Peter Miesler Helps Expose USHCN Homogenization Insanity and Antarctic Illusions.

Guest essay by Jim Steele

I was recently notified, by a colleague familiar with my wildlife and restoration work in the Sierra Nevada, that a “whacko” was portraying my graph of temperature trends at Yosemite and Antarctica’s Dumont D’Durville as fraudulent. The skeptic basher had written, “A little research proved the numbers on this WUWT/Steele graph are wrong for “Yosemite.” Similarly, in an attempt to smear a segment of my IEEE presentation demonstrating the Emperor Penguins were not endangered, he sniped,Then Steele produces a homemade graph. The “real data“? I think not ! In fact, I have reason to believe it’s another one of Steele’s tricks intended to deceive the unskeptical.” Yet like a little bit of knowledge, a “little research” is a dangerous thing.

The “whacko” blogger turns out to be Peter Miesler. Anyone familiar with Miesler understands he is the most unlikely person to uncover global warming deception. Miesler is one of Anthony Watts’ blog spawn, (aka various versions of “CitizenChallenged,” many versions due to being banned from several sites for slanderous comments) and authors a small website from Durango CO called WhatsUpWithThatWatts et al., dedicated to assassinating the character of any and all skeptics. Slandering Sou is one of Miesler’s mentors and ally, and together they comprise the most rabid and dishonest of all bloggers I call the “Purveyors of Pernicious Prattle”. Miesler lacks any scientific training (and apparently lacks any scientific understanding) but is driven by politics writing, “Steele’s only intention seems to be feeding the Republican/Libertarian meme that scientists should not be trusted and that the under-educated should keep the “debate” alive, even though they don’t know or care for learning about the full spectrum of facts at hand.” (In truth my intention is to expose bad science, so we can be better advised by good science.)

clip_image002

Miesler’s helpful role in the climate debates is more analogous to Gollum in Lord of the Rings, whose demented obsessions accidentally turned the tide of evil. Like so many alarmists, any climate scientist who has suggested CO2 warming has been detrimental to wildlife becomes “Precious” to Miesler. Thus by presenting evidence that contradicts their precious gloom and doom, my analyses are uncritically viewed as lies sponsored by some rightwing conspiracy.

Below is the Yosemite graph under attack. I had published this graph in my book in 2013 and noted the data had been downloaded from the US Historical Network (USHCN) in 2012. I have linked to this graph in a few internet articles such as one I posted to Watts-Up-With-That, in which I debunked Camille Parmesan’s seminal paper in which she argued global warming had exterminated several populations of the Edith’s Checkerspot Butterfly. A cooling trend since the 30s in maximum temperatures for California’s montane regions was one of many pieces of evidence contradicting her global warming scenario. Nonetheless she was fast-tracked to be one of just 4 biologists on the IPCC. Since debunking Parmesan, Miesler has been obsessed with slandering me whenever he can.

I do not want to waste too much time on Miesler’s slander. But people searching for links to my work do see his tirades. He often tries to spam any serious debates at other websites. Hopefully for those similarly attacked, posting a link to this post will provide the proper framework and expose his vacuous tactics. Any risk of increasing traffic to his website will likely be more beneficial as his Gollum-esque traits have been readily apparent. For example, Dr. Paul Opler (the first invertebrate specialist for the Endangered Species Act) was included in an email discussing how to deal with “Steele”, sent by Slandering Sou and Miesler to Cook at SkepticalScience, Climate Progress, and Dr. Singer (who hoist Sou by her own petard). Opler forwarded the email to me simply saying, “You must be coming awfully close to the truth!”

clip_image004

I have referred to Yosemite’s temperature trend (in my IEEE presentation that Miesler has become obsessed with slandering) because it represented similar trends recorded in USHCN data throughout montane California, from the north at Mt Shasta in the Cascades, to Lake Tahoe (where my research was focused) and south to Death Valley. Likewise the peak warming in the 20s and 30s supported past analyses of California’s climatologist illustrating California’s rural counties had not experienced any warming that exceeded the 30s.

The poet William Shenstone wrote, “A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood.” Meisler is now on a mission to transform any and all skeptic truths into a falsehoods. My Yosemite graph was created purely from data downloaded from the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) in January of 2012. Anyone (scientist or layperson), familiar with the climate data issues knows immediately that the USHCN data is a good place to compare temperature data, but Miesler’s “little research” apparently never looked in the most obvious place. So Miesler emailed the folks at the Western Regional Climate Center and their climatologist replied, “I can tell you this is not our graph nor is the data correct” and that was enough for Miesler to suggest the Yosemite graph was fraudulent. But the data is most definitely correct, if USHCN is to be trusted.

As seen in the Yosemite graph below, and downloaded from the USHCN website January 1, 2015, the trend is nearly identical to my “WUWT/Steele” graph. However because my Sierra Nevada research focused on snow pack and watershed effects, I had downloaded the USHCN data for the hydrological year, which extends from October of one year to September of the next. Thus the “year” in my graph refers to the later months (from January to September). The hydrological year slightly shifts temperature peaks and valleys seen in a January to December trend, which maybe why WRCC mistakenly thought my data was incorrect. Still the trend is very much the same, very accurate, and totally supports my assertion: Maximum temperatures have not risen since the 30s! If maximum temperatures have not exceeded that earlier peak, CO2 has not caused any regional “accumulation of heat” due to the hypothesized radiative imbalance; and Parmesan is still very wrong for suggesting global warming was extirpating butterflies.

clip_image006

The WRCC climatologists correctly noted Yosemite’s raw data was not available until 1907, but USHCN’s adjusted data always starts in the 1890s. Since those earliest temperatures are merely modeled from data presumably collected elsewhere, early temperatures are susceptible to the “modeling whim du jour” and in this case the 2015 model had created a steeper 20th century warming trend in just 2 years. I finally realized the USHCN is perpetually altering temperature trends.

