changes in times of the year that spring starts. Changes in migratory patterns. These all point towards one inescapable conclusion – that the world is warming dramatically, we’re responsible, and there is much more warming in store.
Sam Vilain,
Lotsa opinion there, but no facts.
Next, these climatologists will be telling us that we’re responsible for the decline in sunspot activity.
Smokey, you calling me on my facts?
The NOAA response to SurfaceStations.org claims finds;
That is a fact. They ran the figures with all of the sites which were identified as “best” in the SurfaceStations.org survey, and what do you know – the results were just the same.
There’s a bit of a round-up of the dishonesty at OpenParachute on the NIWA debacle.
Finally, this section of Wikipedia is a nice summary of the wide range of physical evidence that I refer to. You’ll see that section is quite thoroughly referenced.
[REPLY – I can’t say anything about this issue for now, except that the NOAA’s conclusions are fatally flawed and they have failed to take something vital into account that I cannot yet discuss. All I can do is ask your patience. The issue will be addressed. ~ Evan]
Sam Villain
The problem with that NOAA report is that the methodology is not published. It appears that the data from those “best” sites was homogenized adjusted data so they didn’t compare apples to oranges, they compared the apple to the same apple.
Sam Villain,
I think you answered or someone else did but it seems some posts got inadvertently deleted and it may have been accidentally deleted, it may even have been my fault, if so, I apologize and please repost.
You put up some quotes about some methodology but you appear to be conflating papers and responses. To see what happened in the response from NOAA to the surface stations project please read this post on CA. No methodologies or provenance of data were disclosed in any usable way and it was not a peer reviewed study.
Sam: ” Neglect/mal-adjustment of Urban heat Island effect;””Rubbish. It’s already been shown that the anomaly found using only the highest-quality stations in the US comes up with an almost identical result for the one where you do include them,”
Show us the peer-reviewed papers on this, including the raw and adjusted data to back it up, so we know this isn’t a snow job.
Meanwhile, let’s hear the cover story on the Wang and Jones flawed/fraud paper and their dishonest treatment of UHI.
“thus validating their method of removing the signature of the UHI from the data.”
… as stated by Jeez, they have apparently compared their own results to their own results and found they match. Show us the UNADJUSTED data that they started with.
“I’m following the challenges in New Zealand, and they are a dishonest attempt by a well-known pack to discredit the NIWA. Claims that the unadjusted data and method of adjustment were not available have turned out to be unfounded.”
Show us the peer-reviewed papers on this, including the raw and adjusted data to back it up, so we know this isn’t a snow job. What is YOUR unadjusted trend?
“But there are other ways we can confirm that the planet is warming than the temperature record. The retreat of glaciers, for instance. Changes in times of the year that spring starts. ”
Spring starts Mar 21 every year. If the temps are higher, then the thermometer would record it.
I’ve looked at the unadjusted top 10% longest-running global land temp records, about 1300 records running over 100 years apiece. This unadjusted data shows and average 2000-2009 temperature that is less than 0.1C higher than 1930-1939.
“Changes in migratory patterns. These all point towards one inescapable conclusion – that the world is warming dramatically, we’re responsible, and there is much more warming in store.”
Non-temperature anecdotes not only are a poor substitute for the historical temperature record, it’s quite laughable to insist that past history can not only dictates temperatures, but can dictate responsibility for them and future trends.
That’s not science, that’s ASTROLOGY!
Er, sure – I linked to the peer reviewed study which described the methodology used in constructing the GISS series. That’s what this is about, right? Why would they have to republish it if it’s already been in the literature since 1996? They’re just running the same method with a smaller data set. Just search Google Scholar for “Gistemp” and you should find it. I can’t find the original paper I linked, but this page seems to go through it in far more detail.
And Evan – you just keep telling yourself those results are flawed. Maybe someday, you’ll believe it.
Here is the original study I linked to:
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl (2001), A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change, J. Geophys. Res., 106(D20), 23,947–23,963.
Yay for backtype.
None of which is relevant for their new and improved homogenized datasets.
Please read the link I put up in the last post.
The exchange of data sets and relevant URL’s between opposing sets of scientists bewilders a skeptical but untrained observer like myself. I see something like eighteenth century warfare at work: lines of opposing musketeers exchanging volley after volley, standing firm and determined, filling holes torn in the forward ranks with willing soldiers from the back ranks stepping forward. Which line’s discipline will break first? Bewildering.
