By Steve Goddard
During May I wrote about a growing discrepancy between HadCrut and GISTEMP.
Dr. Hansen discusses it here. Excerpt and comparison below:
(1) insight into why the GISS analysis yields 2005 as the warmest calendar year, while the HadCRUT analysis has 1998 as the warmest year. The main factor is our inclusion of estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.
HadCrut released their January 1850 through June 2010 temperature data yesterday, and something “interesting” happened. Their temperature anomalies from January-April jumped up from their published values on June 3. May probably also jumped, but unfortunately I didn’t capture a record of it previously.
The chart below shows how the HadCrut data changed between June 3 to July 28.
HadCrut still shows 1998 hotter than 2010 so far, but they seem to be working on “correcting” that problem.
Why is it that post facto adjustments always seem to be upwards in later years, and downwards in earlier years? This whole global temperature business looks like a complete joke to me.
========================
Addedum: source HadCRUT data by date:
May 20
June 3
July 28
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdEdMRGVaRlJvUzJSbFNOb21TZmtGeXc&output=html
The current data is available here.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
All three were obtained from the same link on different dates
Extracted from Dr. Hansen’s paper”
“global warming is the first order manifestation of increasing greenhouse gases that are predicted to drive climate change”
I counter with this quote:
“The best laid schemes o’ mice and men, gang aft aglay”
Predictions indeed….
They probably just do as ordered? By the government? You cannot do much else if you work for that outfit.
I always have to remind myself to look at the scale. And then ask myself, if that is the scale, what the hell must the error bars look like!?!?!?!?!? And then I wonder if the reason why we don’t see error bars is because they are too big to put in the graph!!!!!!!
Just food for thought. Or indigestion.
By the way, nightcrawlers in NE Oregon are saying the summers are getting colder. So do the grasshoppers. And the bats. And the birds: there are early signs of migratory birds starting to congregate already. And the rivers. The snow melt has been steady, not instantaneous, throughout the summer, despite a slightly above average amount of snowpack to begin with, keeping river levels at average to slightly above average height. No heat wave here in NE Oregon, even through the earlier El Nino.
Oh. I know. When proxies are warm, that’s evidence of global warming but when proxies are cold that is within the margin of error. This cold summer must be within the margin of error, which is why you won’t see these proxy signs on any graph.
They know that they only have until Nov.
Hansen’s explanation for the discrepancy was “The main factor is our inclusion of estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.” Didn’t we see on WUWT the huge hole in the Arctic data set used by Hansen? So it’s all based on an estimate without the benefit of real data. The real data (DMI) is showing a very clear cool condition in the Arctic. Hansen’s 1988 predictions were wrong. He’s wrong here and now. Why is it so difficult for others to figure out that Hansen has a very clear bias in his work?
Maybe there is a factor in the many equations that biases temperatures upwards after time passes? What happens if you feed their algorithms junk numbers?
Someone should do a satirical story of a future when, with the snow a foot deep in Miami Florida on August 4th, the warmists are still yammering about impending runaway global warming and how it has been responsible for last 15 years without a summer.
P.F. says:
July 28, 2010 at 9:38 am
Why is it so difficult for others to figure out that Hansen has a very clear bias in his work?
===========================================================
That seems to be the running joke, P.F.
It’s so obvious, that anyone that doesn’t see it……….
“. . . but avoids the bias in the temperature trend in satellite data [Reynolds et al., 2002, 2010]. We adjust the satellite data by a small constant . . .”
Will there be a built in adjustment in the new NPP satellite since it is being set up by NOAA and NASA?
Similar to what nc asked in the NPP story
July 27, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Looks like the arctic melt season is drawing to an early conclusion, we shall see.
Here is a thought, though; looking back through this thread, I see some maps that show the entire arctic as several degress above normal (which is in stark contrast to DMI’s data; http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php, by the way).
But here’s what really strikes me; this map is very misleading visually. (first map, after the graph; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/gistemp-vs-hadcrut/) The entire top portion of the map is dark red while the actual surface area represented amounts to the area approximated by the anomaly shown in red in southern Africa. If you were to compare the entire arctic region (roughly the top one fifth of the map) the area would compare roughly to the whole of Africa. Yet this is shown on the map as a surface area representing roughly the combined area of Europe and Asia.
I understand that they’re not using this map as data to calculate global surface anomaly, but it is still a very misleading way of presenting the data.
Wouldn’t a sinusoidal projection present a much more accurate repesentation?
