Looks like another GISS miss, more than a few people are getting fed up with Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt and their climate shenanigans. Some very prominent NASA voices speak out in a scathing letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.. When Chris Kraft, the man who presided over NASA’s finest hour, and the engineering miracle of saving Apollo 13 speaks, people listen. UPDATE: I’ve added a poll at the end of this story.
See also: The Right Stuff: what the NASA astronauts say about global warming
Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.
H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.
“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
Select excerpts from the letter:
- “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
- “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
- “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
The full text of the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
===============================================================
hat tip to to Bob Ferguson, SPPI
UPDATE: I’ve added this poll:
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 14, 2012 at 2:13 am
“but they keep both front feet in the taxpayer trough, incessantly “adjusting” the temperature record on land, sea and satellites. ”
And more libelous smearing from user “Smokey”. Using cowardly the cover of anonymity for this.
So, which statement do you consider libelous, Doc — that NASA/GISS subsists on taxpayers’ money or that NASA/GISS keeps adjusting the temperature record?
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 14, 2012 at 2:13 am
The “argument” is logically fallacious because 1. the time period is too short.
It’s telling that the temperature time series in his plot starts at 1995, but he choose 1996.83 as start for the trend calculation.
So 15 years and 5 months of no warming is “too short”? It just happens to be the length of time that RSS has no slope. But exactly how long is long enough for you to conclude something is very wrong with the theory of CAGW?
Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
So for Phil Jones, even seven years of cooling appeared to be very troubling. Then when we had 10 years of no warming, we heard that it is possible in some of the models to have periods of 10 years where no warming occurs. However it is my understanding that virtually no models showed 15 years of no warming. And now that it has happened, you are saying the time is “too short”? Santer now says that 17 years is needed to really see what is going on.
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
Do you agree with Santer? The 15 years and 5 months of no warming represents 185/204 = 90.7% of 17 years. So that flat slope line does not have to go much further to reach 17 years. But what would happen when it reaches that point? Will the goal posts be moved again?
Werner Brozek says:
“But what would happen when it reaches that point? Will the goal posts be moved again?”
Of course. These people have no integrity. In addition to Hansen, Jones and Santer, that includes those posting here from NASA.
Werner Brozek wrote:
“So 15 years and 5 months of no warming is “too short”?”
To answer your question with “Yes” or “No” would mean to accept the premise in your question. But your claim that there had been no warming for “15 years and 5 months” doesn’t have any scientific validity. Do you know anything about trend analysis? If you do then you should know that a trend analysis needs to be statistically robust to allow a scientifically valid conclusion about the absence or presence of a statistically significant trend. It is not robust, if the result sensitively depends on including or excluding individual data points, which is still the case for the time period of the last 15 years. The last 15 years include the year 1998 in the beginning, the year of a very strong El Nino. This phenomenon of natural variability strongly affects the outcome of the trend analysis, particularly since there was an extended and deeper solar minimum as well as La Nina towards the end of the trend analysis. Excluding the data point of 1998 gives a very different result of the trend analysis. That is, the trend analysis is not robust yet.
I recommend once more to try an exercise. Draw the temperature record only from 1980 to 1995. It looks like there was “no warming” during this period. With the right choice of start and end year you can find other 15-year periods like the last ones with “no warming”. Nevertheless, the conclusion that there was no global warming during these periods is nonsense. The trend from the mid 1970s to today is statistically significant. But if you choose a too short time period the trend is masked by noise due to natural variability. This doesn’t mean the global warming trend isn’t there.
“But exactly how long is long enough for you to conclude something is very wrong with the theory of CAGW?”
How long? When a statistical trend analysis which is also robust gives results that are statistically significantly different to the results from the model projections. And if the difference couldn’t be explained by some other climate driver in the real world, which developed differently to the prescribed boundary conditions of the model projections, for which this hadn’t been taken into consideration. Then I would have to start to scratch my head about whether my understanding of the physics of climate had been wrong. In contrast, for instance, if suddenly a period of extremely intensive volcanism started on Earth, which filled the atmosphere with aerosols, having a strong cooling effect, this would probably throw off model projection that prescribed a different scenario in the boundary conditions. But that would not refute my understanding of the physics of climate, and the role of CO2 as greenhouse gas in it.
