Tom Nelson runs a great aggregator blog. he’s got his pulse on climate news all over the globe. He’s also got a keen eye for news detail and offers some interesting insights. I had to chuckle then when he pointed out this hilarious media paradox:
Settled science: Can everyplace really be warming much faster than everyplace else?
[Africa: Allegedly warming faster than the global average]
Prof Gordon Conway, the outgoing chief scientist at the British government’s Department for International Development, and former head of the philanthropic Rockefeller Foundation, said in a scientific paper that the continent is already warming faster than the global average
North Pole Heating Faster than anywhere else
Many scientists seem mystified as to why the North Polar region is warming up several times faster than the rest of the planet.
Australia warming faster than rest of globe, climate report says
Kuwait: Alarm as Gulf waters warm three times faster than average
The seawater temperature in Kuwait Bay has been increasing at three times the global average rate since 1985
Antarctic air is warming faster than rest of world – Times Online
AIR temperatures above the entire frozen continent of Antarctica have risen three times faster than the rest of the world during the past 30 years.
Tibet warming up faster than anywhere in the world | Reuters
(Reuters) – Tibet is warming up faster than anywhere else in the world, Xinhua news agency said on Sunday.
European temperatures rising faster than world average, report says – The New York Times
Sundarbans water warming faster than global average
In the Sundarbans, surface water temperature has been rising at the rate of 0.5 degree Celsius per decade over the past three decades, eight times the rate of global warming, says a new study.
Climate change heating up China faster than rest of the world – report
In a new report, the China Meteorological Administration now says climate change is heating up the People’s Republic faster than the rest of the world
Spain warming faster than rest of northern hemisphere: study
The country has experienced average temperature increases of 0.5 degrees Celsius per decade since 1975, a rate that is “50 percent superior to the average of nations in the northern hemisphere”, the study by the Spanish branch of the Clivar research network found.
U.S. West warming faster than rest of world: study
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The U.S. West is heating up at nearly twice the rate of the rest of the world and is likely to face more drought conditions in many of its fast-growing cities, an environmental group said on Thursday.
A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open « Climate Audit
Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.
Global warming is occurring twice as fast in the Arctic as in the rest of the world
Lake Superior is Warming [much stronger than the global average]
The really striking thing here is that the long-term trend in Superior is so much stronger than the global average. Well, we know that the upper midwest is warming more rapidly than the global average, but not this much more rapidly.
Himalayas warming faster than global average
New Delhi, June 4 (IANS) Northwestern Himalayas has become 1.4 degrees Celsius warmer in the last 100 years, a far higher level of warming than the 0.5-1.1 degrees for the rest of the globe, Indian scientists have found.
[Korean Peninsula]: Allegedly warming twice the global average]
According to the Korea Meteorological Administration, the climate has been warming on the Korean Peninsula twice more rapidly than in the rest of the world over the past century.
Well this certainly confirms that it’s worse that we thought! Everywhere is warming faster than anywhere else. We’re doooooomed I tell ya, doooooomed!
Kind of like Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.
So if there are so many places warming (much, much and much) faster than the average than there must be equal amount of places that show a (much, much and much) faster cooling trend, or a lot more places that show a slight cooling or at least do not warm at all… oh my gosh, that can’t be right.
You must all realize by now that it is much worse than we thought!!!
When each region’s temperature trend is measured across a time frame that is chosen to maximize the warming in that region, and that warming is contrasted with the world average, then it would be expected that every region, or nearly every region would be warming faster than the rest of the world. What we are seeing here is not bad science it is the opposite of science (whatever that is called).
As far as I can tell, that leaves Canada and Greenland to be vastly colder than the worldwide average….
Since on average the planet is warming at only a trivial rate, any place with recorded warming that is a smidgen over trivial is immediately vaulted into the headlines. This is, I believe, what is meant by man-made warming.
It’s like Lake Woebegone where all the children are above average.
None of this is true. New Zealand is warming faster than any of these!
Earlier in 2007, NIWA produced a web page, followed by a printed brochure, with a graph showing that New Zealand had already warmed by an amount far in excess of global averages. The web page claimed a temperature increase of 1.1C during the 144 years of Met Service records, and a 0.92°C trend during the 20th century.
See ha boo!
SFTor, apparently we both listen to Garrison Keilor on Public Radio!
Is there a World Cup for the country that “warms” the most? Does Al Gore present it?
Just more proof that 5/4 of all AGW alarmists don’t understand fractions.
Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.- Yogi Berra
That’s just mean…
So many different newsrags pushing the same BS.
It is called a Climate BullShit Conspiracy (or CBC for short).
The News industry has no shame…and has no credibility anymore.
Remind me of Wargames. “Want to play Global ThermoClimactic Warming?”
It’s all on a computer screen.
Almost like there was some kind of contest to see who was most alarmist.
We are the warmest … No way, we are … Hah, got you all beat, we are warming faster!
Except for the Gulf (a narrow waterway surrounded by land) and the Artic(which seems to be mainly extrapolated from land based weather stations) , all of these faster warming places are on land. That means that the 70% of the globe covered in water must be warming much slower (if at all).
Could it be that a combination of land use, urbanisation, poor siting of recording stations etc, etc on land are far more important factors in the increasing temperature record that the level of CO2 which is increasing at the same rate over both land and ocean. Yet another nail in the “greenhouse gas” coffin?
This reminds me of my school governor who said she would never cease trying until every child was above average.
Antony, mods this needs to go on face book!
This summer I can tell you it was hotter in my house than any where out side on the planet!
It is worse that they thought!
Tim
To true Warmies, logical contradictions don’t really matter; it’s the political correctness that counts. Welcome to the wonderful world of Orwellian Doublethink!
Yes, the West is warming faster than ever. That’s why I was wearing a sweater to work in early June in No. Calif., and that’s why the number of high temp. records set up here this summer you can count on 1 hand.
Robert says:
July 24, 2010 at 10:12 pm
So if there are so many places warming (much, much and much) faster than the average than there must be equal amount of places that show a (much, much and much) faster cooling trend, or a lot more places that show a slight cooling or at least do not warm at all… oh my gosh, that can’t be right.
~~~~~
You’re right Robert, simple, just one place showing the fastest cooling. Now that the temperature curve has turned maybe you could get Anthony to post on WUWT a Robert’s Global Cooling ‘Faster-Than-Anywhere-On-This-Globe’ Update every month. Seems you are the first to discovery that connection, great insight, so you rightfully deserve to claim it. 🙂
no place warms at the average. every place warms at a faster rate or a slower rate. but NO PLACE warms exactly at the average rate.