I had naively assumed that after the publication of Menne (2009), that USHCN trends published after 2009 would remain fixed because data had been quality controlled for all known changes in location and instrumentation and further homogenized whenever Menne’s algorithm assumed a changing trend might not be natural. Anthony Watts, myself and many others have questioned the distortions created by homogenization and have warned about resulting warming biases. One reason for questioning Menne’s fsulting bias, is evidenced when his homogenization algorithm minimized/eliminated a well-documented 20th century cooling trend in the south eastern portion of the USA. It is ironic that while Menne’s algorithm slowly eliminates a cooling trend in the original data, simultaneously southern USA is increasingly setting more record lows and more record lows are predicted for 2015. (With freezing temperatures in Jacksonville Florida will mangroves “flee” southward contradicting a previous bogus publication that global warming was moving mangroves northward?)

As an ecologist, I never trusted homogenized USHCN data because it alters trends in local mean temperature and removes local variability in an attempt to extract a presumed “real” climate trend. As Menne writes, “although homogenization generally ensures that climate trends can be more confidently inter-compared between sites, the effect of relative biases will still be reflected in the mean temperatures of homogenized series.” But Menne’s algorithm is definitely not ensuring reliable trends! Historical trends are dramatically reversing from warming to cooling in just over 2 years. After re-reading Menne (2004) I realized that USHCN data is updated monthly and fully reprocessed and adjusted for shifts from the recent past. Although tampering with raw data in other scientific disciplines results in retractions and disciplinary actions, Menne’s brand of science boasts, “Daily adjustments are thus a promising area for future HCN development.”

The bizarre consequences of USHCN’s monthly homogenization adjustments are seen by comparing changes in Death Valley’s maximum temperature trends over the past 2 years (solid black line). Adjustments were inflicted despite the fact the data had been quality controlled and adjusted several years before. The graph below (on the right) was published in may book in 2013 and also used in a post discussing how natural weather dynamics created Death Valley’s world-record high temperature long before CO2 concentrations had any significance. The new graph on the left was downloaded on January 2, 2015. Like so many “pesky” warming-peaks of the past that defy CO2 warming theory, USHCN’s algorithm is slowly whittling away at original temperature data that otherwise would reveal a more cyclical nature to climate change.

By what possible logic, would 2 years of additional data suddenly reverse a cooling trend since the 30s and create a warming trend? I suggest we need to ask Congress for a full investigation. (Hat tip to Miesler)

clip_image008

I have also posted that the drop in Emperor Penguin numbers at the “March of the Penguin’s” colony (adjacent to the French research station Dumont D’urville and affectionately called DuDu by the locals) was likely due to researcher disturbance and there has been no evidence of “global warming.” I repeated that claim in my IEEE presentation illustrating the data downloaded from the British Arctic Survey in the graph below. But suggesting no climate doom for Emperor Penguins threatened Mielser’s “precious” beliefs and like so many alarmists, Miesler refuses to accept any documented facts that “global warming” is neither global nor harmful. All organisms act locally and the global warming statistic is a chimera of many local dynamics. Like monatne California and much of the eastern USA, there has simply been no warming since the 1930s. Yet in total denial, Mielser seeks refuge in the delusion that DuDu’s temperature trends are just a skeptic’s trick. Seeking solace Mielser queried Dr. Ainley. But like his mentor, he was hoist by his own petard. Ainley’s graphs had falsely suggested warming was killing the Emperors.

clip_image010

Not only is my graph (above) verified by data from the British Arctic Survey, but at my request, the data illustrated in my graph is the reason Dr. Ainley removed his erroneous illustration (below-left) with the fallacious rising temperature arrow (blue) from his website penguinscience.com. (Ainley has now removed that graph from a web page, but unfortunately it still persists in his educational power point.) In what will surely drive Mielser to greater Gollum-esque depravity, Ainley’s earlier publication in 2005 also reveals Ainley knew all along that winter temperatures had been declining since 1970 as seen in his published graph below on the right. Yet desperately trying to parry documented truths , Miesler then uncritically copied and pasted text and graphs to attack me, but only revealed more misrepresentations by Ainley’s “educational” website and further illustrated Mielser’s biological ignorance. (Hat tip to Miesler)

clip_image013

Mielser could not believe that DuDu’s Emperors had stopped declining once flipper banding ended. He seems to also deny satellite data that shows the number of known Emperors has doubled in recent years. Desperate for precious examples of climate doom, Miesler unwisely switched his focus to the Antarctic Peninsula on the other side of the continent. Apparently he was unaware that the declining Adelies on the peninsula are a different species, or that Adelies act very differently than Emperors. But like DuDu’s Emperors, declines in Adelie Penguins are rare local events, restricted to about 5% of Antarctica’s coastline and best explained by changes in the win direction. Furthermore the most recent survey data published in 2014 shows Adelies have thrived under climate change, increasing their abundance in Antarctica by 53% since 1993.