However, I’m not aware of any empirical evidence nowadays that would point to the conclusion a substantial revision of my understanding of the workings of the Earth system and the role of humankind as a factor significantly influencing climate (e.g., by increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere) was wanted.
“Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
[…]”
Quote without proof of source.
“So for Phil Jones, even seven years of cooling appeared to be very troubling.”
Is this what you read into this quote? Because in his alleged quote he says the “cooling” wasn’t statistically significant? Now that is a very free interpretation of what the quote says. Looks more like wishful thinking.
“Then when we had 10 years of no warming, we heard that it is possible in some of the models to have periods of 10 years where no warming occurs.”
Sources please for the alleged statements to which you are referring here. And which also show that what was said was a change in comparison to what had been said before. I do not discuss assertions that have the quality of mere rumors.
“However it is my understanding that virtually no models showed 15 years of no warming. And now that it has happened, you are saying the time is “too short”?”
I don’t know where you got your “understanding”, but if you assert there has appeared a contradiction between real world temperatures and model projections references for your assertions please. So far I don’t see any significant problems. So far the real world surface temperature record is well within the model variability. The comparison goes only until 2010, but 2011 doesn’t change this (2011 was the warmest La Nina year on record according to UK Met Office).
And the model projections don’t even take into account the prolonged and deeper solar minimum that occured in the real world. (A proper comparison between model projections and real world data would have to adjust for the difference between external forcings prescribed as lower boundary conditions and real world development of the external climate drivers, if one wants to evaluate the skills of the models to reproduce real climate).
“Santer now says that 17 years is needed to really see what is going on.
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html”
The link to the paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016263
You misrepresent what Santer says, if you assert that he made a normative statement with respect to that. It’s not a norm. It’s a conclusion he draws from analyzing the data. How long the data series needs to be “at least” before the signal emerges from the noise, and is not masked anymore.
“Do you agree with Santer?”
I haven’t done his analysis. So how am I supposed to decide whether I agree with the number of “17 years”? I only can register for me those results, and assume those are right until someone else publishes a paper that successfully refutes the results from Santer’s paper, or addition from new or revised data revises this number. I don’t see any obvious issues with his analysis, which would make me suspect there was something wrong with it.
“But what would happen when it reaches that point? Will the goal posts be moved again?”
It’s not a “goal post”, it’s not a norm that someone had arbitrarily decreed out of convenience. It’s what the statistical analysis Santer carried out has implied as conclusion. An analysis with the currently available data sets. Since those are limited, also this analysis has uncertainty. A change in the data sets on which Santer’s analysis was based may also change the outcome somewhat. And it’s certainly not a fixed point in time like exactly 17 years, 0 days, 0 hours, 0 minutes, and 1 second, and suddenly it was OK. It would be absurd to believe such a thing that it was like that.
[RC advertising deleted. Readers can find their link on the sidebar. ~dbs, mod.]
The last 15 years include the year 1998 in the beginning, the year of a very strong El Nino.
Well, yes. And the two years immediately following was prolonged and powerful La Nina. So much so that if you exclude BOTH the 1998 El Nino AND the 1999 – 2000 La Nina, the trend is toward distinctly pronounced cooling, using HadCRUt3.
This phenomenon of natural variability strongly affects the outcome of the trend analysis,
Yes, almost (but not quite) as much as the 1999 – 2000 La Nina.
particularly since there was an extended and deeper solar minimum as well as La Nina towards the end of the trend analysis.
Yes, the 2008 la Nina. Short and sharp. Which was followed immediately by the prolonged and very powerful 2009 – 2010 El Nino, which came very close to breaking (and, according to some, actually broke) the observed surface record for 2010.
Excluding the data point of 1998 gives a very different result of the trend analysis. That is, the trend analysis is not robust yet.
Well, you weren’t thinking of EXcluding the 1998 El Nino and INcluding the 1999 – 2000 La Nina, were you?
If you want to avoid the endpoint error, either start in 1997 (15 years ago, as it turns out) BEFORE the 1998 El Nino and include both El and La. Or else start in 2001, AFTER both El and La.
BTW, if you start in 2001, you’ll find a cooler HadCRUt3 trend than if you start 15 years ago.
Oh, yeah, and did anyone point out that 1979 to 2007 was a positive PDO, which includes a strong warming skew? So, yeah, the last 30 years of warming need to include a strong, entirely natural warming and subtract that from anything anthropogenic . . .