As Robert notes there are many places that warm at slower rates than average.
many places show ZERO trend or negative trend. more places show positive trends.
Chris Riley at 10:30 pm: What we are seeing here is not bad science, it is the opposite of science (whatever that is called).
The antonym for “science” is “art” in most dictionaries. Art is defined as “the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions.”
Says it all, IMHO.
Sorry, if the average reader is as slow as me, you are putting the cookies too high on the shelve. It took me quite while to understand the “tongue in cheek” and therefore it would be better to put the article phrase in quotation marks, and have a little elucidating beginning blurb to explain that the warming is not really so, and trot out some statistics that refute the propaganda, and explain that all these headlines logically contradict each other. Maybe your average visitors are used to the humoring style, but not the occasional uneducated AGW brainwashed visitor. If you don’t think they are totally oblivious then visit http://chinapostwatch.wordpress.com, and this article mentioning the ignorance of most Taiwanese on Climate Gate and AGW falseness. If we want to win the info war, we have to be clearer! Sorry I and most of us are so slow, especially when not really trained in all the scientific jargon. Isn’t that a big reason the ww ms-media are winning the info war?
Oh I forgot the link to the other article mentioning average 95 % of Taiwanese ignorance:
http://powerpointparadise.com/blog/2010/07/what-if-gulf-oil-volcano-is-a-global-warming-methane-plot/
I’m Spartacus.
No I’m Spartacus.
No it’s me.
Me
No me.
Hang on we all can’t be Spartacus.
Yes we can if we call ourselves climate scientists
My Dad’s bigger than your Dad!
chris Riley says:
July 24, 2010 at 10:30 pm
opposite of science (whatever that is called).
climatology!
If “everywhere” includes the oceans, what this appears to mean is that (urbanised) land stations are warming faster than the ocean.
It would be interesting to correlate geographic warming with average GDP growth!
Ummmmmmmm…. when you have a bunch of different numbers, some of them are going to be higher than the average. This is hardly surprising.
Logical consistency is irrelevant to the warmists’ argument, i.e. ‘the Arctic warming faster than any where else while Australia is also warming faster than anywhere else,’ because (1) the ends justify the means and (2) the general population are considered too stupid to notice.
I’m going to stop using “fossil” fuels immediately or I’ll burst into flames since it’s getting so HOT!!!!! Or maybe if I pay lots of extra taxes on those fuels it’ll cool down!!!!!
Must be all that hot air being spouted by global warmists.
It’s the “silly season” – defined in Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable as An old journalistic expression for the part of the year when Parliament and the Law Courts are not sitting (usually August and September), when, through lack of news, the papers had to fill their columns with trivial items, such as news of giant gooseberries and sea serpents, and long correspondence of ephemeral or little interest.
Today Dr. Ebenezer Cobham Brewer might extend his list of trivial items to include global warming and proponents thereof.
rbateman says:
July 24, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Yes, the West is warming faster than ever. That’s why I was wearing a sweater to work in early June in No. Calif., and that’s why the number of high temp. records set up here this summer you can count on 1 hand.
Now wait just a moment there, rbateman!
Didn’t Steve Miller say in ‘Rock ‘N Me’ that in “Northern California, where the girls are warm(er)” … ?
Did they all leave? ;o)
Mike D. says:
July 25, 2010 at 12:03 am
Chris Riley at 10:30 pm: What we are seeing here is not bad science, it is the opposite of science (whatever that is called).
The antonym for “science” is “art” in most dictionaries. Art is defined as “the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions.”
Says it all, IMHO.
———
Yes that does say it all.
But I believe the correct term is nonscience, pronounced ‘nonsense.’
Steven Mosher says:
July 24, 2010 at 11:58 pm
no place warms at the average. every place warms at a faster rate or a slower rate. but NO PLACE warms exactly at the average rate.
As Robert notes there are many places that warm at slower rates than average.
many places show ZERO trend or negative trend. more places show positive trends.
Why, yes! And that’s exactly the point, isn’t it?
This is what bothers me more than anything else: SOME places get warmer, but those areas around it DO NOT.
One could almost do a paper called the ‘hot-spot’ theory.
If the planet is warming in ONLY certain places, and NOT all over the place otherwise, then by any practical reasoning, one may only arrive at but one conclusion: There is something about those places which causes them to be warmer.
Gee: What could that possibly be?
The MSM refuses to point out the obvious, for a very obvious reason: News. If it bleeds, it reads.
Perhaps we are observing the dawn of a new field – post-modern mathematics. Why, after all, should not mathematics be location-dependent? If he hasn’t already done so, I suspect that Greg Egan could make a good SF story out of this!
The opposite of science is ‘ecneics’
Origin:
Ecne: In Celtic mythology, Ecne (Wisdom, Old Irish ecna, ecne, wise, enlightened) was one of the Tuatha Dé Danann and was the god of wisdom, or knowledge.
-ic + -s (pl.): used as transl. of Gr -ika (L -ica), neut. pl. of -ikos (L -icus)
Any takers to suggest definitions of:
Ecneism
Ecneist
Ecneology
Ecneiatry
Ecneability
Ecneical
I forgot – I need a grant to study Ecneics
The opposite of science…
science -> un-science -> UN Science = IPCC
Wait, this just in…..
“Source of ‘worse than thought’ climate warming found to be located at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Apparently, Gavin left the A/C unit on and the exhaust has been raising the numbers for quite some time now.”
Move along then, nothing to see here…
sarcoff
Speaking of sources of hot air coming from GISS in New York…..
Judith Curry says:
24 July 2010 at 2:36 PM
Gavin, the post I made in #167 was a summary of Montford’s book as closely as I can remember it, sort of a review. I did not particularly bring in my personal opinions into this, other than the framing of montford’s points. So asking me to retract a point made in a book in a review of that book is, well, pointless. your attempt to rebut my points are full of logical fallacies and arguing at points i didn’t make. As a result, Montford’s theses look even more convincing. Once you’e in a hole, you can try to climb out or keep digging. Well keep digging, Gavin. My final words: read the book.
[Response: Thanks for passing by. In future I will simply assume you are a conduit for untrue statements rather than their originator. And if we are offering advice, might I suggest that you actually engage your critical faculties before demanding that others waste their time rebutting nonsense. I, for one, have much better things to do. – gavin]
That Judy Curry sure is a breath of fresh (and cooler) air.