Just a thought.
HadCrut show significant cooling since 1998. How should they be punished?
Pamela Gray says:
July 28, 2010 at 9:36 am
Yes, the error bars might just be on the graph’s. Only we cannot see where they begin or end because those points are off the high and low ends of the scale. The truth in advertising.
I fully expect that “new” rationales for adjusting temperatures will be discovered and hastily published to justify “hiding the decline” of temperatures for the next decade. How long can the TOB (time of observation bias) adjustment continue to add imaginary heat to the system? Perhaps the data will develop a large measurement hole over the cooling Pacific (or anywhere else that has a cooling trend).
AGW / Climate Change Armageddon; now firmly in the category of Pathological Science
An estimation based on 100% of nothing is still nothing.
Analysis of a raw deal: Buy 100 stocks at $1,000 ea worth $0.00 on the market, and you have 100 x $0.00 = $0.00
That reminds me of the shining. The waiter is explaining to Jack Nicholson what he did with his naughty children “I corrected them.” Yes, those naughty temperature readings. They must be “corrected.”
CO2 does not cause detecable global warming or else Lord Kelvin’s second law is bunk and so is Fermi who spent a lifetime looking at it.
Climate does change however and we don’t really know quite why, it did when man was in caves and there were about 05.% of current population around.
Hansen refers to heating and a tipping point. After the tipping point, it is beyond mankind’s control. I never knew mankind had control of the climate.
Hedoes admit much of the heating is at the North Pole. Of course they made up the temps since they don’t have readings.
Perhaps, in the general spirit of scientific openness, the CRU could explain what happened?
Such a move would tend to improve confidence in their processes…
Continued modification of the data after the fact. AKA fudging, or more commonly BS. They aren’t talking about data at all anymore just some fantasy numbers they make up.
“This whole global temperature business looks like a complete joke to me.”
Can’t wait for the punchline.
“The main factor is our inclusion of estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.”
Perhaps Hansen hasn’t heard of the 5th Amendment.
From our Constitution for our non American friends:
Amendment V ” No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”
Dave F asks:
“Maybe there is a factor in the many equations that biases temperatures upwards after time passes? What happens if you feed their algorithms junk numbers?”
It depends only upon the motives of the junk feeder.
It’s all a global con game involving NASA, big government, big business, crooked politicians, and the eco-nuts, and led by the CO2 molecule.
Or, perhaps more likely, the 40% rise in CO2 over the past few hundred years is actually having a growing effect on the planet’s temperatures, oceans, and cryosphere, and honest highly skilled scientists are working hard to get the data correct, refine their models to take into account increasing knowledge about feedbacks, and discover exactly how this 40% increase (and rising) is affecting all facets of the global climate.
“Average Temperature” bug-a-boo again.
Meaningless number.
Just as Dr. Spencer said, “Yes, a colder object can change the temperature of a warmer object, upwards!” (See his recent blogs..) I say “Average Temperature” has NO MEANING!
Take this: 85 F. 65% RH. BTU per cubic Foot: 38
105 F, 10% RH. BTU per cubic Foot: 33
WHICH ATMOSPHERE HAS MORE ENERGY IN IT?
Average temperture: Winner of “fiction writing of the year”.
Max
He who controls the present controls the past, he who controls the past controls the future.
Until some public challenge it mounted to this obvious revisionism they will remain in control.
Is it possible that not one single employee of either the CRU or the NASA climate division has any integrity?
They all accept it, every single employee; accept this changing of the past as ok.
I guess they do not have a choice, if anyone was to speak up then they would have their birth date changed to a larger value which would prove that they lied on their job application.
What a sorry, sad bunch of people.
<iP.F.: July 28, 2010 at 9:38 am
Hansen’s explanation for the discrepancy was “The main factor is our inclusion of estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.”
Translation: “Our original guess didn’t produce the numbers we wanted, so we increased our guess and backdated it.”
I’m not buying the explanation that someone who’s been yammering about Arctic warming would “forget” to include the Arctic in the original report. I know what a turnip truck looks like, Doc, but I didn’t fall off one…
They could just be correcting for mistakes such as illustrated below :
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html
P.F. says:
“Why is it so difficult for others to figure out that Hansen has a very clear bias in his work?”
I agree. Hansen’s bias is plain for anyone to see.