clip_image015

But Mielser will cut and paste anything that has a hint of his precious climate doom. He posted Ainley’s other graph suggesting a correlation with rising peninsula temperatures and Adelie penguin declines. Ignorant of Adelie penguin biology and Antarctic climate change, Mielser didn’t realize that rising western peninsula temperature happen almost completely during the winter. But Adelie Penguins winter on ice floes north of the Antarctic Circle during the winter, and Ainely agrees warming winter trends on land have no biological significance for Adelies. And as discussed in a WUWT post, Paul Homewood posted the data for 2 western peninsula research stations showing no summer warming, the time when Adelies are on land breeding.

clip_image017clip_image019

Miesler further revealed his ignorance by mindlessly copying and pasting Ainley’s text that intimated dangerous warming. “In Antarctica’s far north (Anvers Island) air temperatures have become VERY warm and ice no longer forms on the sea.” Really??!!?? Lots of sea ice forms each year around Anvers Island. Researchers report that due to the changing winds, ice in that region forms a few weeks later and retreats a few weeks earlier, but there is still plenty of ice. So I dashed another email to Ainley requesting he correct that misinformation. Otherwise devotees of gloom and doom will continue to be misled. Although my constant corrections have strained our relationship, Ainley replied “I’m making changes to the penguinscience website to correct the sea ice persistence/prevalence issue along WAP

The fallacious alarmism surrounding the Emperor Penguins “imminent extinction” can be found in one of Miesler’s link to the Center of Biological Diversity. The CBD is the environmental legal outfit that sued the USA to list the polar bear and Emperor as endangered species due CO2 warming. The CBD wrote, “The Emperor colony at Terre Adelie in East Antarctica ”featured in the Academy Award-winning French documentary, March of the Penguins” plummeted by more than 50% in the late 1970s during a warm period with little sea ice cover, when adults died en masse. Because the sea ice continues to disintegrate, and the prolonged blizzards cause ongoing chick mortality, the colony has yet to recover.” And “When sea ice breaks up before their chicks have matured and grown their waterproof feathers, chicks that are swept into the ocean are likely to die.”

Yet there is absolutely no evidence Emperors “died en masse” or were even stressed. Sea ice is expanding to record extent and satellite pictures show lots of ice along the peninsula. Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence of local ice breakouts sweeping chicks to their death. At DuDu, there is only evidence of beneficial breakouts that allowed the penguins easier access to open waters to feed. When I asked Barbraud for evidence to support his published suggestions that devastating breakouts were killing chicks, he admitted, “evidence is hard to find”. (I posted our full email exchange in the comments section here.) Because there is absolutely no evidence for drowning chicks at DuDu, I suggested to Ainley, he also remove references to such events, but he is holding strong. Ainley’s peer reviewed publications, connecting global warming to the lack of recovering Emperors at DuDu, used drowning chicks as a likely reason. So unless Barbraud publishes a retraction, Ainley is holding strong to that illusion.

Although there is no excuse for the lies, distortions and rudeness posted by Mielser or Slandering Sou, I must sympathize to a limited degree. Their delusions have been supported by bad science from the USHCN and elsewhere, and when skeptics reveal the truth, it surely drives them mad.

Mark Twain astutely recognized, “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other.” And while Peter Miesler and Slandering Sou are iconic examples of this failing, Twain’s remarks should be a warning to us all.

clip_image021

Advertisements

230 thoughts on “Peter Miesler Helps Expose USHCN Homogenization Insanity and Antarctic Illusions.

  1. Miesler just needs to go on expedition with Chris Turney and discover the truth for himself.

    /s (mods told me to start using sarc tags)

      • Oh, yeah, right, Jimbo.
        ++++++++++++++++++++

        {heh, heh, you are in the “sarc” section :)}

    • Alan Robertson wrote:

      Miesler just needs to go on expedition with Chris Turney and discover the truth for himself.

      /s (mods told me to start using sarc tags)

      What on earth is wrong with the moderators? Do they think readers are too stupid to recognise sarcasm when they read it? “Sarc tags” are an utterly useless invention, worse even than canned laughter in so-called comedies. It completely destroys the point of sarcasm if you have to point out to all and sundry that you are being sarcastic, just as it completely destroys a joke if you have to tell people that it is a joke.

      [Reply: The problem is that a (not insignificant) fraction of the population just doesn’t get sarcasm. ~mod.]

      • Howdy Roy,
        Your point is appreciated and valid. Having personally been taken to task in these pages by readers who failed to get my sarcasm, the mod’s point is even more valid. Since I’m now wearing the new pair of smartypants that I got for Christmas…

      • A friend of mine was studying for an MBA some time ago. In a class on communication, the instructor passed on the tidbit that 80% of all communication is non-verbal. I don’t know how that number was derived, nor if it’s in the ballpark. However, I think we can generally agree that ALL the non-verbal cues, and a great many verbal ones (tone, etc) are completely wiped when using only the written word, unless one deliberately attempts to re-create them somehow. I say, “sarc” away!

      • Roy,

        The thing to remember is that sarcasm is easier to spot in person – where you have body language, inflection, and tone to go along with the words. In written form, it is somewhat harder to effectively communicate sarcasm with the lack of those visual and audial cues. the /sarc tag simply takes the place of those missing cues.