Steven Mosher says:
July 24, 2010 at 11:58 pm
no place warms at the average. every place warms at a faster rate or a slower rate. but NO PLACE warms exactly at the average rate.
The places specified at the top of the page are not just claimed to be warming faster than average. They are claimed to be warming significantly faster.
And that is impossible.
In fact much of the earth will be warming at average, if you allow for any margin of error, and if the concept of “average” is to have any meaning. (If much is warming very quickly and much cooling, then “average” is effectively meaningless.)
Or are you a person who thinks their child is “smarter than average” because they get a normalised IQ of 101?
Graeme W: July 24, 2010 at 10:36 pm
As far as I can tell, that leaves Canada and Greenland to be vastly colder than the worldwide average….
Except for those portions above the Arctic Circle, which suddenly become vastly warmer than the worldwide average. As evidence, heat shock has shattered the province of BaffinEllesmereMevilleVictoriatoba into hundreds of islands…
Darn, after reading this I ran my climate model with the new data.
It’s bad, no really bad. The last Himalayan glacier will be gone by 2005, the Arctic will be ice-free the following year and Copenhagen will be washed up by 2009 as will Mexico City shortly afterwards!
@ StuartMcL, good call man, spot on!
Sounds like a bunch of warmistas getting a tad over-heated to me.
I’m Brian and so’s my wife!
Doug in Dunedin says:
July 24, 2010 at 10:42 pm
None of this is true. New Zealand is warming faster than any of these!
– Which brings us back to the “adjusted warming” saga.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
David Charles wrote:
“Is there a World Cup for the country that “warms” the most? Does Al Gore present it?”
You’ve just given me an idea for a simple solution to the global warming problem. If Al Gore were to present such a prize then the “Gore Effect” would soon kick in and cause significant cooling. That would just be a local effect … but if everywhere is warming faster than everwhere else then everywhere deserves the prize and the Gore Effect will become global.
There are just a couple of problems. Al Gore might not be very keen on the jet lag he would experience by flying from one capital city to another for the next few months, or on the bad publicity that his massively increased carbon footprint would attract. However, there is a very elegant solution to both those problems. Simply add the Great Global Warming Race to the next Olympics. Then all Al Gore will have to do is to fly to London in 2012 to present the medals.
Unlike cap and trade and all the other proposed solutions to the global warming problem this will not be ruinlessly expensive. The total cost will merely be that of a olympic gold medal for every country in the world, plus one extra medal.
Why the extra medal? Well, it will be the longest medal winners’ ceremony in history and Al Gore will have to stand while over 100 different national anthems are played, one after the other.
If Usain Bolt earned his first Gold for just over nine and a half seconds work in Bejing who would begrudge Al Gore a Gold for an epic feat or feet of standing? (Please excuse the pun!). Fortunately the Games are still two years away so Gore should be fit enough if he starts training now.
I agree with Lu @ 12:10. I have been following WUWT and several others for years and there are times when the argument becomes difficult to follow for the non-scientist. That is not to say that many of the comments and articles are self explanatory. There are many ordinary Joes and Janes who want to be educated and look to this and similar sites for a new perspective. The fact that they are here speaks volumes about the generally poor journalism in much of the MSM. We should welcome the attention and make our points as clearly as possible.
BTW Anthony I don’t wish to subvert your authority nor do I wish to teach you how to suck eggs. I simply agree with Lu’s desire for simple understanding of a very complex issue.
To push the “Cap and Trade” that most countries are trying to get into, you need a significant warming trend blamed on CO2.
The inconvenient cooling data gets in the way of this so media are advised “DO NOT MENTION ANY COOL AREAS”. If you do the follow the money, many medias are subsitized by governmnents, also, any media can be barred from reporting in any government event if they do not play by the rules of the game.
“What we are seeing here is not bad science it is the opposite of science (whatever that is called).”
Hmmmm… “Unscience”? “Darkscience”…or maybe “Antiscience”?
“Joel says:
July 25, 2010 at 1:03 am
Ummmmmmmm…. when you have a bunch of different numbers, some of them are going to be higher than the average. This is hardly surprising.”
While that statement is true, the point of the post/article is that when yhou have a bunch of different numbers, they can’t ALL be higher than all the other numbers. Surely that comes through?
JimB
There’s no need for a post-modern revision of mathematics. Russell’s paradox explains this contradiction. We could even invoke axiomatic set theory to climate (non)science
For all you non-scientists, the faster than everywhere else warming is due to the rapid loss of the solar ice cap which is retreating faster than expected.
And here they say Norway is warming up faster than anywhere else. 😉
It is not surprising that Africa is the fastest warming place on the planet. GISS has almost no data there, so they can claim any trend they want.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBjUPWcUHpg]
The warmists, government and the media are taking us for fools.
Big mistake.
“I had to chuckle then when he pointed out this hilarious media paradox:
Settled science: Can everyplace really be warming much faster than everyplace else?”
Okay…”hilarious media paradox” are pretty much dead giveaways, aren’t they?…and then followed by links to a dozen or so articles that ALL say someplace is warming faster than all the other places?
When we read article after article after article that demonstrates how subverted the science has become in the field of climate study, I find it refreshing when we get these little gems now and then.
I’d love to see MSM pick up on this one…quite funny.
JimB
Most news I read is so depressing. This article just made me laugh. In fact I laughed more than average. Thanks!
Oh come on now! The amount of warming is inversely proportional to the number of thermometers.
PJB says:
July 25, 2010 at 2:12 am
Speaking of sources of hot air coming from GISS in New York…..
Judith Curry says:
24 July 2010 at 2:36 PM
Gavin, the post I made in #167 was a summary of Montford’s book as closely as I can remember it, sort of a review. I did not particularly bring in my personal opinions into this, other than the framing of montford’s points. So asking me to retract a point made in a book in a review of that book is, well, pointless. your attempt to rebut my points are full of logical fallacies and arguing at points i didn’t make. As a result, Montford’s theses look even more convincing. Once you’e in a hole, you can try to climb out or keep digging. Well keep digging, Gavin. My final words: read the book.
[Response: Thanks for passing by. In future I will simply assume you are a conduit for untrue statements rather than their originator. And if we are offering advice, might I suggest that you actually engage your critical faculties before demanding that others waste their time rebutting nonsense. I, for one, have much better things to do. – gavin]
That Judy Curry sure is a breath of fresh (and cooler) air
______________________________________________________
I went to RC (against my better judgement) and looked at the string that Dr. Curry made the (unfortunate) decision to participate in. I never cease to be amazed at the disrespect, arrogance, and snark of Gavin, Romm, Tamino “The Team,” and their band of sychophantic followers. They rip Andy Revkin, Dr. Curry, and others who believe that manmade CO2 emmissions may be causing global warming, but have chosen to be objective, open-minded, and scientific about the subject.