Dr. Hansen’s opinion became an immovable object in 1988. After his unauthorized testimony to Congress (which I must say was a gutsy move–he should have been fired for that), he became tactically unable to admit any error other than, “Oh my God, it’s worse than we thought.” Any retreat would have cost him his Congressional support, and then he WOULD have been fired. I have no doubt that he’s sincere, and I have no doubt that he’s misguided and locked in.
Ed
He lost me at “estimated”.
Well, actually, he lost me when he turned off the A/C for his 1988 testimony, but that was only one of many documented deceptions.
the Hansen & Jones Faktor must be warm, because it is their job to produce global warming.
I`ll spend 100$ if Hadly or GISS will correct their old data up and the actuall Temps. down one time in history.
Hansen does not have the right to use the word “prediction.” He has no set of hypotheses that enable him to predict warming. What he really means is that he hopes that warming will increase in accordance with his graphs. He hopes just as Al Gore hopes; that is, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two.
Summer in the City.
The real question is why aren’t they trying to adjust the surface temp record to the satellite record – which should be far more complete & accurate
…. maybe because it wont support their warming hypothesis ???
This must be what they mean when they say global warming is caused by humans, giss and hadcrut specifically.
Well, if they didn’t adjust upward, then we run afoul of the meme about 2 independent study groups coming to the same conclusion.
“The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
– Part II, Chapter IX — The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism
Emphasis is mine.
We should insist on a published, detailed explanation for any past, present and future alterations of historical temp records. If these are honest alterations is recent past temp readings, then this implies lack of competence when they compiled the records a couple of months ago. Or did they find a significant piece of information that made temp readings clears and didn’t share it with the rest of the world?
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.”
Mann made global warming. Handcrafted data by the old data smith James Hansen.
It is difficult to beat the old artisans with their handiwork on the data.
R. Gates says:
July 28, 2010 at 10:28 am
A lovely bit of sarcasm there.
I can only imagine what their g-mail accounts contain in terms of connivances…..(no danger of FOI requests hitting smoking guns now)
A bad joke indeed.
R. Gates says:
No POSSIBLE way you’re serious about the bolded statements… not even remotely possible. Surely even you must realize how incredibly ludicrous those phrases are.
(and of course, I screwed up a tag… sorry)
On this basis (I know its a bit early still),
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
I “is bettin” that NH ice will be 1SD max from normal range. Its going/nearing the 2005-2006 way, so there you go Steve Goddard you may have underestimated after all LOL
Poor ol guys/gals at DMI will probably be closed down for tellin da truth
Pamela Gray says:
July 28, 2010 at 9:36 am
I always have to remind myself to look at the scale. And then ask myself, if that is the scale, what the hell must the error bars look like!?!?!?!?!?
By the way, nightcrawlers in NE Oregon are saying the summers are getting colder. So do the grasshoppers. And the bats. And the birds: there are early signs of migratory birds starting to congregate already…..
__________________________________________________________________
Pam,
AJStrata looked into the error for the global temperature using IPCC data. his article is here:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420
And talking about early signs of winter… I am sitting in North Carolina in 90F weather and my equines are already shedding their summer coats and starting to grow their winter coats!?! Darn it I just got the last of the winter coats off them 6 weeks ago!
For what it is worth horses are sensitive to the amount of sunlight. Mares do not come into estrus during the winter months. My vet, who also has horses with shedding problems, was discussing the subject a week ago.
R. Gates
Are you suggesting that the CO2 levels have retroactively increased, forcing them to rewrite historical data?
R. Gates says:
July 28, 2010 at 10:28 am
As to getting the data correct; why would they need to adjust old data?
Why was the data corrected without any admission of prior fault or explanation?
If you manipulate data and don’t explain why, it ceases to be science and becomes the equivalent of reading tea leaves.
There may be global warming, and it may be caused by man, but it is nothing like the alarmists are claiming and their proof is a lot weaker than they are willing to admit to. At the point they started fudging data to make their case stronger other scientists should’ve been all to happy to show these Charlatans to the door. Instead we are less well informed than we could be because right now only ‘correct’ climate science is being done.
lol, Stephen and the rest of the WUWT gang are causing a “memory hole” malfunction!
Oddly enough, I was frightened into submission by the title of Dr. Hansen’s book this very morning ( well, frightened by the rapidity of my submission to a snarky urge to post about it) and then, lo and behold, he appears here this afternoon.
Yeah, verily and truly, the man is everywhere.
Since, statistically speaking, average can be anywhere within a given distribution, has anyone run/plotted a 90th percentile? And reviewed it for the change over time?