1997 – 2012, including both 1998 El Nino and 1999 – 2000 La Nina:
2001 – 2012, excluding both 1998 El Nino and 1999 – 2000 La Nina:
And this (2001 – 2011) excludes the current La Nina and includes both the 2008 La Nina and the 2009 – 2010 El Nino.
In Jan’s defense, I would point out that one really needs 30 years to get out of the fuzz of the error bars — but one also has to beware overweighting periods of positive and negative PDO (et al.), which are also roughly 30 year half-cycles.
Looking at the last 30 years, for example, includes 25 years of Positive PDO and five years of Neutral/Early Negative PDO. So there will be a strong natural warming bias that needs to be accounted for.
Werner Brozek,
That is some amazing tap dancing that Mr. Perlwitz is doing, no? So instead of these short term trends, let’s look at the long term natural warming trend since the LIA.
No doubt Mr. perlwitz will start jumping up and down at this point, saying, “But… but… that’s just one temperature record!” OK then, here are seven more long term records showing the same natural warming trend.
The long term trend since the LIA — one of the coldest episodes of the Holocene — has remained within the same parameters since CO2 was ≈285 ppmv. As we see, the rise in harmless, beneficial CO2 has had no measurable effect on the long term trend. The null hypothesis requires that the long term trend must break out of its upper band in order to falsify the null. That has not happened.
The reason these climate charlatans use zero baseline charts is easy to understand: they create an artifact that looks deceptively like a hockey stick. Arbitrary baseline charts fool the eye. That is why for long term trends, a trend line must be used to avoid the zero baseline artefact. Using a trend line chart [the green line], we can now see that there is nothing unusual happening. There has been no acceleration of temperatures. The very same rises have happened repeatedly whether CO2 was low or high, as even Phil Jones was forced to acknowledge. Therefore, CO2 has little if any effect on temperature. QED
These self-serving scientists have been trained with grant funds the way Pavlov’s dogs were trained with dog biscuits. The chicanery of using arbitrary baseline charts is done for only one reason: to alarm the public, and thus keep these charlatans’ tickets punched on their grant gravy train. It is the same chicanery used to color temperature maps bright red… when temperatures are only in the 70’s. This kind of corruption is now endemic to all government agencies. The motive is easy to understand; the dishonesty is not.
And even the IPCC now admits that CO2=CAGW is a scam:
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
~ Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC Co-Chair, WG-3.
That is a straight out admission of corruption. They use their climate alarmist cover story the same way that NASA does: to falsely alarm the public. Despicable.
evanmjones, you wrote:
“Well, yes. And the two years immediately following was prolonged and powerful La Nina. So
much so that if you exclude BOTH the 1998 El Nino AND the 1999 – 2000 La Nina, the trend is toward distinctly pronounced cooling, using HadCRUt3.”
Thank you for confirming my argument that a trend analysis on such short time scales is not statistically robust so that no scientifically valid conclusion about the absence of presence of a warming trend (or cooling trend for the matter of fact) can be drawn based on a trend analyses using such a limited data set.
“Yes, the 2008 la Nina. Short and sharp. Which was followed immediately by the prolonged and very powerful 2009 – 2010 El Nino, which came very close to breaking (and, according to some, actually broke) the observed surface record for 2010.”
And then the El Nino 2011 again, which lasted into 2012. But again, thank you for confirming here as well what I said.
“Well, you weren’t thinking of EXcluding the 1998 El Nino and INcluding the 1999 – 2000 La Nina, were you?”
Excluding/including it for what?
“If you want to avoid the endpoint error, either start in 1997 (15 years ago, as it turns out) BEFORE the 1998 El Nino and include both El and La. Or else start in 2001 and start AFTER both El and La.”
Neither of your propositions provides any statistically robust results from the trend analysis, as you yourself have confirmed above. Therefore, no scientifically valid conclusions about the trend could be drawn from such a trend analysis.
“Oh, yeah, and did anyone point out that 1979 to 2007 was a positive PDO, which includes a strong warming skew? So, yeah, the last 30 years of warming need to include a strong, entirely natural warming and subtract that from anything anthropogenic . . .”
Says who and where using what scientific evidence? And no, referencing yourself is not a valid answer, except you can reference a peer reviewed scientific publications that you wrote.
Although the attribution question would not be relevant for diagnosing whether there was a warming.