The difference between the AGW blogs and blogs like WUWT, Lucia, etc. can best be illustrated by several recent postings regarding whether the greenhouse effect (GHE) exists, and is pertinent to the question of AGW. Several articles were posted which tried to prove that the GHE violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Both Roy Spencer and Roger Pielke Sr. posted articles disputing that hypotheses. The exchanges and comments were extraordinarily civil, courteous, and, well, scientific.
Mooloo.
“In fact much of the earth will be warming at average, if you allow for any margin of error, and if the concept of “average” is to have any meaning. (If much is warming very quickly and much cooling, then “average” is effectively meaningless.)”
you dont know what the definition of a mean is. It is highly improbable that any one place will warm at the mean or average of all places. Highly improbable.
However, if you throw error bars around that point, then many fall within that envelope. As for ‘significant’ that’s a different matter.
Here’s a suitable epitaph for Professor Stephen H Schneider…
It’s a video from the 1970’s about how Buffalo, New York, was hit so hard by snow, freezing winds and blizzards that some people were stuck in their cars and froze to death.
2-23 In Search Of… The Coming Ice Age (Part 3 of 3)
Stephen Schneider appears after 6 minutes, warning about what might happen if this represented the onset of the next ice age. He was also the one who said “Scientists… to get some broad-base support, to capture the public’s imagination… of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention about any doubts we might have.”
Lawrie Ayres says:
July 25, 2010 at 3:52 am
I agree with Lawrie Ayres says:
July 25, 2010 at 3:52 am
I agree with Lu @ 12:10.
Well, seeing as this
“I had to chuckle then when he pointed out this hilarious media paradox:”
was the third line in the post, I do not understand why “Lu @ 12:10” had such a hard time understanding the “tongue-in-cheek” aspect of the posting. That said, I’ve been around the internets for a long, long, time. Use to be, in the early days, when discussions would take place on listservs, or usenet, or fidonet, or bbs’s, that noobs were advised to lurk a while and pick up on the particular culture of any given group they might be joining.
That is still good advice.
This is a gross misrepresentation, not even of the science, but of news articles that should be simple to undestand! Maybe Tom Nelson, Anthony Watts and you people shouting loud here should take the time to read the articles that Mr. Watts spites as a “hilarious media paradox”? The fact is that only two (2) of the many articles make any claim of warming “faster than everyplace else”. The paradox is very small indeed, as long as there aren’t really any such contradictory claims in the rest of the articles, as Nelson and Watts want us to believe.
The articles about Australia, Europe, Spain, Africa, the U.S. West, the Korean Peninsula, China, the Himalayas, Greenland and the rest of the Arctic and the Antarctic does not say that all of those places warm more than every and all other place on Earth. Most of the articles compare to “the global change”, “the world (or global) average”, “the rate of the rest of the world”, “the increases seen globally”, and so forth.
One article states that a certain area is warming “faster than the rest of the world”, which certainly only means faster than the world average, anyway.
Here is what the articles say – the main points:
“Australia is warming slightly faster than the global change” –
“Europe is warming faster than the world average ” –
“Spain has warmed at a faster rate than the rest of the northern hemisphere over the past three decades” –
“Africa is warming faster than the global average” –
“The U.S. West is heating up at nearly twice the rate of the rest of the world” –
“The annual temperature on the (Korean) peninsula rose 1.7 C in the 1912-2008 period, while the world averaged 0.74 C” –
“China’s surface temperature had risen 0.22 degrees every 10 years for the past 50 years, which was higher than the increases seen globally and in the Northern Hemisphere as a whole” –
“Himalayas warming faster than global average” (about twice that average) –
“Global warming is occurring twice as fast in the Arctic as in the rest of the world”
In Greenland: “Trees are growing and the fields are full of potatoes, lettuce, carrots and cabbage”. Unrefutable facts. –
“Antarctic air is warming faster than rest of world”
Seemingly another strong claim, but this is not, like in the other articles, about surface temperatures, but weather balloon data gathered further up in the atmosphere. –
“Tibet is warming up faster than anywhere else in the world, Xinhua news agency said” – “North Pole Heating Faster than anywhere else”
Well, here we finally find the claims Mr. Nelson and Watts could hang their allegations on.
But I guess this is the truth:
The Tibet claim is very strong. This may be an exaggeration; not all news articles can be trusted, and not even every single scientific study. But it could be true, as Tibet is very far above sea level, and virtually all the world’s high level mountain glaciers are losing mass. And Tibet cannot really be put up against to the North Pole an Arctic: The North Pole and Arctic certainly warm faster than any other far reaching region of the Earth. Quite according to what the climate models predict.
REPLY: Hey genius, look at the tags; “humor”. Try it sometime before you get so seriously worked up over something funny, you’ll live longer. – Anthony
Everything’s faster than we thought. It’s all coming together.
As there is less-more moisture in the air, there will more-less and stronger-weaker storm-droughts.
Global warming will mean more snowfall, but more famine, and with all that acid in the ocean, all of the fish will dissolve.
Quick quick we have to save the planet from CO2 or it will heat up and freeze.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Maybe this is all from Larry from the Newhart show….
“I’m Larry, and this is my brother Daryl. And this is my other brother Daryl!”
Expected within short :
Washington is a hotter place than ever by Barack Obama .
My cigars are nowadays self-igniting by Bill Clinton .
My house is getting hotter than ever , millions of degrees by Al Gore .
I really didn’t think this _obvious_ topic would have an interesting thread following.
Delighted to admit, I was wrong!
With Ecneism, Ecneist, Ecneology, Ecneiatry. Ecneability and Ecneical, I now have a mouth stuffed full of sweeties.
But it’s dangerous to LOL with Roy’s hereby-updated prediction of Copenhagen drowning in the sea in 2009; or with Gavin actually posting and replying to Judith Curry.
Lu and Lawrie Ayres… you have my sympathy. Click my name… for an introduction to Climate Science… well, the real Climate Science as I see it… Times Higher Education readers liked it a lot. I taught myself and wrote it for others like me who had no time to teach themselves. I’m not a lukewarmer and my piece goes further than is necessary simply to reinstate good science – but I enjoyed writing it.
chris Riley says:
July 24, 2010 at 10:30 pm
…the opposite of science (whatever that is called).