My distinctly untrained conclusions:
1) Any scientific basis AGW proponents could lay claim to stands discredited and should be rejected. Even the work of honorable scientists bears the taint.
2) Therefore, no reasonable basis exists to disembowel first world industrial economies to assuage AGW’s unfounded and hysterically reiterated ad nauseam fears. These fears have no scientific foundation of merit, just lots and lots of perjured data pushing a leftist political agenda.
3) Copenhagen’s misspent efforts would bear better results if directed at attainable reductions in pollutants and pursuit of economically viable energy sources.
4) Science should punch ‘reset’ on climate research. An independent board (and, for God’s sake, no UN involvement!) should establish strict protocols insuring complete transparency of all research–raw data to finished papers–and let the right consensus emerge honestly and in front of interested observers like myself. After all, we little people now stand on notice that the benefits and costs all devolve on us in the end.
I only hope the world gets the chance to do something like this; inertia in favor of AGW policies has such power now–it seems that the broken vessel bearing their misbegotten dreams for control of the world can drift into safe harbor no matter what alarmed and angry passengers do by way of storming the wheelhouse. Is it too late?
Note: In Denmark is used several billions to increase the temperature in the rural landscapes for better agriculture.
“As a consequence of these planting activities, around 800 km of shelterbelts were planted yearly until the 1990s and the total forest area in Jutland tripled from 100,000 ha in 1881 to 300,000 ha in 2000, of which 85% consists of coniferous plantations.”
Runcible, that might be the case, except the argument is simply too strong, it’s gone on for too long. For over 100 years the debate raged in the scientific community. All the major challenges have been tested and failed.
A few sceptics’ inability to follow what the professionals are doing is hardly call to delay action.
Jeez, I’ve looked at your link and again I just don’t see how it supports your position that a different method of correction is used. I’ll try again later perhaps.
Not.
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Station List Search: (60.3 N,16.1 E)
Stations are ordered by distance from center at (60.3 N,16.1 E). Click the “(*)” next to a station name and the list will be re-sorted by distance from that station.
Distance Station Name Lat Lon ID Pop. Years
92 km (*) Uppsala 59.9 N 17.6 E 645024580000 157,000 1880 – 1970
92 km (*) Uppsala 59.9 N 17.6 E 645024580001 157,000 1961 – 1970
120 km (*) Orebo Sweden 59.3 N 15.2 E 645024390010 171,000 1880 – 1907
149 km (*) Stockholm 59.3 N 18.1 E 645024640000 1,357,000 1880 – 1980
149 km (*) Stockholm 59.3 N 18.1 E 645024640001 1,357,000 1949 – 1990
149 km (*) Stockholm 59.3 N 18.1 E 645024640002 1,357,000 1951 – 1991
149 km (*) Stockholm 59.3 N 18.1 E 645024640003 1,357,000 1971 – 1980
149 km (*) Stockholm 59.3 N 18.1 E 645024640004 1,357,000 1987 – 1994
180 km (*) Karlstad Flyg 59.4 N 13.5 E 645024180000 51,000 1951 – 1991
180 km (*) Karlstad Flyg 59.4 N 13.5 E 645024180001 51,000 1977 – 1990
180 km (*) Karlstad Flyg 59.4 N 13.5 E 645024180002 51,000 1987 – 2008
210 km (*) Maarianhamina Finland 60.1 N 19.9 E 614029710010 rural area 1961 – 1981
275 km (*) Vastervik Sweden 57.8 N 16.6 E 645025760010 21,000 1880 – 1907
278 km (*) Harnosand Sweden 62.6 N 18.0 E 645023610010 19,000 1880 – 1991
280 km (*) Oslo/Gardermo 60.2 N 11.1 E 634013840000 rural area 1951 – 1991
280 km (*) Oslo/Gardermo 60.2 N 11.1 E 634013840001 rural area 1960 – 1990
280 km (*) Oslo/Gardermo 60.2 N 11.1 E 634013840002 rural area 1961 – 1980
280 km (*) Oslo/Gardermo 60.2 N 11.1 E 634013840003 rural area 1986 – 2009
302 km (*) Jonkoping Fly 57.8 N 14.1 E 645025500000 131,000 1951 – 1991