R. Gates says:
and honest highly skilled scientists are working hard to get the data correct, refine their models to take into account increasing knowledge about feedbacks
=========================================================
But Gates, when they told us 30 years ago they knew what they were talking about, they lied.
When they adjusted the data 20 years ago, they said they knew what they were talking about, and lied.
When they adjusted the data 10 years ago, they lied again.
Now they are saying they are right, know what they are talking about with this latest data……
……and in a few years, when they change it again, they will have lied again.
Every time they re-write history, they claim they are right that time, do it again, and lie again.
The Hobbs End Martian says:
July 28, 2010 at 10:04 am
AGW / Climate Change Armageddon; now firmly in the category of Pathological Science
… with an unhealthy dose of Lysenkoism thrown in.
Even if we accept (cough cough) that the adjustments are done for valid reasons, the fact they almost always increase the trend destroys any legitimacy.
Errors normally form a symmetrical Gaussian distribution. The corrections are wildly skewed in the direction which (coincidentally no doubt) happens to be the direction which Hansen has devoted his life to proving.
On the topic of the HADCRUT data: It really needs someone with sufficient power to ask the question “why was this revised, and how is this modification justified”. They could also ask why the previous version was so obviously deficient.
In the US you can sometimes find a congress person to play pit-bull and keep on pounding at it. Are there not any MPs that could be approached to undertake this in the UK?
NucEngineer says:
July 28, 2010 at 11:56 am
Superb, simply superb!
I’m sure George would applaud, and I suspect Aldus would have approved as well.
Could we have all the Betas and Gammas now?
Perhaps they had this headline in mind. The Telegraphs top story of the momment
“Met Office report: global warming evidence is ‘unmistakable'”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
“A new climate change report from the Met Office and its US equivalent has provided the “greatest evidence we have ever had” that the world is warming.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7914611/Met-Office-report-global-warming-evidence-is-unmistakable.html
How are they going to handle July since the reported ASU Sat temps (admittedly NOT adjusted) have been roughly .25-.33F lower than last year every single day this month?
R. Gates says:
“and honest highly skilled scientists are working hard to get the data correct, refine their models to take into account increasing knowledge about feedbacks”
Funny! That’s just what the tooth fairy told me!
But then she spoiled it by cracking up laughing……
“A new climate change report from the Met Office and its US equivalent has provided the “greatest evidence we have ever had” that the world is warming.”
=============================================================
You have to laugh at this, and they come out with something like it every few months.
The science is settled, that’s why we keep looking for any shred of evidence that it might be true………..
In over 50 years, they are still trying to prove it by finding examples.
What a joke.
So, what has happened since 1997 that invalidates this?:
Source: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/
“Accurate “Thermometers” in Space
The State of Climate Measurement Science
October 2, 1997
Just how accurate are space-based measurements of the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere? In a recent edition of Nature, scientists Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA/Marshall describe in detail just how reliable these measurements are.
Why is it important?
The question is very important, as these temperature measurements from satellites in space are one of our most important windows into measuring and understanding the phenomenon of Global Warming.
Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth’s surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many – especially the early – computer-based global climate models (GCM’s) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made “Greenhouse Effect”. Furthermore, these computer models also predict that the Earth’s lower atmosphere should behave in lock-step with the surface, but with temperature increases that are even more pronounced. (Get the latest on the Earth’s Temperature from Space by clicking on the diagram!!)
What is the “Controversy”?
Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.
How do we know the Satellite Data are Correct?
In theory, one could argue that the computer models are accurate, and that the real measurements have some problem. However this is not the case. An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the satellite data are the best quality possible. Recent claims to the contrary by Hurrell and Trenberth have been shown to be false for a number of reasons, and are laid to rest in the September 25th edition of Nature (page 342). The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.”
Bill
July 28, 2010 at 9:46 am
Larry Niven and Jerry the moonbat Pournelle came close with “Fallen Angels”!
Are they adjusting for the heat index “feels like 110 degrees” when its only 90? That would at least make sense to me, as it is barely possible to find out what the actual temperature is around here. That “feels like 110 degrees” makes it sound really hot, like we are breaking records or something! Which by the way we are no where near doing.
Answering my own question: Nothing, per this 2009 report. Has any of this been subsequently proven incorrect?
“A project of CFACT
Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks! Global temperatures ‘have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth’
June 2009 saw another drop in global temps
Sunday, July 05, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth’s temperature. This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006.