=============================
My first thought was: ascience
But then I modified it for art’s sake: asscience
Warren
Lake Wobegone, Minnnesota
We will know that they are really fos when everyplace warms faster than the median.
The only place on the planet that is not warming faster than everywhere else is the Nino regions which show no trend at all since reasonable estimates became available starting in 1871. Nino 3.4 was almost exactly the same temperature in June 1871 as it was this past June.
This could be because it is an oscillation system where its temperature is governed by tropical storms that develop when it is warm and don’t when it cold (Willis’ hypothesis). So it just goes up and down within a range.
It could be because there is no room to make adjustments in the data. Nobody is going to try and back-adjust the 1877 Super El Nino, there is already lots of measurements to confirm it. Maybe it is because we have an actual measured SOI index and rainfall measurements which are strongly correlated with ENSO and there is no room to apply adjustments to atmospheric pressure and rainfall measurements.
Just something to keep in mind. A region we have a lot of confidence in going back 140 years has not warmed at all. It must be warming the least of anywhere on the planet.
That’s why there’s snow on the palm trees in Argentina.
/SARC ON
It’s looking very bad and is going to get much warmer this winter.
The lesson is NEVER EVER believe you own lying eyes! Don’t deny it you coolers.
/SARC OFF
Quite a few people MUST be lying. We have called tham brazen liers and have been called nasty “deniers.” Oh the irony!!!
Typo correction:
We have called them….
Oh come on. Isn’t this just a demonstration of a positive feedback cycle that the AGW crowd has been talking about all these years?
PJB: July 25, 2010 at 2:12 am
[Response: Thanks for passing by. In future I will simply assume you are a conduit for untrue statements rather than their originator. And if we are offering advice, might I suggest that you actually engage your critical faculties before demanding that others waste their time rebutting nonsense. I, for one, have much better things to do. – gavin]
I might suggest that a course in Logic for the Incurably Hubristic would be a good use of his time…
[snip – sorry, flamebait that will just waste everybody’s time ~mod]
Scientists are now rewarded with grant money if they find proof of global warming, hence this proliferation of “hot spots” to the point where they compose the majority of every continent on the planet.
The clear solution to global warming: Start giving massive grants to those who find “cold spots.” Within a decade most parts of the globe will be found to be colder than average. Problem solved. (Until they come up with a tax scheme to fight global cooling, that is.)
The Calamitologists are running amuck.
It’s a common fallacy of logic, called “enumeration of favourable circumstances”, aka “reporting the hits and ignoring the misses”.
If baseball worked like climate science, every player would have a 1.000 batting average, all the teams would be government-funded, league standings would be determined by computer projections instead of actual scores, and the world series winner would be picked in a pub in Leeds, by two cricket players and a luge coach.
Settled science: Can everyplace really be warming much faster than everyplace else?
At last, the Mother of all Post Normal Science “tipping points”, automatic infinity – or else maybe we must be in Heaven because we all should have died by now?
As long as there is one place that is below average, then it is certainly possible for all of the other places to be warming above average.
Steven Mosher says:
July 24, 2010 at 11:58 pm
True, but most of the warming should be within 1 std of the trend, right? The articles all point to significantly faster, which would, to me, certainly suggest that it is more than 1 std away from the trend.
Of course we can laugh at their alarmist headlines.
Yet atmospheric circulation -not the out of date tri-cellular model used by some posters here- could very well yield zones where the warming is faster than the calculated, manipulated average of a GISS. It simply can result from renewed advection of warm air as a consequence of… strengthening of polar cold air anticyclonesor MPHs.
I think maybe you meant to say “he’s got his finger on the pulse of climate news”? The way you have it doesn’t make any sense.
You missed other pertinent phrases:
“…faster than the rest of the planet.”
“…three times faster than the rest of the world…”
“…warming up faster than anywhere else in the world…”
“…faster than the rest of the world”
“…nearly twice the rate of the rest of the world”
“…twice more rapidly than in the rest of the world”
It’s called Fiction.
chris Riley says:
July 24, 2010 at 10:30 pm
… What we are seeing here is not bad science it is the opposite of science (whatever that is called).
_________________________________________________________
I think the word you are looking for is propaganda.
Yesterday , on some newscast , I heard someone state that this past decade has been the hottest since ACCURATE thermometers have been in use . Since the temperature records have shown that the thirties were as warm , I assume that said accurate measurements began circa 1980 . Considering that the graphs presented in Bob Tisdale’s earlier post show a temperature rise of about .6 degrees over the last century , is it not possible that the “accurate” thermometers simply got a slightly higher reading from the get go ? I realize that is a rather simple question – it comes from a simple man – but it would explain a lot . I also remember that this has been covered before , but my simple memory needs refreshing . BTW , kudos to Judith Curry , who may be in the warmist’s camp , but has found out what happens when you cross the “team”. Word to the wise , Gav , hell hath no fury ….
Planet Earth is a hollow sphere with the Sun located at its interior center. As Old Sol pulses in geostatial rhythm, TSI illuminates continents and seas plastered on the outer shell like motifs on a decorated Christmas ball. All scintillate as pulses simultaneously impact each area in turn, so that any may in fact warm faster than all others at any given moment.
Since our planet is not flat, the science of a Hollow Earth is settled. Prove us wrong!
Some thoughts on “normal” versus “anomaly”.
What does it mean to be “normal” in a statistical context? Think of the Bell Shaped Curve. That curve can be described with a “mean” (the calculated central average value) and the standard deviation ( a statistical measure of the spread in the data). Once we know the mean and standard deviation, we can compare sub-sets of data against the ‘normal’ distribution, and we know that 99.7% of the data will fall in the range of the mean +/- 3 standard deviations. That is to say, for 1000 values from that population, only 3 would be expected (either high or low) outside that +/- 3 standard deviation range.
There are statistical tests to determine that the ‘shape’ of the curve is the same above and below the mean (is the data normally distributed or skewed high/low). There are also tests to determine whether a comparison population of data are statistically the same or statistically different from that ‘normal’ population.
Then comes our consideration of ‘anomaly’. If a small bit of data is say 4 or 5 standard deviations away from the mean, that is outside the normal distribution and therefore ‘anomalous’. When that data falls that far out of the ‘normal’ distribution, we often look for a ‘special cause’; perhaps an instrument error or a bad data file or some unusual occurrence (e.g. a volcano spews ash or warms up and melts some ice).
The climate folk have taken the word ‘anomaly’ – which should be understood to mean WAY OUTSIDE of Normal (+/- 3 std deviations) – and they are using it to describe tiny, barely measurable, variations from the mean.