302 km (*) Jonkoping Fly 57.8 N 14.1 E 645025500001 131,000 1974 – 1990
302 km (*) Jonkoping Fly 57.8 N 14.1 E 645025500002 131,000 1971 – 1980
302 km (*) Jonkoping Fly 57.8 N 14.1 E 645025500003 131,000 1987 – 2009
305 km (*) Oslo/Blindern 59.9 N 10.7 E 634014890010 645,000 1880 – 1991
305 km (*) Oslo/Blindern 59.9 N 10.7 E 634014890011 645,000 1961 – 1980
315 km (*) Visby Airport Sweden 57.7 N 18.4 E 645025900000 20,000 1951 – 1991
315 km (*) Visby Airport Sweden 57.7 N 18.4 E 645025900001 20,000 1949 – 1990
315 km (*) Visby Airport Sweden 57.7 N 18.4 E 645025900002 20,000 1961 – 1970
315 km (*) Visby Airport Sweden 57.7 N 18.4 E 645025900003 20,000 1971 – 1980
315 km (*) Visby Airport Sweden 57.7 N 18.4 E 645025900004 20,000 1987 – 2009
336 km (*) Ostersund/Fro 63.2 N 14.5 E 645022260000 14,000 1949 – 1990
336 km (*) Ostersund/Fro 63.2 N 14.5 E 645022260001 14,000 1951 – 1991
336 km (*) Ostersund/Fro 63.2 N 14.5 E 645022260002 14,000 1971 – 1980
336 km (*) Ostersund/Fro 63.2 N 14.5 E 645022260003 14,000 1961 – 1970
336 km (*) Ostersund/Fro 63.2 N 14.5 E 645022260004 14,000 1987 – 2009
338 km (*) Turku 60.5 N 22.3 E 614029720000 217,000 1951 – 1991
338 km (*) Turku 60.5 N 22.3 E 614029720001 217,000 1950 – 1990
338 km (*) Turku 60.5 N 22.3 E 614029720002 217,000 1971 – 1980
338 km (*) Turku 60.5 N 22.3 E 614029720003 217,000 1987 – 2009
344 km (*) Ferder Fyr 59.0 N 10.5 E 634014820000 rural area 1885 – 1955
360 km (*) Roros 62.6 N 11.4 E 634012880000 rural area 1880 – 1989
369 km (*) Goteborg/Save 57.8 N 11.9 E 645025120000 691,000 1951 – 1991
369 km (*) Goteborg/Save 57.8 N 11.9 E 645025120001 691,000 1977 – 1990
369 km (*) Goteborg/Save 57.8 N 11.9 E 645025120002 691,000 1971 – 1980
369 km (*) Goteborg/Save 57.8 N 11.9 E 645025120003 691,000 1987 – 2007
378 km (*) Torslanda 57.7 N 11.8 E 645025120010 691,000 1961 – 1970
407 km (*) Jokioinen 60.8 N 23.5 E 614029630000 rural area 1957 – 1991
407 km (*) Jokioinen 60.8 N 23.5 E 614029630001 rural area 1958 – 1990
407 km (*) Jokioinen 60.8 N 23.5 E 614029630002 rural area 1971 – 1980
407 km (*) Jokioinen 60.8 N 23.5 E 614029630003 rural area 1987 – 2009
415 km (*) Gaustatoppen Norway 59.9 N 8.7 E 634014500010 rural area 1934 – 1974
422 km (*) Fokstua Ii 62.1 N 9.3 E 634012380000 rural area 1923 – 2009
423 km (*) Skagen 57.7 N 10.6 E 612060410000 12,000 1880 – 1926
424 km (*) Dombas Norway 62.0 N 9.1 E 634012380010 rural area 1880 – 1976
426 km (*) Vaasa 63.1 N 21.6 E 614029120000 54,000 1950 – 1990
426 km (*) Vaasa 63.1 N 21.6 E 614029120001 54,000 1951 – 1991
426 km (*) Vaasa 63.1 N 21.6 E 614029120002 54,000 1971 – 1980
426 km (*) Vaasa 63.1 N 21.6 E 614029120003 54,000 1987 – 2001
432 km (*) Tampere 61.5 N 23.7 E 614029440010 221,000 1961 – 1970
439 km (*) Halmstad Sweden 56.7 N 12.9 E 645026200010 50,000 1880 – 1907
455 km (*) Baltischport Ussr 59.4 N 24.1 E 613260380010 rural area 1880 – 1880
457 km (*) Trondheim/Tyholt Norway 63.4 N 10.5 E 634012580010 135,000 1880 – 1981
465 km (*) Torungen Fyr 58.4 N 8.8 E 634014650000 rural area 1880 – 2009
476 km (*) Haugastol Norway 60.3 N 7.5 E 634013510010 rural area 1884 – 1976
488 km (*) Helsinki/Seutula 60.3 N 25.0 E 614029740000 794,000 1880 – 1991
488 km (*) Helsinki/Seutula 60.3 N 25.0 E 614029740001 794,000 1880 – 1980
488 km (*) Helsinki/Seutula 60.3 N 25.0 E 614029740002 794,000 1949 – 1990
488 km (*) Helsinki/Seutula 60.3 N 25.0 E 614029740003 794,000 1971 – 1980
488 km (*) Helsinki/Seutula 60.3 N 25.0 E 614029740004 794,000 1987 – 2009
493 km (*) Tallin 59.4 N 24.8 E 613260380000 430,000 1881 – 1990
493 km (*) Tallin 59.4 N 24.8 E 613260380001 430,000 1951 – 1991
493 km (*) Tallin 59.4 N 24.8 E 613260380002 430,000 1936 – 1989
493 km (*) Tallin 59.4 N 24.8 E 613260380003 430,000 1936 – 1989
493 km (*) Tallin 59.4 N 24.8 E 613260380004 430,000 1957 – 1990
493 km (*) Tallin 59.4 N 24.8 E 613260380005 430,000 1971 – 1980
493 km (*) Tallin 59.4 N 24.8 E 613260380006 430,000 1961 – 1970