According to the latest global satellite data courtesy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and made into an easy to read graph by algorelied.com: “For the record, this month’s Al Gore / ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Index indicates that global temperatures have plunged approximately .74°F (.39°C) since Gore’s film was released,” noted algorelied.com. (See satellite temperature chart here with key dates noted, courtesy of http://www.Algorelied.com – Also see: 8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps)
Gore — who is fond of saying the Earth has a “fever” — has not yet addressed the simple fact that global temperatures have dropped since the release of his global warming film. (Gore has also not addressed this: Another Moonwalker Defies Gore: NASA Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldrin rejects global warming fears: ‘Climate has been changing for billions of years’ – Moonwalkers Defy Gore’s Claim That Climate Skeptics Are Akin To Those Who Believe Moon Landing was ‘Staged’)
A record cool summer has descended upon many parts of the U.S. after predictions of the “year without a summer.” There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. (Also see: Scientists Write Open Letter to Congress: ‘Earth has been cooling for ten years’ – ‘Present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them’ – July 1, 2009)
In addition, New peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate. (See: Climate Fears RIP…for 30 years!? – Global Warming could stop ‘for up to 30 years! Warming ‘On Hold?…’Could go into hiding for decades’ study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 – And See: ‘Global temps have flat lined since 2001…This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950…Cooling trend could last for up to 30 years’ – June 22, 2009 )
This means that today’s high school kids being forced to watch Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” – some of them 4 times in 4 different classes – will be nearly eligible for AARP (age 50) retirement group membership by the time warming resumes if these new studies turn out to be correct. (Editor’s Note: Claims that warming will “resume” due to explosive heat in the “pipeline” have also been thoroughly debunked. See: Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. ‘There is no warming in the pipeline’ )”
All a tempest in a teapot if you ask me. I’ll go with the satellite data, thank you.
When a geologist sees data manipulation like this, he instinctively thinks of ‘Black Box Scams’.
Shown below is a ‘Black Box’ check list for mining from the State of Arizona – I believe we are long overdue in needing a similar check list for climate ‘science’. If the purveyors of manipulated climate data knew they would be prosecuted for fraud, there would be a lot less of this BS.
Unfortunately, this requires the political will to do the right thing, something which is rarely present these days.
Arizona Mines and Minerals Department
Mining Scams
Adapted from Circular 59 by Michael N. Greeley
Introduction
A time-honored method to bilk the public of millions of dollars is the ubiquitous mining swindle. Since an unusually rich ore deposit, or bonanza, has historically produced enormous profits for the developer, many of us believe that we too, like the ’49er, can strike it rich. The glamour attached to “discovery” creates, in the imagination of some people, a relatively easy way to attain fantastic wealth.
Although money can be made in mining and this Department certainly encourages mining, we also have a responsibility to urge the public to exercise prudence in its investment. Too many people have lost their hard-earned savings on an ill-advised mineral scheme. Archives are full of outrageous examples of mining scams and swindles in which the only beneficiary was a glib entrepreneur with unbounded optimism. In most cases, he disappeared before his investors realized what happened.
General Considerations
When making an investment in any mineral enterprise, there are a number of factors or key features to consider. A checklist of significant considerations follows.
1. Title
2. Sampling and Assaying
3. Commodity Type
4. Mining Method
5. Mill Site
6. Recovery Process
7. Permitting and Reports
8. Security and Safety
9. Marketing
10. Profit Distribution
11. Taxes
12. Sequence of Development
13. Professional Evaluation
By comparing the DMI Arctic temperature graph with the Hansen chart, we can see that his estimate of Arctic temperature is coloured by the perception of what he expects/wants to see. Hansen’s blinkered understanding of climate is risible!
Re. the Telegraph article.
How the hell do they measure sea level rise from ships?
(good to see they have polar bears on an ice flow though)
What are these people smoking?
For the record, in my post above I had bolded the following statements from R. Gates’ amazing post:
R. Gates says:
1. perhaps more likely
2. honest highly skilled scientists
3. get the data correct
4. increasing knowledge
However the rest stands:
Really, you’ve got to do better than that. There is not one shred of evidence that any of the warmists are:
1. likely to be correct
2. honest
3. highly skilled
4. scientists
5. increasing in knowledge
6. credible
If you could provide any evidence to the contrary, I’d be interested in seeing it.
Can someone who understands the UK FOIA put in a request to yield the rationale, calculations and internal and external CRU communications relating to this adjustment (before the ludicrously short limitation period expires)?