The late Dr Deming, world acclaimed for his statistical and quality consultations, warned management that – to make decisions without understanding the statistics was the height of folly, and that over reacting to small perceived changes typically made things worse.
Then recall the post Climategate interview with Dr Phil Jones, when asked about temperature trends for the past several years, he replied that they were ‘not statistically significant’. Hence .. no anomaly.
You see folks, there is no conspiracy. Just one big gigantic coincidence that only makes it seem like a conspiracy. Even big oil supports climate legislation. But most greens are on the low end of the IQ scale, to ever understand what is at stake.
Sad news: Already 400 died in Peru’s extrem winter.
Another case of global warming?
Hey Anthony, ref. your reply to my informative post: “Hey genius, look at the tags; “humor”. Try it sometime before you get so seriously worked up over something funny, you’ll live longer.”
– Thanks for calling me genius, you might even be on to something! Don’t worry, I’m neither worked up or out – just glad to inform about facts that made your “joke” a bit dull. By the way, even some of your followers seemed to be taking your humorous post rather serious, so I am really glad that you enlightened us here …
REPLY: always happy to help – Anthony
Jaypan
In recent posts the AGW party line on animal cold deaths in S America is that they are down to bad husbandry (it couldn’t be the cold since the globe is warming, nowhere faster than S America). So 400 people dying in Peru’s extreme cold must be their own fault, or “poor life choices”. In fact they are “useful idiots” since it means 400 less global warming skeptics.
Have you noticed what charming people career scientists are? (Career scientist means AGW supporting scientist.)
RalphieGM says:
July 25, 2010 at 4:42 am
For all you non-scientists, the faster than everywhere else warming is due to the rapid loss of the solar ice cap which is retreating faster than expected.
Holy crumoly! I am so clueless! I didn’t even know there was a Solar Ice-Cap let alone that it was retreating! Thanks for illustrating my ignorance Ralphie!
This is a scream and a huge belly-laugh. I guess local reporters get scripts from Reuters or someone that say: “The name of your continent/nation/state/town goes here.”
Obviously the U.S. government must immediately provide a trillion dollars of emergency relief before everyone in these hotspots dies!
“Can everyplace really be warming much faster than everyplace else?”
Yes. It’s the Many-Worlds Theory Of Climate Change.
I think it is this Back Radiation thing. Everything is heating up everything else!
I is really like a nuclear chain reaction. So it cannot be photons. Must be neutrons.
JimB says:
July 25, 2010 at 4:20 am
“While that statement is true, the point of the post/article is that when yhou have a bunch of different numbers, they can’t ALL be higher than all the other numbers. Surely that comes through?”
Only one location was claimed to be the fastest in the world (Tibet). The rest were merely above average.
Hawaii is affected as well:
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/hawaiinews/20100711_Hawaii_is_already_seeing_effects_of_global_warming_experts_say.html
“Temperatures at Hawaii’s higher elevations are rising faster than the global average, said Deanna Spooner, coordinator of the Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative.
“It’s getting hotter here faster than anywhere else in the world up in the upper elevations,” Spooner said at the Honolulu meeting of the federal Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force.”
Ban-Ki Moon, head of the UN, himself confirmed in 2009 that the Arctic is warming faster than any other place:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2009/0904/hey-global-warming-skeptics-take-your-heads-out-of-the-sand
So the race between Tibet, Hawaii and the Arctic seems to be heating up…
Maybe if Al Gore quit visiting ….masseuses, and went back home to his wife the chill would….never mind.
Sorry that’s Ban Ki-Moon, not Ban-Ki Moon.
On a related note, did somebody mention Western Siberia? No? Because, you see,
“Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years.”
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/hmmmmm-over-45-billion-people-could-die-from-global-warming-related-causes-by-2012-so-do-you-agr/question-1021155/
Let alone Utah. Did we have Utah? ah yeah, American West, ok we’re running out of places.
“Half this game is ninety percent mental.” – Yogi Berra
“A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.” – Abba Eban (1915-2002)
It seems that there is no agreement about what the opposite of science is. I believe that the language needs a new word. A few weeks ago my former Wassila neighbor, Gov Palin, invented “refudiate”. In an attempt to keep up with the Palin’s I propose the term “Sciaganda”. (def 1) Any mass communication intended to help or injure a person, institution, or cause, that uses, as a primary tactic, the perversion of the methods, nomenclature and credentials of science, in order enhance the perceived veracity of those communications.
(def 2.) The use of scientific methods, nomenclature and credentials to promote falsehoods of any kind.
The desperate current circumstances require reformulation of old truths. Clearly, there is a lot of nationalist ego involved in being warmer at any here than at anywhere else. We need a new and au currant “Axis of Much Warmer” to replace the previous and no longer fashionable, “Axis of Just as Evil,” (posted below).
No country can hold up its head internationally, these days, unless it is imminently threatened by some thermal disaster. Uncontrolled international competition in goodness of heat can be dangerous, possibly leading to partisan fist fights among climatologists, roused to nationalist jealousy at IPCC meetings. Can’t have that.
Order must be brought. Those inspired to create the new international hierarchy of hothouse heroes should move quickly, and can use the Axis of Just as Evil as a paradigmatic template.
Tibet, Kuwait and Spain seem good candidates to preempt everyone else, forming the enviable Axis of the Much Warmers. The Arctic and Antarctic, clearly stellar performers, have no governments to abscond the international limelight for them, more’s the pity.
Axis of Evil by Andrew Marlatt link here
[edited for brevity and copyright ~mod]
All the unusual stuff happens where few people live to comment on it. Except there was the “U.S. West warming faster than rest of world: study” to test my theory. On page iv of the report I found this gem,
“For this report, RMCO found that during the 2003 through 2007 period, the 11 western states averaged 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the region’s 20th century average. That is 0.7 degrees, or 70 percent, more warming than for the world as a whole. And scientists have confirmed that most of the recent warming in the West has been caused by human emissions of heat-trapping gases.”
RMCO=Rocky Mountain Climate Organization.
In the heart of the hot zone was this thermometer:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/photos-noaas-carefree-climate-station/
I love how the time frame for “climate” is now four years. Talk about cherry picking!
Oh, and its getting really dry too. Although, if my lawn in MN “teleconnects” with stuff 1200 km to the west, the West is getting pretty wet this year.