493 km (*) Tallin 59.4 N 24.8 E 613260380007 430,000 1987 – 2009
Go to GISTEMP Station Selector
“I linked to the peer reviewed study which described the methodology used in constructing the GISS series.”
When the data and codes are sufficient for Steve McIntyre or some truly independent auditor like him to replicate what they did, then it would be satisfactory.
The current situation, where ‘peer-review’ is a clubhouse of low standards, ‘describe the methodology’ means handwaving, and the data is insufficient for replication back to the raw records and forward through all processing steps … then we still have a situation of non-credible weak science.
Way too many questionable actions and data-munging by GISS and others to consider what they did ‘credible’ on their own say-so.
That made me laugh.
Climate change does not happen because of humans! BBC docu:
http://www.garagetv.nl/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary
Willis Eschenbach: do you agree with the following statement (Karlen)?
[Karlen] “In my mind, we have to accept that it is great if we can reduce the release of CO2 because we are using up a resource the earth will be short of in the future, but we are in error if we claims a global warming caused by CO2.”
If so, do you encourage a reduction in the use of fossil fuels?
The Great Climategate Debate:
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
Moderator: Henry D. Jacoby
Kerry Emanuel ’76, PhD ’78
Judith Layzer PhD ’99
Stephen Ansolabehere
Ronald G. Prinn SCD ’71
Richard Lindzen
December 10, 2009
Running Time: 1:58:31
/// WiredSource
“If so, do you encourage a reduction in the use of fossil fuels?”
If fossil fuels are limited and finite, then consumption of them will reduce all by itself and there is no need to encourage reduction on that basis.
I dont believe ANY one of you can Prove Gasses in such a small quantity have ANY major effect on the Climate, or the Earths Temperatures except to exclaim it’s a settled Science and theres no debate, ..and that might have been true till the emails were “outed”, and now the General Population has seeen first hand that “science” has indeed been manipulated, not to mention the fact that Al Gore and others behind this Shell Game stand to make BILLIONS in Carbon tax Schemes bying and selling Pie in the Sky, and in the end, when all is said and done, and Nothings happened, you “Scientists” will all jump up and cry Victory and “Claim” you all fixed “IT”, when “IT” was never broken to begin with….
any atributions to Climate Change, and or Global Warming is done by the Sun, which is also has 11 year Sunspot Cycles and that is the basis behind the marginal changes in Earths temps NOT mans activity, and the assertion the Man made a 100 point increase in CO2 from 1900 to Date has NO explanation of the Increase prior to that as from 1700 to 1900 measured increase , when the Intenal Combustion engine was in numbers you could count on your fingers and toes and NO where NEAR the numbers on Engines Operating today, so when you look at the xponential increases in Population, in Internal Combustion Engine use, in Animal population and Energy use from Coal Natural gas and other methods, your “Science” is seriously Lacking and is in fact, Smoke and Mirrors only “created” to Fleece Americans out of More of their Money , and penalize them , so the rest of the World can catch and surpass the US……I would also like to know how a Gas thats heavier than Air, Freon (CFC) 12 is measured in the Upper atmosphere ? when it seeks it’s lowest level such as other Heavier than Air Gasses, and would NOT Remain intact if changed to Lighten it’self enough to be 80,000 ft plus in the earths Atmosphere and still be refered to as CFC12…when Clearly it couldnt be CFC 12 ……well, the Emails clearly Show this is a Dog and Pony show, manipulated by the Players who live off Government Grants and Research….which to most of us we see a Serious conflict of interest…..