Today (27th July) was a glorious day, lots of sunshine and very little wind. I went fishing with a friend, he’s 70+ years old, out into the English Channel, a mile or so from the South Coast of England. The sea was calm and our lunch was memorable to say the least (wine suspended at a depth of 40 feet in the English Channel is deliciously cold). At about 1430 my friend looked up for some time and then said, “Oh bugger! It’s going to be a bad ‘un.”
I asked him what perturbed him so. He pointed out the swallows and swifts flying in their small groups of five or six, towards France. “They’re a month or two early,” he said. “Means that the winter’s going to be a right swine.”
He told me that the last time he’d seen such an early flight of these birds was in 1946, when it was pointed out to him by his father, before what he called “The big freeze.”
We returned to shore at about 1700 and all the while we kept looking skyward to see more and more of the scimitar-winged birds soaring south.
What do the birds know that we are not seeing?
I’m going to buy a whole load of coal and get in lots of firewood before next winter, just in case.
My watch is wrong, it IS the 28th of July when we went fishing!
Bugger!
What will they do when winter comes and the snow piles so high everybody figures out they are being scammed. Obama won’t be denied his wealth transfer payments that he committed to at dopenhagen now will he.
Has anyone taken a look at what damage to the atmosphere all these charcoal manufacturers do to the fire situation. And then the damage that third world land clearing does? MODIS is your source, but thankfully some real scientists have put together this handy page for you to see … http://firefly.geog.umd.edu/firemap/
Maybe WUWT would like to put up and updating page to draw attention to the situation.
Jim G says:
July 28, 2010 at 1:18 pm
“The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) ”
Impressive, if you ask me! I am happy if I can measure within 0.2 C.
WOG says:
July 28, 2010 at 1:44 pm
“How the hell do they measure sea level rise from ships?”
EchoSounder? Sonar? GPS?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-28/earth-shown-to-be-warming-by-unmistakable-scientific-evidence-noaa-says.html
The ABC in OZ just had an interview regarding this claim. They spoke, I believe with ‘Tom Karl’. Enough said.
regards
From the CRU’s FAQs:
The only Jones et al. (2001) I can find is this The Evolution of Climate Over the Last Millennium
P. D. Jones,* T. J. Osborn, K. R. Briffa; which doesn’t seem to relevant.
Perhaps Jones et al (1999) is the right reference, but that is behind a paywall.
CRUTemp is rather opaque, so I can’t comment on their particular methods, but much of the adjustments of recent past temps that appear from time to time are simply due to additional GHCN station records becoming available. Countries are not always good at delivering timely CLIMAT reports, unfortunately.
>>Jim
>>This means that today’s high school kids being forced to
>>watch Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” – some of them 4
>>times in 4 different classes
And only being able to pass their school exams if they know all about Green issues.
This is a UK physics exam for 16-year olds. Apart from being set for 7-year olds, it is
actually a “green exam”, rather than a “physics exam”. There is no physics in it, just questions on green issues !!
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-PHY1AP-W-QP-MAR08.PDF
Just where are the new generation of literate physicists going to come from?
.
Steve I’ve been following your articles for awhile now. But I find your reflex attitude that it must be all a con a little tiresome. Hansen is being more than transparent in explaining the strenghts and limitations of his methodology and your response is invariably one of ‘gotcha’.
I would have thought that a truly skeptical position would be to canvas the strengths and limitations dispassionately, after all you’ve been slapped down already with your nonsense of modeling artic ice as a cone and your article titled ‘Article Ice Graphing Lesson’ was left hanging in the wind as an example of how not to interpret graphs. For the sake of courtesy we’ll pass over your fixation with pixels in silence.
These errors in themselves are not fatal as they are the errors of someone who is obviously passionate in their attempts to educate themselves in a very complex science and that effort should be respected. However when you are continually so dismissive (to the point of abuse) of others whose competence eclipses your own, then
please do not whimper when people judge you with the same rigour by which you judge others.
The simple point is that your ambition runs ahead of your competence. That does not mean that your opinions may not be useful but it does mean that when you want to take a swipe at Hansen then at least accord the man the courtesy of pointing out where his methodology or his reasonong is lacking.
A constant theme on both sides of this debate is that the science gets obscured by abuse. With self discipline and good faith this is the easiest aspect to remedy.
Ralph
I was out working in Silicon Valley last week. Less than 5% of the people I was working with were Americans.
