The scientific finding that does not settle the climate-change debate
S. Fred Singer Letter to WashPost Oct 25, 2011**
Before you write off Bachmann, Cain, and Perry as cynical diehards, deniers, idiots, or whatever, [WashPost Oct 24] consider this:
Why are you surprised by the results of the Berkeley Climate Project? They used data from the same weather stations as the Climategate people, but reported that one-third showed cooling — not warming.
They covered the same land area – less than 30% of the Earth’s surface – with recording stations that are poorly distributed, mainly in US and Western Europe. They state that 70% of US stations are badly sited and don’t meet the standards set by government; the rest of the world is likely worse.
Unlike the land surface, the atmosphere showed no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data. And did you know that the climate models, run on super-computers, all show that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface. What does this tell you?
And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called “proxies”: tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. They don’t show any global warming since 1940!
The Berkeley results in no way confirm the scientifically discredited Hockeystick graph, which had been so eagerly adopted by climate alarmists. In fact, the Hockeystick authors have never published their temperature results after 1978. The reason for hiding them? It’s likely that their proxy data show no warming either.
One last word: In their scientific paper, submitted for peer review, the Berkeley scientists disclaim knowing the cause of the temperature increase reported by their project. However, their research paper comments: “The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.” I commend them for their honesty and skepticism.
********************************************************************
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and of the Independent Institute. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is co-author of Climate Change Reconsidered [2009 and 2011] and of Unstoppable Global Warming [2007]
richardjamestelford points out @ur momisugly October 26, 2011 at 2:44 am that Singer writes “atmosphere showed no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites.” richardjamestelford goes on to say “This is simply not true. Satellite data for the mid-troposphere shows a clear warming trend since 1979.”
While Singer has many valid points in his article, this comment about atmospheric warming is misleading at best and deceptive at worst. Singer undoubtedly knows that the satellite record shows warming of the lower troposphere — was he referring to another part of the atmosphere? Or maybe he was referring to balloon data from the 40s in addition to the Satellites from 1979. If so, that is sloppy writing. If Singer was referring to the last 14 years, then he really should have clarified.
when you look at what BEST did with the data it makes me wonder if there intent was really science? they took 60 years of unverifiable data, massaged it, and got minor warming and no proof that man was responsible for it… or even if what man does do is a partial cause.
now if i wanted to really evaluate the surface stations i would designate several groups as the Surface station papers have done.. Urban(cities), rural (farm areas), remote(forests and other non improved areas) i would then compare apples to apples etc… we know that land uses change area temperatures as does development. those heat islands are real however minute they may be.
funny that just taking 15 stations labeled rural and in category 1 show no warming in the last thirty years. yet stations labeled Urban and category 1or 2 show a 1.3 deg C rise in the same time period. urban stations have bad problems with a majority of them in the 4.5 group.. so the findings are within the MOE for those stations. a statistical wash..
BEST has just strengthened my belief that AGW is all hype.. natural variation (over which we have no control) is natural…
Clarification for all confused about the Skeptics’ position on the existence of global warming. I do believe that Skeptics believe that there has been global warming since the Little Ice Age. For most of the world, thermometers started to be used only since the end of the LIA so we expect to see an upward trend in the thermometer record. Also, skeptics believe that the world has warmed since the 1970s. Remaining questions: (1) Are we continuing to warm? (2) Are we warmer than the 1930s? On the latter question, I am not sure, but it seems that most people believe that we are. Although adjusted temperature readings (worldwide) say that we are warmer now, the negative impact of hot, dry weather was much more dramatic in the 1930s. It is interesting to note that the winters were colder in the 1930s while I believe the summers were hotter.
I have yet to see Singer’s fine letter in the WaPo. However, they have published a BEST-adoring column by Eugene Robinson. Here’s an excerpt:
“Muller and his colleagues examined five times as many temperature readings as did other researchers — a total of 1.6 billion records — and now have put that “http://berkeleyearth.org/data.php”. The results have not yet been subjected to peer review, so technically they are still preliminary. But Muller’s plain-spoken admonition that “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer” has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.” From WUWT’s responses above, I’d say none are incoherent or stunned. Robinson must not be a regular patron of the finer arts.
Peter Stone,
Current global lower troposphere temperature anomaly is .29 degrees and will be dropping down to nearly zero over the next month due to cooling oceans. It was warming but not in the last 10 years. If you follow climate metrics rather than climate dogma, you can figure out why people would see different signals at different time scales. I hope this solves your confusion.
It looks like another believer has demonstrated classic reading comprehension problems. Poor peter stone. If only he took time to understand the issues. But no, sadly all he does is give us a good laugh.