Thank you for confirming my argument that a trend analysis on such short time scales is not statistically robust so that no scientifically valid conclusion about the absence of presence of a warming trend (or cooling trend for the matter of fact) can be drawn based on a trend analyses using such a limited data set.
Yes, I do confirm that.
Yet one can minimize the effects by excluding anomalies or including counter-anomalies.
For example, I would definitely conclude that 1983 to 1998 was a period of warming in spite of the fact that it is a mere 15-year period. (Albeit 100% during positive PDO.)
Likewise, I would say that there was — probably — very little (if any) warming for the last 15 years. (10 years of Positive PDO, 5 years of Neutral/negative PDO.) While freely conceding that a 15-year interval is too short a time to speak with “robust” certainty.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 14, 2012 at 2:18 am
Oops, the last quote I commented wasn’t from anonymous user “Smokey”, it was from anonymous user “Babsy”. But since they are lookalikes, and “Smokey’s” comment does similar smearing, it doesn’t really matter.
===========
Taking the high road, I see.
Thank you very much for all comments from Jan P. Perlwitz, evanmjones and Smokey!
I will try not to repeat anything that was said already, but I will comment on a few things.
Jan says
“Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
[…]”
Quote without proof of source.
I must confess to be a bit puzzled by this request as I thought it was a well known quote from the climategate emails. Normally I DO give the source but I double check things and this time my source gave an error message. So now I googled “The scientific community would come down” and the following came up first: http://mnichopolis.hubpages.com/hub/ClimateGate-The-Smoking-Gun-email
As to why I thought he was troubled, he did say “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms….” But my interpretation is not relevant.
“Then when we had 10 years of no warming, we heard that it is possible in some of the models to have periods of 10 years where no warming occurs.”
Sources please for the alleged statements to which you are referring here.
I am REALLY puzzled by this request for sources since you gave me the following source:
The link to the paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016263
And the first thing it says is:
“Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale
Key Points
Models run with human forcing can produce 10-year periods with little warming”
As far as I can see, this is what I said above unless there is some subtlety that I am missing.
As for whether 15 or 17 or any other number of years is enough, I think it should be 60 years due to the well known 60 year cycle shown here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
To me, the 15 years of no warming is just a confirmation that the 60 year cycle is still dominating things and not the CO2 increase. See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1952/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1952/trend
slope = 0.011725 per year
So this turns out to be 1.175 per century. And assuming we have warmed 0.80 C so far and that we can go up 2 C before running into trouble, it would take another century before we hit an increase of 2 C. I do not believe a 2 C increase is that bad but that is another matter.
From a different response:
“Well, you weren’t thinking of EXcluding the 1998 El Nino and INcluding the 1999 – 2000 La Nina, were you?”
Excluding/including it for what?
See the following. A straight line appears with or without the El Nino due to the cancelling effects of La Nina(s):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend
“Well, you weren’t thinking of EXcluding the 1998 El Nino and INcluding the 1999 – 2000 La Nina, were you?”
Excluding/including it for what?
Meaning you can’t start in 1999 or 2000 without a serious endpoint error. You have to either include both the 1998 El Nino and the 2000 – 2001 La Nina or exclude both.
“Oh, yeah, and did anyone point out that 1979 to 2007 was a positive PDO, which includes a strong warming skew? So, yeah, the last 30 years of warming need to include a strong, entirely natural warming and subtract that from anything anthropogenic . . .”
Says who and where using what scientific evidence?
Oh, dear. You don’t know the PDO is a strong natural warming interval and that it went positive in the mid-to-late late 1970s and is believed to have turned the corner in 2007?
Well, that can be easily remedied. Just Google “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” and read up on it.
And no, referencing yourself is not a valid answer, except you can reference a peer reviewed scientific publications that you wrote.
*grin*
There are more co-authors of peer reviewed papers here than you might suspect . . .