Asian education has become vastly superior to that in America or Europe, because they actually teach science and engineering – rather than the politically correct junk which a generation of drug-abusing American professors have dished out to their students.
Even the UK economy is growing 3X as fast as the US.
If you sit by the river long enough, the body of your enemy shall float past. (Sun Tzu)
I am starting to feel like the war is won.
We have reliable instruments in the form of Argo and Satellite temperature records.
Giss et al will be unable to find new ways to adjust the recent temperature trend upwards (even if they use further legedermaine to cool the early 20th century).
As the long non-warming spell is likely to continue or lead into a slight cooling with the PDO in its negative phase the Church of CAGW will not be able to hold out against the obvious lack of warming for much longer.
The last job that remains is to prevent any stupid mitigation legislation from passing in the next year or two while the world continues to wake up.
I was talking with my nephew the other day and he was discussing how the watched the Michael Moore film… Capitalism: A love fair.
You know, so they could discuss economics.
Zeke,
So what you are saying is that people in hot climates are very sloooooowwwww………..
R. Gates says:
July 28, 2010 at 10:28 am
Get the data correct? That should mean reading the display or guage correctly.
The problem is in ‘adjusting’ the raw readings to suit the correct model output.
I’d still like to know where to get myself a USB powered Anomalymometer.
stevengoddard says:
July 28, 2010 at 3:55 pm
……the politically correct junk which a generation of drug-abusing American professors have dished out to their students.
Oh, come, come, certainly telling students Karl Marx, Upton Sinclair, and Al Gore are a better way to go than Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Banneker, and Jesus Christ.
yes, sarcasm off now
typo,
Oh, come, come, certainly telling students Karl Marx, Upton Sinclair, and Al Gore are a better way to go than Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Banneker, and Jesus Christ…. is what professors should do.
[snip. Your baseless opinion regarding writers of articles at WUWT is not welcome. ~dbs, mod.]
R. Gates says:
July 28, 2010 at 10:28 am
‘It’s all a global con game involving NASA, big government, big business, crooked politicians, and the eco-nuts, and led by the CO2 molecule.’
You could exchange NASA for Microsoft and CO2 molecule for Y2K bug here too but you never want to blame conspiracy when mob hysteria coupled with powerful economic incentive will do just fine.
This is not science.
“The main factor is our inclusion of estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.”
So how is this data estimated? Use a model of course which then causes a temperature increase which supports the model. Therefore the model must be right and so must the temeperatues and the increase.
We are all doomed.
Do these people get state funding for this pseudo-science?
@Ralph
There’s no other way to describe that exam paper as anything but despicable. Our poor kids. They’re being taught that seeking truth is just a hobby in science now. The consequences in the future could be incalculable.
Reading through the comments if Mr James Saxton and Mr RBates are the best devils advocates around here i feel the debate is won.
Do scientists ever apologise when found to be incorrect? my guess is no by some of the ego’s I have seen.
Last night I repeated an exercise I last did in 2005 when I began taking a critical look at global warming science (publishing in 2009). Back then I reasoned that the Arctic would give me the quickest insight and check on the science. I accessed station data held by NOAA for the Arctic region – those with long data sets, ideally from before the turn of the century, to look for any natural cycles and then culminating in recent years with an unbroken record – I found 32 stations. Only one had a recent higher temperature (in 2004) than in what was an obvious previous warming cycle and that was on the east coast of Greenland (the station on the west coast had its highest temperature around 1940). That was my first check on the science – reasoning that as ‘global warming’ was most marked in the Arctic, I needed to understand the dynamics. I discovered for myself what I later read was the 70-80 Arctic oscillation – it takes the form of a double camel-hump, with the majority of stations showing the first hump as higher than the second, some were more or less equal.
I repeated that test last night, updating to 2010 and it took about one hour – first to google GISS station data and find the list of stations by simply clicking on their global map – first Greenland, then central Siberia and then Alaska – much the same set of stations appears. Then I selected those with the long time record beginning before the first hump and ending in 2010 – 32 stations in all throughout Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland (including one for Helsinki), and Russia.
Of those 32 stations, 23 show the first hump equal to or greater than the second hump; 7 show the second hump greater than the first, with 4 of those looking marginal – or with an obvious outlier, or the peak now clearly in decline; two show the second peak much earlier in the period 1960-1980.