For starters, there’s this from just a few days ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtually-flat-century-scale-trend/
John Whitman says:
October 26, 2011 at 8:18 am
Can I use it?
Sure!
Ben Blankenship says:
October 26, 2011 at 8:56 am
I have yet to see Singer’s fine letter in the WaPo. However, they have published a BEST-adoring column by Eugene Robinson. Here’s an excerpt:
“….But Muller’s plain-spoken admonition that “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer” has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.”
From what I’ve seen of Eugene Robinson over the years, I believe the man still doth projecteth too mucheth.
“Dr. John M. Ware says:
October 26, 2011 at 2:28 am
I heard Dr. Singer and two other speakers from SEPP (including Dr. Haapala) give a presentation at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond VA last Saturday;”
I was at the same meeting as Dr. Ware, it was the first time I had the opportunity at attend a climate presentation based on science, not emotions. I also got a chance to shake Dr. Singer’s hand and thank him. That made my day.
And on the adoration front, this just in, from Al Gore, in Huffington Post:
“With the evidence reconfirmed (again), I would hope that skeptics would rethink their position and join me in pushing our government, and governments around the world, to take steps to solve the climate crisis.”
How, Al? Like EPA closing down our coal generating plants at the same time China is building twice as many?
oMan says: October 26, 2011 at 1:55 am
Fred Singer’s letter is a thing of beauty. A model of clear exposition and confident but temperate tone. I had lost sight of the fact that BEST had found one-third of the stations showing a cooling trend…
Thank you. I think we may yet salvage usefulness for BEST from this. Singer’s note makes me think there is still a scientist in Muller’s soul, somewhere, alongside the media razz and fiscal investment in green piety.
TomT says:
October 26, 2011 at 7:46 am
@peter_dtm
October 26, 2011 at 6:30 am :
What if all we were asking is that that the data be complete and accurate, and the data be made public so it can be checked? Does that sound like a reasonable place to put the goal posts?
————————
Not only reasonable – but isn’t that ‘just’ plain ordinary (pre-post normal) science.
but I would also expect to see any and all algorythms; functions and programs as well; and a declaration of funding; and if relevant a declaration of interest if I worked/voluntered for an advocacy group operating in the same or allied branch of science
Dr. Singer’s letter is unfortunately quite inaccurate in terms of there being no atmospheric warming or ocean warming during the time-period he is referring to. Additionally there has been warming land surface temperature warming since the 1940s. Not sure why he persists is such sweeping statements when the data records clearly contradict him. If he was referring to a different time-period that he alludes to in his letter, he should state that up front. Will be interesting to watch his presentation next week in Sante Fe, where the folks from BEST will also be presenting their results.
Julienne Stroeve,
Yes, Singer did indeed do a fine job of completely sweeping into the dustbin all of the Wa-Po’s journalistically inaccurate PR piece.
Ask Dr. Singer specific detailed questions. I think they will reach him. Enjoy.
John
Julienne Stroeve says:
October 26, 2011 at 10:42 am
Dr. Singer’s letter is unfortunately quite inaccurate in terms of there being no atmospheric warming or ocean warming during the time-period he is referring to.
That is not what he said .. this is what he said :
Unlike the land surface, the atmosphere showed no warming trend
TREND – admittedly he didn’t specify the time period over which he measured his trend; but he most definitely did not say there was no warming.
and then you say
/quote
Not sure why he persists is such sweeping statements when the data records clearly contradict him.
/end quote
Lets see – he takes some specific examples of data series that do SHOW NO WARMING :
/quote Dr SInger
And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called “proxies”: tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. They don’t show any global warming since 1940!
/end quote Dr SInger.
I would say the data records support a statement of NO WARMING; and also he asks the very important question – what trends did the MISSING data show ? We can be very sure if the missing data showed a warming trend it would have been included. So would it be unreasonable to presume the missing data shows no warming ?
@ur momisugly Julienne Stroeve
And your links to the data records / evidence of the warming you refer to…
I still want to know what the H-E-double-hockey-sticks the straight average of an intensive variable like temperature means.
Hey Julienne! I never got a response from our last encounter. Wonder why? Well let’s not dwell in the past.
Regarding the land surface GISS temperatures…
“The slight upward temperature trend observed in the average temperature of all
stations disappears entirely if the input data is restricted to long-running stations only, that is those stations that have reported monthly averages for at least one month in every year from 1900 to 2000. This discrepancy remains to be explained.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtually-flat-century-scale-trend/
Examples…
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425745560020&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425724390020&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425745560040&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425745600010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
So clearly there is no global warming.
peter_dtm says: October 26, 2011 at 11:15 am
“Unlike the land surface, the atmosphere showed no warming trend”
TREND – admittedly he didn’t specify the time period over which he measured his trend; but he most definitely did not say there was no warming.