      • Roy
        January 8, 2015 at 1:27 am

        Alan Robertson wrote:

        Miesler just needs to go on expedition with Chris Turney and discover the truth for himself.

        /s (mods told me to start using sarc tags)

        What on earth is wrong with the moderators? Do they think readers are too stupid to recognise sarcasm when they read it?

        [Reply: The problem is that a (not insignificant) fraction of the population just doesn’t get sarcasm. ~mod.]

        And contributing to the problem is that those not familiar with the commenter may not realize the comment is meant as humor. Stupid things are often said in all seriousness.
        A sarc tag or at least a smiley face can make it clear to the reader that the commenter is having a bit of fun.

      • Stephen Rasey January 8, 2015 at 11:31 am
        Think of a sarc tag as a parity check.

        Is a parity check anything like a Sanity Clause?

      • Bill S — LOL.

        “Ooooh, yes there is,” says Just Some Troll, “he lives at the North Pole. All the models say it is so.”

        Trolls know these things.

        Elves, too.

  2. Many and varied “inconvenient truths” but not I think ones that Mr Gore would find easy to swallow!

    James Bull

  3. I experienced the same missionary zeal on a Lindblad/National Geographic Antarctic cruise early last year. James Balog of “Chasing Ice” fame was aboard and peppered us with his video and excerpts, and guest scientists did the same. When I asked probing questions and made contradicting statements to their presentations, they quickly cut me off to have later “private” discussions with me. Specifically, when I mentioned that most of the Greenland Jakobshavn glacier retreat that Balog famously videoed, and Muir Glacier in Glacier Bay, Al;asks, had occurred before 1950, they ducked out. When I brought up the greater warming of earlier periods – Holocene Optimum, Minoan, Roman, and Medieval – they said that it was different than current warming, but never explained what made it different. It’s hard to discuss science with True Believers.

    • majormike,

      Good info. If anyone is planning a similar ‘educational’ cruise, it would be a good idea to take along a few blow-ups of charts showing temperature, CO2, ice core data, etc.

      Don’t let them weasel out with excuses about meeting privately! Tell everyone there that the people present want to make up their minds based on all the available evidence, not just on one side’s. Point out that everyone has opinions, but scientific evidence is all that really counts.

      Hold their feet to the fire! Ask: where is the predicted runaway global warming? Where is any global warming?? What is wrong with another 2º warmer temperature? The planet has been much warmer than that in the past. Much, much colder, too. Why have NONE of the alarming predictions ever happened? At this point, they are crying “Wolf!” and it is no longer working. In fact, we are in one of the most benign, beneficial global climates in the entire climatological record. So why the endless, evidence-free doom and gloom?

      I would love going on a cruise like that! [my wife always vetoes it]. I would come fully prepared — and if I paid my money, I would not let them shut me up. Not without a refund!

      Truth is the downfall of the global warming scare. That’s why they don’t want any other points of view discussed. And that is exactly why we should provide our point of view.

      • “where is the predicted runaway global warming?” Reverse engineering has created job opportunities in government climate agencies in the US, UK and Australia. Why not fabricate data to support fabricated conclusions and projections?
        They cried wolf in the 80s, and at Rio there were many comments that the science didn’t matter because the plan was to use computer models. These are the same folks who wrote the algorithms showing a population meltdown due to resource depletion in the 70’s, and since it didn’t happen and their predictions are meaningless, and population growth has decreased, they still want to kill 95% of the people on earth and have the control of resources to enable them to make any population ‘unsustainable’.
        They control the media. I’ve seen comments asking “why aren’t scientists speaking out?”, but only on sites that censor the scientists who answer.

  4. “Their delusions have been supported by bad science from the USHCN and elsewhere, and when skeptics reveal the truth, it surely drives them mad …”.
    =======================
    LOL quite so, it’s the same with the 15+ years of temperature stasis.
    You’d think the news that penguins and butterflies are doing fine would make them happy.

    • homogenization is a form of noise reduction. All noise reduction introduces a (hopefully) small signal degradation along with the noise reduction. repeated homogenization of already homogenized data ensures that this small degradation accumulates in the result, so that in the end the resulting signal bears no resemblance to the actual signal.

      homogenization (noise reduction) should always be done using the original raw data. It should not be done using already homogenized data. That is why “Masters” are used when creating new “cleaned” or “re-mastered” versions of audio and video information.

      which would you think is more accurate:
      remaster(master)
      remaster(remaster(master))

      Why then should
      homogenized(homogenized(homogenized(homogenized(…(data)…))))
      be more accurate than:
      homogenized(data)

      wouldn’t any small errors introduced by homogenization come to dominate with repeated homogenization?

      • It seems the climatologists don’t like the wide variations in climate. Smoothe and homogenized doesn’t fit, actually, in the complex and chaotic nature of nature.