You know, when the comedians start to pile on, the end is near….just ask Rod Blagojevich! The end-game is always interesting to watch…
First of all I would like to thank Anthony and all the other posters at this site, you folks have taught me an important lesson. “Think, don’t just accept”.
I am still a fence sitter, but I am leaning towards your position. Thanks to your blog and especially the comments, I have been educated beyond belief.
You have even brought my family closer together, we are all betting on the sea ice extent, and I have never received so many calls from them. Who would of thought, I would get excited about the sea ice chart.
P.S. now that I am thinking is there a evolution blog? survivor of the fittest seems weak. (not intelligent design)
Graeme W says:
July 24, 2010 at 10:36 pm
As far as I can tell, that leaves Canada and Greenland to be vastly colder than the worldwide average….
But we all KNOW Greenland is shrinking fatser than expected so it must be Canada!
Steve Goddard @ 4:57am shows clearly the link between cooling and socialist nirvanas like Madagascar and Zimbabwe.
So there you have it – it is warming faster almost everywhere.
Alan Clark: July 25, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Holy crumoly! I am so clueless! I didn’t even know there was a Solar Ice-Cap let alone that it was retreating! Thanks for illustrating my ignorance Ralphie!
It’s not surprising so few people know of the existence of the Solar Ice Cap, since it only forms on the sun at night…
ianpp says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:45 pm
“I have been educated beyond belief.”
And that is where you end up when you leave the CAGW religion behind…
My state’s hotter than your state!
Bill Tuttle says:
July 26, 2010 at 2:48 am
Alan Clark: July 25, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Holy crumoly! I am so clueless! I didn’t even know there was a Solar Ice-Cap let alone that it was retreating! Thanks for illustrating my ignorance Ralphie!
It’s not surprising so few people know of the existence of the Solar Ice Cap, since it only forms on the sun at night…
________________________________________________________________
However, keen observers may see the remnants evaporating in a flash of blue-green at dawn, just as the top of the sun peeks over the horizon.
Lucy Skywalker says:
July 25, 2010 at 6:22 am
Thanks for that link Lucy . . phew! quite a read but fascinating and informative.
I couldn’t put it down ( or whatever the laptop equivalent might be 🙂 ) and I learned a lot.
BTW , I am still going through link after link , it is never ending.
I just come from the standpoint that “how can a gas being 0.038% of our atmosphere be a cause of a catastrophe”. I was there 10 years ago and so far nothing has changed my opinion.
“I, for one, have much better things to do. – gavin”
As if.
Bill Marsh says:
July 25, 2010 at 7:10 am
Oh come on. Isn’t this just a demonstration of a positive feedback cycle that the AGW crowd has been talking about all these years?
You got it, Bill
A nice link collection!
My first impression was: there is no global warming…
A couple of random replies……
I dunno if there is an evolution blog–I’d be surprised to learn that there are not several.
The currently available evidence for weather behaviour (a/k/a “climate”) is strong and readily available–or should be (and is is you can get back stage and look for your self).
For the evolution vs intelligent design question the evidence is more opaque. For me, I don’t see how one necessarily precludes the other, and I don’t see how it makes any current difference.
And lastly, for the awakening agnostic: I have said, with no credentials what ever, that there is in fact a global warming–or was. (I have made this mini-rant a number of times (where “number” is much larger than one. And nobody here or elsewhere has ever argued with me about it. Which tells you how man people read what I write–there is usually somebody who will argue with an assertion that sugar is sweet.)
IT seems clear to me that by definition, (by definition!) the Earth has been (was) warming since the bottom of the last ice age, and will (did) continue until we turn(ed) the corner, so to speak, on the way back down.
The ambivalence has to to do with recent evidence that we have in fact turned that corner, but I for one think it is way too early to say for sure. The statisticians have a word for describing the uncertainty (and more words for deciding when it ends.) But I will say that I am less uncertain, in my ignorance. today than I was the first time I made this rant.
I wonder if the scientists (or is it “scientists”? [I just noticed! The i-before-e-except-after-c think is broken!])….I wonder if the scientists are busy getting the papers from the 1950’s that proved then that were were doomed to an ice age for which we were unprepared because we were worrying about the wrong things…..whew, got lost in that sentence. I wonder if they are busy re-typing those old papers to get them “on-line”.
What were we worrying about then? Nuclear Winter? SMOG? The Ozone Hole? What happens when we have completely paved the earth?
I think this has to do with the psychology of the average person that no longer has to live in the natural element. When I was a kid we had no air conditioning at all. Not in the car, not at home, not at school. The only place you got AC was the grocery store, the mall, or the movie theater. I hated summer. It was hot. It was hot in the morning, it was hot late at night when you were trying to sleep, it was hot driving around in the car. Now 30 years later my home has central air, the office has AC, my car has AC. The only time I feel the heat is about 5 minutes walking from my office to my car. But imagine the younger generation that grew up that way with constant temperature control set to 72F. You’d think “wow, it’s so much hotter than it used to be”. I don’t think that way. I still remember that all my childhood summers were unbearably hot. The summer of 1987 was over-the-top hot. It was over 100F for 14 days in a row which was a record back then. But now I turn on the TV and all the crybabies are talking about the heat, like they are amazed that it’s hot in the summer. Get over it folks…the summer is hot. That’s what the summer does. When you get out of the AC it’s hot. Not because of CO2 but because the sun is shining and it’s high in the sky. But don’t worry, winter is right around the corner!
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Humor, earth, media, ridiculae.
My comment was humorous, ridiculous, and contained no language that the FCC would not allow on public broadcast programs.
Please excuse me for making a humorous reply to a humorous article.
Regarding Mike D. says:
July 25, 2010 at 12:03 am
Mike, if it is art then it must be post normal art.
Steven Mosher says:
no place warms at the average. every place warms at a faster rate or a slower rate. but NO PLACE warms exactly at the average rate.
As Robert notes there are many places that warm at slower rates than average.
many places show ZERO trend or negative trend. more places show positive trends.
The temperature series used to show “warming” are adjusted to the point of uselessness. I note that you constantly used “warming” and didn’t mention “cooling” other than as a “negative trend”. A bit of bias in your word choice?
Some places, large places, are cooling. And cooling a lot. The Antarctic is growing lots of added ice. The cold from it has just caused a minor disaster as far north as the Equator in South America. The Western USA is having quite a cold snap (it was a wonderful 75 F or so in my garden today. Didn’t even break a sweat. Usually it’s in the miserable 90’s F this late in July. It’s been this way all summer. Not even one really hot day to speak of.) Australia and New Zealand are cold. Killer snow in Mongolia. Trains buried in snows (yes, plural) the last couple of years in China.