Mr. Perlwitz, FYI most if not all the moderators know my identity. Therefore I don’t qualify as being anonymous. I’m only anonymous to you [and to Babsy, who I don’t know either. But she doesn’t mind, while you do]. Our site host knows my name, my address, and my phone number, and we’ve met several times over the past few years. But it tickles me that you’re so fixated on Smokey, rather than on Smokey’s arguments. If you qualified, you would know my identity too. Sadly, you don’t have a need to know.☹
Now, about my testable, falsifiable hypothesis that you’re doing your best to ignore, and which is at the center of the entire debate. If you can’t falsify this hypothesis per the scientific method, then your CO2 argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy is deconstructed:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
Only testable, verifiable evidence of global harm due specifically to CO2, please; no computer models and no “what-if” conjectures. No circular arguments citing papers that cite other papers that cite the original authors’ cited opinions. If a paper uses a model to arrive at conclusions it is not evidence, it’s that simple. Verifiable raw data showing that rising, anthropogenic CO2 exclusively has caused global harm is necessary to falsify the hypothesis. Quantify how much damage was done, using verifiable, testable measurements. Full transparency of all methods, code, methodologies and metadata to be provided upon request. Otherwise the scientific method cannot be applied because the data and methods cannot be replicated. No Michael Mann obfuscation allowed.
Climate ‘science’ as practiced by people who ignore the scientific method doesn’t fly here at the internet’s “Best Science” site, where the scientific method trumps opinions, models, and pal reviewed papers. So give it your best shot. And remember the adage: silence is concurrence.☺
And then the El Nino 2011 again, which lasted into 2012. But again, thank you for confirming here as well what I said.
I think you mean “La Nina”. But, yes, the final graph I posted above does indeed exclude the 2011 La Nina. Still no perceptible warming.
And, yes, I certainly reconfirm that a 10-year period is not particularly robust.
So, what we have is a 15-year period of non-robust indication of flatline and an 11-year non-robust indication of cooling at the same rate the 20th century is alleged to have warmed (i.e., using HadCRUt3 “adjusted” data).
Evan,
Do you know why the La Nina doesn’t show up in SSTs? [SSTs are Bob Tisdale’s specialty, not mine.]
u.k.(us) says:
April 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 14, 2012 at 2:18 am
Oops, the last quote I commented wasn’t from anonymous user “Smokey”, it was from anonymous user “Babsy”. But since they are lookalikes, and “Smokey’s” comment does similar smearing, it doesn’t really matter.
===========
Taking the high road, I see.
Helps him to duck the question of *which* of Babs’ statements he considered libelous — that NASA/GISS is taxpayer funded or that NASA/GISS keeps adjusting the temperature record…
The article is clearly bogus. Has anyone contacted any of the “retired” signers of this supposed document?
John:
A NASA spokesman has replied to the “supposed document” so it is not “clearly bogus”.
However, the same cannot be said of you.
Richard
evanmjones says:
You made clear and accurate statements concerning the PDO to which Jan P. Perlwitz responded with the question;
“Says who and where using what scientific evidence?”
At April 14, 2012 at 8:21 pm you replied to that question saying;
“Oh, dear. You don’t know the PDO is a strong natural warming interval and that it went positive in the mid-to-late late 1970s and is believed to have turned the corner in 2007?
Well, that can be easily remedied. Just Google “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” and read up on it.”
Allow me to explain the problem for you.
You are using the pre-climate-science view that science is about understanding the natural world.
Climate-science practitioners use the post-normal method of studying models which they construct from their opinions, beliefs and prejudices.
The climate models do not emulate the PDO and, therefore, climate modellers don’t know of it or think it does not exist.
I hope that you comprehend this because there are people in the post-modern world who assert that those of us who adhere to the pre-climate-science view should be subjected to ‘treatment’.
Richard
Odd.
Google “jan perlwitz columbia giss nasa” for “Images” …
You find 11 propaganda (er, ABCNNBCBS news) photo’s of Hansen. And not a single one of any Dr Perlwitz.
Now, I admire this supposed scientist’s zeal and enthusiasm for promoting his/her job, livelihood, promotions, and so strongly her/his boss’s promotions and future employment and continued funding for their self-centered computers and programming budgets. (All must admit it is notable that it is only the government-funded and NGO (tax exempt) self-called “scientists” and “scientific agencies” who are most strongly demanding that so many million non-government taxpayers – who must actually produce a real product or service is actually “wanted” by the public – pay ever and ever more for the government’s self-interest and perpetual salaries increases and power.)
Further, it is “interesting” to observe the fact that it is government employees who most strongly claim “evil oil” contributions or “profit-seeking” companies MUST be behind the mythical “conspiracy” to fight the (false) claims common in the CAGW dogma of catastrophic man-caused global warming.