    • Scottish Skeptic did you know we were listed along with Anthony as 15 prominent global “climate skeptic converts” along with Margaret Thatcher, Matt Ridley (one of my favorite science writers who wrote Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters and Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, & What Makes Us Human), Patrick Moore cofounder of Greenpeace, Dr. Judith Curry a prominent climate scientists featured in Scientific American, James Lovelock who promoted the Gaia hypothesis, Daniel Botkin (a world-renowned ecologist, Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment), meteorologists Klaus-Eckart Puls and Anthony Watts, German environmentalist Fritz Vahrenholt, French hydrologists Jean-Louis Pinault, and prominent bloggers such as Australia’s Jo Nova, Mike Hasele, Verity Jones and Graham Strouts. https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/…/…/converts-to-scepticism/

  5. Yeah, Miesler is quite the character – although Miesler will readily admit that his knowledge is insufficient, and insist that any other layperson’s is as well, he insists that he is an expert at *picking* the experts.

    Moreover, he will also insist that he is an expert at picking the *interpretations* of experts. Since the whole anthropogenic global warming corpus includes predictions of all sorts, covering the entire range of possibilities (warmer, colder, less cyclonic activity, more cyclonic activity, droughts, floods, you name it), no matter *what* the observation, he’s got someone who predicted it, much like astrological charts :)

    The real problem is that the cornerstone of the scientific method, a necessary and sufficient hypothesis statement, is missing:

    1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean AGW is false;
    2) a logical argument that without those observations, the only remaining possibility is AGW (rather than the null).

    The response you’re going to get from him to this citizen’s challenge is going to be the following:

    – trivial falsifiability (rather then necessary and sufficient)
    – an attack on falsifiability as necessary (arguing with the scientific method itself)
    – appeal to authority (quite often to authorities that are trivially refuted)
    – ad hominem
    – the precautionary principle (without any thought to the adverse consequences of their proposed interventions)

    Miesler is a *believer*, interested in protecting the dogma of his faith – and nothing you can show him, from anyone, will convince him otherwise. The idea of falsifiability is the cure to this disease, but he willfully misunderstands what falsifiability is, and treats it like a check mark on his argument list, rather than a step on the path to understanding :)

    • The difference between knowledge and belief… is, unfortunately for believers, a form of knowledge.

    • krischel says:

      1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean AGW is false

      The problem is that after more than thirty years of searching by literally thousands of scientists, no one has ever found a single verifiable metric quantifying the fraction of AGW [out of total global warming] attributable to human CO2 emissions.

      That is very strange, no? Just about everything in science is quantified with measurements. If there are no measurements, the usual assumption is that a thing does not exist [see Langmuir’s Pathological Science].

      There are many thousands of observations. But none of them are enough to quantify AGW. That would seem to indicate that AGW — if it exists — is too minuscule to measure. Background noise is greater, and the background noise is on the order of hundreths of a degree.

      Finally, you are right about Peter Meisler. He is a True Believer; his On/Off switch is permanently wired On. The planet could enter another greart Ice Age, and Peter would be saying the same things. That’s belief for you. Martyrs will die to be right. That doesn’t mean they are.

    • The only good use I can think of for the Precautionary Principal is as a step for anyone considering using said principal. Then we’d be rid of the useless, logically inconsistent thing forever.

  6. Interesting post, Jim. While I agree with a lot of what you say, I have a bit of a problem with this part: “Still the trend is very much the same, very accurate, and totally supports my assertion: Maximum temperatures have not risen since the 30s! If maximum temperatures have not exceeded that earlier peak, CO2 has not caused any regional “accumulation of heat” due to the hypothesized radiative imbalance;…:”

    Your Yosemite graph shows that minimum temperature has in fact risen, while maximum temperature has not. It is hard to tell directly from viewing the graph whether the rise in minimum and the fall in maximum cancels each other – that my be the case. But my point is that accumulation of heat due to the rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will not necessarily lead to a rise in maximum temperatures. I believe it will for the most part lead to a rise in minimum temperatures, as the CO2-effect will also be working thorugh the night. If so, that would lead to an accumulation of heat, and a rise in mean temperature.

    That said, and again I have only looked at your graph and not run any numbers, the graph suggests that if there is any accumulation of heat it is small. That would be in line with other observational based assessments of climate sensitivity due to CO2.

    • Anders, the different behavior of the rising minimum could be due to increased moisture via El Ninos, land surface changes that hold the morning heat when and where minimums are measured, changes in the wind that lessen the pooling of cold morning air, or perhaps CO2. Whatever the cause of a higher early morning minimum, the lower afternoon maximum suggests the heat that causes the early morning warming was not stored. Averaging the two metrics can be misleading. Maximum temperature is the better metric of heat accumulation and that metric is not in line with CO2 theory.

      • There are certainly changes in the land around the measuring stations I’ve looked at. Have a look at the satellite images around a few of the stations, clearings for newish buildings and roads have been surfaced. Let alone the change in measurement method…

      • And where are the temperature sensors placed? Tree density has increased in the Sierra Nevada. Estimates are about ten times the stems per acre compared to the historical condition as described by John Muir. Today, it can be hard to find open spaces in unburned forests. Trees emit IR, enough to melt snow and reduce snowpack. Trees also increase sublimation of snow from branches, reducing effective precipitation, i.e. less runoff and groundwater. Perhaps increased transpiration in summer could lead to more clouds and higher minimum temperatures. There is plenty of unsettled science here.

      • I do have a beef with your minimum maximum temperature plots: You change the scale between left and right axes. Either make them the same scale, or (better) stack them, max plot above min plot, as two separated plots with same T scaling.

      • Surely the maximum temperature is also more likely to the the factor in stress on a population caused by warming. If warm is a problem, then first look at the warmest part of the day!