Uh, just what are you defining “trend” as meaning?
jakers says:
October 26, 2011 at 12:28 pm
peter_dtm says: October 26, 2011 at 11:15 am
“Unlike the land surface, the atmosphere showed no warming trend”
TREND – admittedly he didn’t specify the time period over which he measured his trend; but he most definitely did not say there was no warming.
Uh, just what are you defining “trend” as meaning?
//end quote
I guess in this case I can use wiki ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_estimation
Trend estimation is a statistical technique to aid interpretation of data. When a series of measurements of a process are treated as a time series, trend estimation can be used to make and justify statements about tendencies in the data.
Which I PRESUME is what Dr S would mean –
So in this case – over some indeterminate time; the data does not appear to have a tendency to indicate warming.
So it is quite possible to have quite noticeable warming – but no overall trend – think of a sine curve over 3600 degrees – there is no observable trend towards either an increase from the start point or a decrease from the start point.. Of course over 10 degrees; you may notice :
no trend as the curve is flat (min/max @90 degrees or 270 degrees)
rapidly rising trend (0/360 degrees)
rapidly falling (180 degrees)
everything in between
OR he could have meant this
Trend line
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Trend line (disambiguation))
Trend line can refer to:
Linear regression in mathematics. which links here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression
which for the parameters being discussed would imply a trend over time and still allows for periods of warming and periods of cooling – with a final trend of …. no warming
but as I said – he didn’t indicate what time period was used.
Just what did you think that statement meant ?
peter stone says:
October 26, 2011 at 6:08 am
“Fred Singer: “And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called “proxies”: tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. THEY DON’T SHOW ANY GLOBAL WARMING SINCE 1940!”
*****************************************************************************************************
That’s odd. Mere days ago, bloggers and participants on skeptics blogs suddenly proclaimed the they “knew all along” the earth was warming, as confirmed by the BEST, NASA, HadCRU, and NOAA reconstruction. And that their “only”complaint was attribution of warming to human sources. “Only” was the word of choice of many prominent skeptics.
Now were back to skeptics cheering on Mr. Singer, who proclaims there hasn’t been any warming?
These sudden movements of goal posts over a few days time are inconsistent. Both of these skeptics claims can’t possibly be true simultaneously.”
Peter Stone,
Have not heard of the “hide the decline” issue with respect to proxy reconstructions? Hence the devious truncation of recent temperature reconstructions that are not on message (showing divergence from thermometer records). So Singer claims the “so called” proxies show no warming since 1940. These are not Singer’s proxies and reconstructions; Singer is just making a point that all is not well in the temperature reconstruction business. We have BEST showing a net warming since 1800 but with 1/3 of records showing cooling; how reassuring is that? Setting the temperature reconstructions aside, there is sufficient anecdotal evidence to suspect that the earth has warmed since the little ice age but many reasons to suspect the allegedly more precise reconstructions of global average temperature. We also need time to digest BEST to see if it actually is “best”.
Robert Austin says:
October 26, 2011 at 1:46 pm
We also need time to digest BEST to see if it actually is “best”.
I’m with you, Robert –
we, here on WUWT at least, should not call it “BEST” (Berkely Earth Surface Temperature).
Better to call it “Berkeley EST”.
The “BEST” acronym is highly misleading, in my opinion.
So, we also need time to digest Berkeley EST to see if it actually is “best”.
I’m leaning more toward BeSt.
richardjamestelford says:
October 26, 2011 at 2:44 am
I thought Watts wrote that sceptics didn’t dispute that the climate was warming, but then Singer writes “atmosphere showed no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites”
This is simply not true. Satellite data for the mid-troposphere shows a clear warming trend since 1979. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
________________________________
It depends on the context and that is where the propaganda comes in. Seems the Devil is in the details which is why Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing @ur momisugly University of Pennsylvania wrote up a study Bafflegab Pays He has researched the peer review process and written several other papers.
1970 to 1999 – slightly warming
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/gw-us-1999-2011-hansen.gif
NOAA adjustment chart) http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif
Discussions:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/16/the-past-is-not-what-it-used-to-be-gw-tiger-tale/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/15/controversial-nasa-temperature-graphic-morphs-into-garbled-mess/
Interesting alternate data set: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/ruti-global-land-temperatures-1880-2010-part-1-244.php
21st century – pretty much flat
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif
last 6000-8000 years – cooling
http://www.biocab.org/holocene.html
last 0.03 million years – sharply warming
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/9484/lasticeageglant.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/20kyr_fig1.jpg
Dr. Singer is not engaging in bafflegab. Thank you Dr. Singer