See, if what they claim is true – that oil money corrupts or sponsors the fight against “pure science” of the CAGW religion – then they must have some evidence of money corrupting science.
So, if they have evidence of money corrupting “science”, then they must have seen money corrupt “science”, or have heard of cases of money and power and politics corrupting “science”.
But, ALL OF THE MONEY IS FUNDING the CAGW MONOPOLY … A monopoly that dominates the universities, the Congress, the “science” organizations in London, Washington and Brussels, and ALL of the government agencies. And the so-called peer-reviewed journals.
So therefore, by making their false claims about the corruption of “evil oil money”, they are proving their own corruption and their own dishonesty.
Because 200 billion of corrupting government monies is their own money.
1.3 trillion of power and corrupting new tax monies are their own money.
Power.
Influence.
Religion.
RACookPE1978,
Great comment. The only [small] change I would make would be to reverse the order of:
Power
Influence
Religion
The demonization of harmless, beneficial CO2 is a main tenet of the alarmist religion. Every religion need a devil. The problem is that CO2 is not the climate’s “control knob”, as A. Lacis preposterously asserts. There is zero empirical evidence for that belief, yet Lacis expresses it as a given.
And Richard Courtney hit the nail on the head with the distinction between normal science [based on the scientific method], and post-normal ‘science’, which is not science at all, but simply partisan advocacy which cannot withstand the scientific method, as we see from Perlwitz’ hiding out from the straightforward challenge to try and falsify the testable hypothesis that the rise in CO2 is both harmless and beneficial.
When faced with the central global warming argument over “carbon”, the alarmist crowd, led by Lacis and Perlwitz, heads for the hills. That fact alone should make it clear that their religious belief in a CO2 ‘control knob’ is utter nonsense.
But I thank Perlwitz and Lacis for adding to WUWT’s traffic numbers; 447 comments on this thread alone, and counting. Now if only they would try to defend their true belief in the demon ‘carbon’, readers could then decide for themselves the level of climate alarmist credibility. But the fact that they hide out from engaging shows that their religion pays homage to a false god. In other words: they’re in it for the money.
RACookPE1978 says:
April 15, 2012 at 12:35 am
Odd.
Google “jan perlwitz columbia giss nasa” for “Images” …
You find 11 propaganda (er, ABCNNBCBS news) photo’s of Hansen. And not a single one of any Dr Perlwitz.
Maybe he’s just shy. He has a lot of papers on his CV, though. Nineteen of ’em — all based on modeling and simulations.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/janperlwitz.html
The perfessor inhabits an ivory tower and it has no windows — just computer screens…
Richard S Courtney wrote April 15, 2012 at 12:03 am:
“You made clear and accurate statements concerning the PDO to which Jan P. Perlwitz
responded with the question;
“Says who and where using what scientific evidence?”
At April 14, 2012 at 8:21 pm you replied to that question saying;
“Oh, dear. You don’t know the PDO is a strong natural warming interval and that it went positive in the mid-to-late late 1970s and is believed to have turned the corner in 2007?
Well, that can be easily remedied. Just Google “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” and read up on it.”
Allow me to explain the problem for you.”
Ha ha, is this one of the alleged “scientific arguments” in this alleged “scientific blog”? When I ask for the scientific references where the scientific evidence can be found for the assertion that a large contribution of the warming since the mid 70ies or so comes from PDO as natural phenomenon, I am told to “Google”? Right.
“You are using the pre-climate-science view that science is about understanding the natural world.
Climate-science practitioners use the post-normal method of studying models which they construct from their opinions, beliefs and prejudices.”
And this is another one of the alleged “scientific arguments”? It’s an opinion statement where you make an assertion about how I allegedly would view science and construct models. An ad hominem assertion that comes without evidence.
Nice to see how you yourself expose your previous claims about how this was a “scientific blog” whith “scientific arguments” as nonsene with your own contributions. This is an opinion blog, not a science blog. There are no valid scientific standards here. Good job!
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 15, 2012 at 6:43 am
Nice to see how you yourself expose your previous claims about how this was a “scientific blog” whith “scientific arguments” as nonsene with your own contributions. This is an opinion blog, not a science blog. There are no valid scientific standards here. Good job!
If WUWT is such a piece of crap why are you here? To learn if
E=MC2
and
dF= 5.35 X ln C/Co W m-2
are laboratory testable hypotheses?