      • Some what apples to oranges to focus on trends in maximum temperature when AGW focuses on mean temperature. Though I do think your analysis is more relevant to the topic of climate change. Accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere should create a positive trend in minimum temperatures as it slows cooling of the surface. However, sunlight is 50% IR also so it should create a negative trend in positive temperatures via increased blocking of solar heat from reaching the surface. Both effects seem apparent in your Yosemite graph.

        Bottom line is if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere like on the moon, daytime high temperatures at the equator in the spring and fall would exceed the boiling point of water and of course nighttime temperatures would plunge far below freezing.

        Most of this is due to water vapor and not CO2 but we should expect some climate change from increasing levels of CO2. The big question however is if that is a good thing or a bad thing. More moderate temperatures directly will likely save lives but one cannot predict what sorts of negative changes might occur. Fact is the world is a relatively cold place from the perspective of humans and that can be verified by regional patterns of population density.

      • Jim Steele:
        You are indeed correct that increased humidity would account for the trend showing rising tmin and decreasing tmax.
        In fact, that is the only explanation that accounts for such a trend, in my view.

    • “….If so, that would lead to an accumulation of heat, and a rise in mean temperature”
      ////////////////////

      Whilst I accept your point about an increase in the mean 24 hour temperature, can it truly be said to amount to an accumulation, if the higher nightime lows, which causes the day to start off with a higher initial temperature, does not result in the daytime max being increased? Where is the accumulation of heat?

      It is difficult to envisage a scenario where a modest increase in nighttime lows, which does not cause daytime highs to increase, could be detrimental to the survival of species.

      .

      • Though I can’t find a reference at present, I seem to remember something (bee colony infections?) where insufficiently low minimums to kill off the parasites over winter could damage a population.

      • Coldest just before the dawn. An hourly temp trace would likely show that in the “warming” evening (warmest just after sunset) this warmth is extended, perhaps several hours, but before dawn, it has essentially finally dissipated. I admit to a priori type reasoning here [the kind clever teenagers have to use because of lack of experience].

      • @ Gary Pearse
        Do you mean something like this?

        (my backyard, location coastal NSW, Australia. Screen-capped just before posting)

        BTW, if anyone is interested in what the program above is, it’s Sandaysoft Cumulus available FREE from here; http://sandaysoft.com/ . It will work on most home weather stations.

    • CO2 does not have that property. It cannot store heat it HAS to emit IR, that is a physical property of CO2.
      It is a good adsorber and a good emitter of IR.
      Climate sensitivity claims are based on models not observation. There is no empirical data showing CO2 acting as a GHG.

      • “Climate sensitivity claims are based on models not observation. There is no empirical data showing CO2 acting as a GHG.”

        In fact, there is a fantastic physical observation that totally debunks the “CO2 is a GHG” fallacy.

        It’s just lying there waiting for a grad student to seize ahold of and destroy the AGW hypothesis once and for all.

        What is it?

        The massive CO2 emissions from certain volcanoes, like Mt Nyos in Africa, provides real-world events that provide data on the “heat-trapping” effects of high concentrations of CO2. But apparently no scientist has seen the connection between the theory and the physical data available for them to use to test the theory.

        The theoretical basis of AGW is: “Increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will increase surface temperatures.”

        An ideal experimental design to test that hypothesis would have scientists injecting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and then monitoring local temperatures. Evidently no scientist has been able to conduct such an experiment. Instead we have amateurish propagandic showcases like Bill Nye’s jar full of CO2 “experiment.”

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

        Mother Nature helpfully implemented the experimental design:

        “On August 21, 1986, possibly as the result of a landslide, Lake Nyos suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby towns and villages…

        “Carbon dioxide, being about 1.5 times as dense as air, caused the cloud to “hug” the ground and descend down the valleys, where various villages were located. The mass was about 50 metres (160 ft) thick and it travelled downward at a rate of 20–50 kilometres per hour (12–31 mph). For roughly 23 kilometres (14 mi) the cloud remained condensed and dangerous, suffocating many of the people sleeping in Nyos, Kam, Cha, and Subum.[4] About 4,000 inhabitants fled the area, and many of these developed respiratory problems, lesions, and paralysis as a result of the gases…”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

        So, in Mother Nature’s experiment, she created a 160 foot thick, 14 mile long atmospheric concentration of CO2.

        The research that needs to be done would involve collecting temperature readings from before, during, and after the CO2 cloud covering the area.

        The AGW hypothesis would be: In the areas subjected to the experimental increases in concentrations of CO2, temperatures will increase following the IPPC’s “sensitivity formula” for CO2’s effects on surface temperature.

        The experiment has been conducted. Someone just needs to collect the data. Fame, fortune, and the survival of the free world await.

  7. ”Then Steele produces a homemade graph. The “real data“? I think not ! In fact, I have reason to believe it’s another one of Steele’s tricks intended to deceive the unskeptical.”

    Wow, Miesler sure sounds skeptical here. I thought he disliked skeptics. But here he is warning that a scientist might deceive us if we are “unskeptical.” So, I’m confused. Does he want people to be skeptics, or does he want people to believe scientists without question?

  8. Thanks Jim for the heads up and great analysis as always! It must be difficult not to take these “whackos” personally at times. Thanks for turning around his irrational posts/comments into wonderful teaching moments.Appreciate it!