Not one of these data sets could possibly be interpreted as showing 4 degrees C of truly anomalous warming. Of the 7 stations that show higher recent values, the range is from 0.5 to 1.5 degrees C above 1940. However, if the reference period for the anomaly is set in the 30-year trough from 1950 through to 1980, then the second peak will produce anomalies of that order – though it ought to be more like 2-3 degrees, and give the illusion of amplified global warming. Typically, if you run the reference period for Anmagssalik from 1950-2000, it will include periods of -3 C and post 2000 temperatures at +1.5 will look anomalous by 3-4 degrees (one record in 2004 is higher than 1940s – all other (8 annual) post 2000 temperatures are lower than in 1940s)- yet the 2004 temperature is only 1 degree higher than 1940 ( and 4.5 degrees higher than 1960).
This leads me to ponder and ask a question of WUWT readers. We know that GISS homogenise data and interpolate and work by referencing nearby stations where data does not exist – but how is this done? Could there be a similar ‘trick’ to that which Steve MacIntyre discovered whereby a computer alogrithm ‘mines’ the data, seeking out any station with a 20th century equivalent of the ‘hockey stick’ and then adjusting the average accordingly? I am no statistician, but this whole Arctic anomaly looks decidedly questionable and overdue for detailed analysis.
This is a simple exercise requiring no particular expertise that anyone can perform for themselves. It is a powerful counter-balance to the ‘hockey stick’ mentality of the ‘consensus’. It shows the presence of a pronounced cycle, with the first ‘hump’ clearly a natural phenomenon and the second as not particularly unnatural. The most pronounced post-1940 peak is on the east coast of Greenland and in 2004 – thereafter there is a decline, as in all of the records
Ralph: July 28, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Just where are the new generation of literate physicists going to come from?
Asia.
Bill,
Probably 70% of the weather researchers at the recent conference I attended were Chinese.
(Sarcastic entertainment alert)
This is how it would go in a courtroom: Fantasy Transcript….
Q. – I wish to remind all of those here present, including the jury, that you are still under oath Dr. _____ . Are you aware of this fact?
A. – Yes…..
Q. – So, Dr. _____ ; I hold in my hand the previously admitted exhibits A and B. Are these your charts?
A. – Yes…
Q. – The differences between the two plainly show that you altered your numbers. Did you change the numbers Dr. ____?
A. – Yes…
Q. – The obvious conclusion that then comes to mind is that either the numbers in exhibit A were wrong, or if they were not, then the numbers in exhibit B are false. This leaves us with only two options, you were either in error then or you’re lying to us now in exhibit B. Are you lying to us now Dr. ____?
A. – No, of course not…
Q. – Well then Dr. ____, were you in error in exhibit A?
A. – Ah, we had to make some adj….
Q. – A simple Yes or No Dr. ______
A. – Yes…
Q. – Thank you. Dr. ______ , would it be safe to say that you were in error in exhibit A because you did not have all the pertinent facts when you created that chart, and have since discovered some relevant ones that made you aware of errors in the numbers in said exhibit, and that therefore you subsequently changed the original numbers?
A. – I suppose so…
Q. – I’ll take that as a Yes. Can you tell the jury with 100% certainty, that you are now in possession of every single relevant fact as they pertain to creating these charts?
A. – Well, there will always be some unk…..
Q. – Again, a simple Yes or No Dr. _______
A.- No….
Q. – And so, if you were in error in exhibit A because you did not have all the facts, and by your own admission here today, you still don’t, would it not then be reasonable to conclude that you are also very likely to be in error in exhibit B?
A. – It’s not very likely No…
Q. – Not very likely, does this mean that there is still a possibility of you being wrong?
A. – There’s always a possibility……
Q. – So can we then conclude, that you are asking this country spend trillions of dollars based on Charts that you created and that have, by your own admission here today been in error, and could still be in error. Is this what you’re asking us to do?
A. – Well,….
Q. – I have no more questions for this witness your Honor.
stevengoddard: July 29, 2010 at 5:06 am
Bill,
Probably 70% of the weather researchers at the recent conference I attended were Chinese.
“Asia” was probably my only one-word comment to any post here that wasn’t intended to be cheeky. Were Indians, Singaporeans, and — maybe — a couple of Pakistanis present in the other 30%?
Bill,
I don’t think I saw a lot of Indians there. However, they make up a major block of the engineers in Silicon Valley. Americans are in a small minority in computer related engineering. Junk education in the US is to blame.
Can you imagine subjecting a bright young mind to Al Gore’s movie? How could they ever get their brains fully back after being subjected to such brash stupidity?