The Great Climategate Debate Video
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
This video is 119 minutes in duration.
It is important to see the whole video.
Here are the times for the panelists’ introductory remarks:
Kerry Emanuel: 8:11 to 15:33
Richard Lindzen: 15:44 to 29:20
Judith Layzer: 29:30 to 37:24
Stephen Ansolabehere: 37:40 to 44:59
Ronald Prinn: 45:09 to 58:36
It is fascinating to see and hear how different each panelist’s take on this is.
Q & A at the end is interesting.
I thought Richard Lindzen did the most to save science though.
First, THANKS for all the good work on this issue. I have to say that after years of trying to understand APGW science, I still get overwhelmed by the arguments back and forth between various scientists. I’m not a scientist, but I still try to form an opinion on this topic based on reason – not politics or hysteria.
I have come to one conclusion which I think is bulletproof at this point. The science is not settled. I’ve read criticisms from over a dozen respected climate scientists that raise very sensible concerns about the data, modeling and predicted impacts. No respectable news source, elected leader or scientist can make that claim with a straight face any longer and when they do, we should raise holy hell – and back up our position with facts.
I know this might seem basic or obvious to those of you who are more sophisticated about science, but I think that this is the kind of message we should concentrate on getting the public to understand. It doesn’t actually help that so many right wing talkers, whether on TV, radio or in print, babble on stupidly about how global warming isn’t real. They are actually damaging the skeptical position by overstatement and oversimplification. Our opposition is based on reason, not ideology or politics and the skeptics should not succumb to the temptation to sink to the levels that the APGW hysterics have.
One thing we should remember, IPCC have a mission. That is to bring forward data and information that shows or support there is global warming. IPCC is not a research institution, it is pure political. This is why they probably are working by the same standards politicians and politics usually works. That’s why they are allowed to play “tricks” and “hide the decline” as it is not supporting their cause. I assume there is an agenda that is not spoken out and the aim is hidden somewhere in the UN building, as politics usually is not telling the public more than needed. (This case follows this rule very good). Maybe that someone who did find all this emails can do it again ?
Firstly, thank you so much for doing the obvious – looking at the data. I wasn’t a GW ‘denialist’, I thought anthropogenic was perhaps a bridge too far, but this has been an eye-opener, as good, transparent science always is.
I hope this becomes a global lesson on the implications of the politicisation and industrialisation of science. Please, no more Intergovenmental Panels with political links and agendas, reliant on their findings to fund their beaurocracy. No more income driven university ‘corporations’. Let’s bring back science as an honourable profession driven by a love and pursuit of knowledge. That means unbiased government funding.
Doug: You pine for an oxymoron–”unbiased government funding”.
Whatever ‘science’ has come out the present conglomeration of fundings and institutings and harnessed scientific ego drives works pretty good, for the most part. The fractured and splintered nature of the process means that no single truly evil impulse driven maniac gets to direct the final expression of some great idea or other. The peer review process and scientific ethics most scientists must harness themselves to in order to get published or recognized has, for the most part, also acted to keep some order and sanctity alive and thriving in the process.
What changed? Hmmmm . . . . the internet and political involvement gave some truly evil whack-jobs in a few moribund university climatology departments of the 80‘s and 90‘s the means to do a work around on the pre-existing and imperfect system of controls. The academics joined with leftist politicians and compliant media types to seal up the process and use the ‘science’ as a means to frighten and control.
The internet can also serve to redeploy the old violated and valuable ethical controls, establish new inspection points and provide the means for total transparency. CRU’s desperate, prolonged and largely successful-to-the-end attempts to avoid transparency, inspection and ethical protocols shines the light on the very aspects of the scientific process that the internet can and must so reassert.