  9. I enjoyed the quote, “A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood.”

    That quote seems to embody the current status CAGW. With virtually all CAGW projections diverging further from reality, CAGW’s survival depends on propagandizing lies and half-truths: the “97%” meme, severe weather, sea levels, global warming trends, ocean acidification, polar bear and penguin populations, polar ice caps, etc., are all supposedly worsening at “unprecedented” rates. Even a cursory evaluation of all these claims exposes the deception.

    Perhaps I’m being naive, but I put faith in: “Truth is the daughter of time.”

    The sense of alarmist desperation is becoming palpable. I really can’t see how all these dark lies can survive the light of reason.

  10. Well:

    1. The polar bears are thriving,
    2. Global temperatures have been stationary for almost two decades,
    3. Current global temperatures are below those experienced in most of the current (Holocene) inter-glacial period,
    4. There is absolutely no evidence of an acceleration in rising sea levels, or glacial retreat,
    5. Ocean acidification had been demonstrated to be a myth,
    6. The late summer Arctic ice is recovering well,
    7. The Antarctic ice cap is at record levels,
    8. Try naming one species that has become extinct through ‘climate change’,
    9. After circa 4 billion years, natural climate change did not suddenly cease around 1950.

    What can a member of the alarmist faithful do, other than to declare climate jihad or put his trust in:

    1. The forecasts of biased, inaccurate computer models,
    2. Data manipulation, misinterpretation and deliberate deception,
    3. The gullibility and duplicity of left wing politicians,
    4. Abusive behaviour towards those sceptics who expose 1 and 2.

    If ‘climate science’ was a real science, it would have been given a big F a long time ago. Unfortunately, ‘climate science’ is mostly motivated these days by those intent on keeping their snouts in the troughs overflowing with government cash. To paraphrase: “Never in human history has so much been spent (on ‘climate science’) by so many to achieve so little.”

      • But history is written by the winners. Is there any evidence that the proponents of CAGW are not winning the battle in the most important arenas of political debate and media attitude. I see no sign of any change there.

      • Is there any evidence that the proponents of CAGW are not winning the battle
        ============
        The Lima conference made it plain that:
        1. the 100 billion a year promised will not happen
        2. China and India are not going to cut emissions
        and in other news:
        3. Climate change is dead last in people’s priorities
        4. the Democrats lost control of the US senate.

        The question never asked is how does one enforce a legally binding UN climate agreement? Doesn’t such an agreement set the stage for the next world war? What comes after sanctions?

      • mikewaite

        Lysenko appeared to be winning for a long time — now he is infamous.

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • You can’t win the battle claiming 2 + 2 = 5. You really can’t. You can ‘win’ for x number of days, months or years. But you’re pressed right up against the same hard facts the day after.

    • But, but, the polar bears can’t be surviving – the World Wildlife Fund were telling me in their television advert, only last night, that they were disappearing, fast, and the only way to save them would be to send £3 to the WWF, after which one would be “saved”, and I’d get a soft, cuddly model of it, together with regular updates from it, to tell me how it was doing, and if I was very lucky, it would write me the odd E mail, too.

      • Old Goat

        I saw that WWF advert too.

        I was so incensed I sent a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.

        So far no response – a supposedly green ‘charity’ like WWF may be considered to be untouchable and above reproach.

      • Really only 3 pounds, I am not sure how much that is in US dollars, but it isn’t that much. Some time around the late 90s or early 2000s I was getting 2-3 mailing a week with a WWF bumper sticker, and a letter asking for money they had to have spent at least $20 or more just sending me me these mailings.
        I think the real work of the WWF is to raise money, it has nothing to do with wildlife.

    • But, but, the polar bears can’t be surviving – the World Wildlife Fund were telling me in their television advert, only last night, that they were disappearing, fast, and the only way to save them would be to send £3 to the WWF, after which one would be “saved”, and I’d get a soft, cuddly model of it, together with regular updates from it, to tell me how it was doing, and if I was very lucky, it would write me the odd E mail, too.

    • Peter M.,
      In #6 you write “… recovering well

      Maybe that can be rephrased to better reflect what is known. To me, recovering is a word that implies something was wrong. Insofar as what is known about Arctic Ocean ice, nothing is wrong. Amount of ice cover varies for several reasons, including wind and currents: Missing ice in 2007 drained out the Nares Strait.

      • nar·es
        ˈnerēz/
        noun
        AnatomyZoology
        noun: naris; plural noun: nares

        the nostrils.

        Please don’t say the Arctic had a runny nose!

  11. These Adélie penguins are a robust lot.

    Abstract
    Abandoned penguin rookeries as Holocene paleoclimatic indicators in Antarctica
    The greatest diffusion of rookeries occurred between 3 and 4 ka, a period of particularly favorable environmental conditions that has never been repeated. It was followed by a sudden decrease in the number of penguin rookeries shortly after 3 ka. This event has been attributed to an increase of the sea-ice extension and may have been correlated to a worldwide phase of climate change near the Subboreal-Subatlantic boundary. A minor phase of penguin reoccupation occurred locally in the eighth to fourteenth centuries (A.D.). Because the presence and number of penguins reflect the state of health of the Antarctic marine ecosystem, it is important to evaluate the variations in their distribution in the past, in the absence of human-induced changes.
    http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/22/1/23.short

    • What if eco-tourists and penguin researchers left Antarctica alone? Instead they are subjected to banding which can affect their swimming and feeding abilities, human waste etc.