The basic disconnect here is between the reality of places COOLING and getting loads of cold and snow; vs the ‘temperature series’ that have so much built in bias in the collection, “quality control”, adjustments, and analysis that they are functionally useless (and becoming a bad joke in the face of the PDO shift to the cold side.)
And it’s not just me saying this. There is a peer reviewed analysis of the temperatures in Turkey by Turkish Mets that found cooling in Turkey. This implies that GHCN used a biased set of stations to find “warming” in Turkey. Use the whole set instead of a subset, and you will find Turkey is cooling. They used several methods that all showed a cooling Turkey when all the data were used. Yet Turkey shows up as a bright red blob on the GIStemp maps.
It’s that kind of data cookage that lets everywhere be warming faster than average…
From a comment on this page:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/lets-talk-turkey/
this article:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114078036/abstract
If similar work were done for each country on the planet, I’m pretty sure we’d find similar results. We’re in a long term cooling trend from the peak of the Interglacial, but there are very large ripples in it (some 60 to 120 years long) and individual places move in contra-point to each other (as in Turkey being coolest when the USA is warmest). So by picking starting points and places you can make the globe whatever “global average temperature” you want and make any place “warming” or “cooling”.
If you would know what actually is happening, you must use a much larger set of the data, and treat it consistently with Nyquist, and stop changing where you take the temperatures and when; AND stop changing the processes in the middle of the series.
Any chemist would cringe at this “calorimetry” experiment where we shuffle the thermometers around all the time and constantly fiddle with the instrumentation.
Craigo said:
But from here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/cure-for-global-warming-invade-canada/
we find out that Canada is warming faster than anyplace else, per the GIStemp map:
http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ghcn_giss_1200km_anom11_2009_2009_1951_1980.gif
But if it IS Canada, there’s an easy fix…. Invade Canada! (Yes, that’s humor…)
The real problem is that we’ve got essentially a fractal temperature pattern and we’re picking various starting points and finding various trends (just as you would expect from the math of it).
Start 8,000 years ago, it’s cooling. 180 years ago? It’s warming dramatically (at least in the areas that had the Little Ice Age). 10 years ago, it’s cooling. etc. And on the 100,000 year scale, we have a spike of warmth that barely lasts at all, then plunge back into cold wobbly bits. And we’re near the end of that warm spike on the down trend.
@899:
“One could almost do a paper called the ‘hot-spot’ theory.”
I took a look at a ‘degree-days’ map of the USA and found exactly that. Hot spots. In a lot of cool out west. Though “back east” was hot.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/degree-days-view/
This degree-day map of Washington state pretty much says it all:
http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/nv_41w.png
with little islands of heat right around where GHCN puts the thermometers today and loads of cold out in the boondocks where they don’t measure.
The “stippled” nature of the temperatures pretty much shows that it’s not a CO2 blanket effect, it’s a local environment effect.
But that clarity is what happens when you use all the thermometers in a place instead of a biased hand selected subset.
P Walker
Yesterday , on some newscast , I heard someone state that this past decade has been the hottest since ACCURATE thermometers have been in use . Since the temperature records have shown that the thirties were as warm , I assume that said accurate measurements began circa 1980 . Considering that the graphs presented in Bob Tisdale’s earlier post show a temperature rise of about .6 degrees over the last century , is it not possible that the “accurate” thermometers simply got a slightly higher reading from the get go ?
The early thermometers were in fact quite accurate. What’s kind of nutty is the way temperature codes, like GIStemp, “re-write the past” by making older temperatures colder. This induces a ‘warming trend’ without the problems associated with making the present temperature 2 C warmer than was actually measured. It’s easier to convince folks of the need to “correct” an old temp than a new one. (Though even the new ones can be “corrected” with added warmth some times…)
But to your point: Yes, it is possible for the new thermometers to be ‘warm from the start’ and in fact it has been shown to be the case. The thermometers used at one point ( Anthony has some postings on this… I THINK it was something like HO-83? model?) had a humidity measurement that electrically heated things. This warm air was then sucked back into the device by a built in electric fan… There was a bit of a stir when it was shown that the “modern” devices were biased warm.
IN THEORY, there is a calibration and cross calibration between the old and new thermometers that makes the temperature series comparable. In reality, that leaves much to be desired and is potentially a source of even more errors. In particular, I’ve found that the 1990 time period and more recent has a large “peak clipping” of temperatures with a bias toward clipping low going peaks more than high going. This stands out starkly in comparison to the past (so expect it to be erased in GHCN v3 when ever they release it… which I’ll highlight if/when it happens…) The end result is that in many countries you get a ‘hockey blade” to the temperature profile that pivots up right about 1990. Long after CO2 was increased in the atmosphere… and exactly coincident with a change of the “modification history flag” or “duplicate number” (in GIStemp terms vs in GHCN terms for the same data history flag).
So in addition to the thermometer itself having warming issues in some cases, you can have a warming added via the post reading ‘quality control’ and adjustment processes.
You can find those ‘hockey blades’ in many of the graphs here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/the-world-in-dtdt-graphs-of-temperature-anomalies/
Full details here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/dtdt/
Nearly everyone viewing WUWT lives in a “Representative Democracy”. Ergo – Want to change the volume, tember, pitch, balance of the conversation? Push some buttons! (iow – Vote!)
Actually, we live in a republic, but voting sensibly is the right way to make changes.
Antarctica from Steig et al 2009; That picture of Antarctica was/is very intriguing.
I wonder what is the story behind it? How did they manage to get that defined red area?
E.M.Smith says:
July 27, 2010 at 4:44 am
@899:
“One could almost do a paper called the ‘hot-spot’ theory.”
I took a look at a ‘degree-days’ map of the USA and found exactly that. Hot spots. In a lot of cool out west. Though “back east” was hot.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/degree-days-view/
This degree-day map of Washington state pretty much says it all:
http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/nv_41w.png
with little islands of heat right around where GHCN puts the thermometers today and loads of cold out in the boondocks where they don’t measure.
The “stippled” nature of the temperatures pretty much shows that it’s not a CO2 blanket effect, it’s a local environment effect.
But that clarity is what happens when you use all the thermometers in a place instead of a biased hand selected subset.
I wonder: Has anyone ever done a temp series map on ONLY those stations which the GISS, et al., don’t use?
In other words, if someone were to take all of the discarded stations and process them in exactly the same way as does GISS, et al., what would the temp map look like, as compared to the what GISS, et al., produce?