Industrial sponsorship and involvement in research does not worry me: commercial interests resolve themselves into the easily understood pursuit of profit. Free market profit motive serves as a great motivator of human progress: easily tracked and controlled and oh, so predictable! On the other hand, sole or even extensive government sponsorship of scientific research DOES frighten me: political motivations resolve themselves predictably into some some whack job’s weird drives to control and shape society to personal taste, almost always at the expense of personal freedom. Think Mao’s Great Leap Forward or Stalin’s collectivization of the Ukraine or Pol Pot getting rid of anyone with glasses or Hitler’s purging of Jews or Mugabe’s purging of white farmers for the benefit, supposedly, of a suppressed black majority. What would those creeps have done with a tool like AGW? A republican form of government such as ours can police the process usefully, but direct it? Oh, please! No!!!!
Merry Christmas. G2G; cat’s gotta eat right now, if I read the signs aright.
Hello All,
I’m just starting off on this ”CIimategate” thing and I have just been reading an article about how CO2 data has been ”Cherry Picked”..If this is true,how could it get past the so called ”Experts” for so many years?You all seem Intelligent here so a second opinion would be appreciated. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18343.
Many Thanks,
Mr.Dimm.
Forget the BBC – what chance debate in this ess than green and unpleasant land
DEBATE:
What do you think of the Copenhagen ‘deal’?
SENT:
04-Dec-2009 22:11
COMMENT:
I hope it stops the whole process. we need to examine the precarious position that the world powers have placed us in. World government, have we be ASKED yet? On the basis of the so called facts the CRU of University of East Anglia have systematically refused to allowing any examination of their work via FOI, been ‘encouraged’ to fudge, smooth out the readings they were entrusted to record and extrapolate. The e-mails are real. Facts known by the BBC, gone unreported until now, shame on you!
COMMENT STATUS:
Rejected
Here is the area defined as NEU according to the Supplementary material for Ch 9 in IPCC AR4:
10W to 40E, 48N to 75N land
A bit more than just the Nordic countries…. It almost goes down to the Alps, and covers both the British Isles and the Moscov region.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/suppl/docs/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch09-SM.pdf
(I see that the table with the regions is even reproduced in the post above).
Apply land/ocean mask on observations. Plots describing observed changes in land or ocean areas were based on observed data that was masked to retain land or ocean data only (necessary to remove islands and marine stations not existent in models). This masking was performed as in Step 3, using the land area fraction data from the CCSM3 model.
I would be lying if I said this was a little over my head, but I have to say I don’t read this section the way you do. To me if looks like the ocean data and the land data were kept separate. the last sentence about the land area fraction data, to me, looks like they were only providing further information on what land data they were using. Just because they didn’t specify the ocean data as coming from a particular model doesn’t mean that no ocean data was used does it?
@ammonite,
This is exactly the same here in Germany. Many comments critizising the swindle are rejected – not just those aiming at the individual newspaper or broadcast company. It seems that a certain percentage of “skeptical” comments must not be exceeded, it has to look like a majority of comments supported the dogma.
Regards from Germany
Christian
The best, clearest, unbiased, video on global warming I have seen. Zealous proponents of both extremes clearly shot down. A must see for everyone. A real discussion of the science. I watched all 7 parts.
Gary
Here’s the first YouTube Link in a series of 7
After trying to get a grip on what”climate science” really is, I have come to the conclusion that it’s an incredibly broad and deep field with many unknowns at this point. The climate is a chaotic system, mathematically impossible to predict- much more so than it’s subset, weather forecasting.
No matter how many data-sets one has-(always incomplete and dubious as to accuracy, I think) or how many powerful computers are employed, all is purely conjecture and will ever be so.
This leaves the field wide open to manipulation by those claiming to be experts. It reminds me of all the other failed notions of history, like astrology, eugenics, phrenology and alchemy, to name but a few.
Our Nations have by the skin of their teeth and the grace of God narrowly dodged a major bullet. No small part of it was due to the many people who managed to tear away the veil and stall the Koto Treaty and the recent (desperate because they were outed in November) attempt in Copenhagen to trick our politicians into relinquishing our soverignty to the UN through a treaty that was designed to control CO2. Co2 is a perfect “threat” and the UN is the perfect vehicle to absorbe our freedom. It is no wonder those who aspire to political power love the thought of contolling the very air we exhale. Practically every organic process is related to carbon. So thank you.
We have a lot to learn from this horrible experience and attack on our soverenty. We need to track these people down. In the next several years we need to learn more about them, how they were linked, who was orchistrating the fraud and how to make sure that the scientific method isn’t perverted in the future. Be able to spot similar frauds early. Many many individuals and corporations have been seriously harmed by the fraud. Those who perpitrated it gained. What is the recompense due the innocent? Is it treason? Is this the lesson of the century?
Are we wiser now?