      Abstract
      Effect of human disturbance on body temperature and energy expenditure in penguins
      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s003000050185

      ============
      Department of the Environment – Australian Antarctic Division
      A virus amongst the penguins
      Diseases and parasites have been detected in Antarctic wildlife populations for as long as scientists have observed and collected samples from them. However, it was not until the 1997 discovery of antibodies to Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (IBDV) in a high percentage of emperor penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri) chicks at Auster Rookery (through research led by Australian Antarctic Division veterinary biologist, Heather Gardner), that disease in Antarctic wildlife was connected with the presence of people in Antarctica.

    • Thanks Berenyl,

      People curious about the effects of flipper banding should take the 3 minutes to view this. The French researchers were well aware that the flipper banding issue could be detrimental to the Emperors in many ways, but never once mentioned the issue, preferring to opportunistically suggest the global warming had killed the Emperors in some unspecified way and speculating about drowning chicks that were never observed. I suspect they were covering their ass because after dynamiting islands that housed thousands of nesting Adelies, Greenpeace was heavily protesting human disturbances at Dumont D’urville. Thus in deep DuDu, they chose to blame global warming.

  12. Could more or less ice threaten the Ade´ lie Penguins?

    DAVID AINLEY et al – 2010
    Antarctic penguin response to habitat change as Earth’s troposphere reaches 28C above preindustrial levels

    ….Indeed, we may soon see the conditions that existed during the mid-Holocene ‘‘Penguin Optimum,’’ when ice diverged enough that Ade´ lie Penguins will reoccupy colonies, now ice bound, along the southern Victoria Land coast (Baroni and Orombelli 1994). ….
    http://www.geo.arizona.edu/BGDL/articles/Ainley_etal_2010.pdf

    • A very interesting and very readable article that explains the complexity of the environmental factors affecting the Adelie and Emperor penguin colonies . They are assuming that a 2C rise in global temperatures will occur, sometime between 2015 and 2052, and this will affect particularly the sea ice extent, winds and the amount of open water on which these colonies depend . What it did not touch on much however is how these populations survived temperature fluctuations in the past. Is it because they breed on ice , so do not leave much of a fossil record for the scientists to study ?
      One ominous point about human interference made towards the end was that industrial fishing for silverfish and krill will also affect the colonies and make the whole food web more susceptible to climate change. Since the fishing is presumably intended for animal feed in the developed world , rather than human consumption, surely this could be stopped by international agreement without disastrous effect on any national economies . Something for IPCC to put on their agenda for Paris perhaps- at least some good would emerge from that meeting.

      • Footnote: I noticed that Jimbo had posted info on the Adelie colonies in the past and how they survived climate change – I was thinking more about the Emperors . They always amaze me by their incubation practice, which seems barely possible .

      • Early claims about global warming killing penguins along the peninsula argued there was less krill. A similar argument was made for the decline of the Emperors. Both Ainley and I agree that there is an abundance of krill and that conclusion is supported by the rapidly growing number of krill feeders from baleen whales to adelie penguins.

        The earlier gloom and doom interpretations were largely the result of the lack of awareness of the effect of El Nino/PDO cycles on upwelling and resulting cycles triggering robust phytoplankton blooms that supported simiiar cycles of abundant krill. Initially researchers focused on the peninsula’s loss of ice (also affected largely by El Nino) thinking the peninsula was the canary in in the coal mine. But surveys were of too short a duration to reveal the underlying natural cycles

        Read Loeb V., et al., (2009) ENSO and variability of the Antarctic Peninsula pelagic marine ecosystem. Antarctic Science, vol. 21, p.135−148

        Short duration surveys also mistook cycles of chlorophyl content as evodence of deleterious change due to global warming. However longer term surveys not only reveal the natural cycles but evidence a long term upward trend in chlorophyll and thus krill. Climate change has been a good thing.

        This graph is from Saba (2014) Winter and spring controls on the summer food web of the coastal West Antarctic Peninsula in NATURE COMMUNICATIONS

  13. “Maximum temperatures have not risen since the 30s! If maximum temperatures have not exceeded that earlier peak, CO2 has not caused any regional “accumulation of heat” due to the hypothesized radiative imbalance”

    think harder.

    • Here is a thought question for Steven Mosher regards heat accumulation and the inappropriate metric created by averaging the max and min. You have two pots with equal volumes of water. Pot A rests at 10 C and Pot B rests at 30 C. Both are heated with unknown quantities but at the end of the day both pots measure 50C.

      1. Which pot accumulated the most heat?
      2. Which experienced the highest average temperature?

      Answer below, but don’t peek until you thought for yourself— Hint use Q=mcdeltaT. Q is heat and because both pots have same mass and specific heat you can simplify the equation to Q(heat) = change in temperature

      Alright Steven now check yourself

      1. Pot A Q= 40, Pot B Q=20. Thus we can conclude of maximum temperatures remain the same, then pots with the higher minimum accumulated less heat

      2. Average temp: Pot A (10+50)/2 = 30 Pot B (30 + 50)/2 =40

      Crazy statistical inference of the week We can measure a higher daily average temperature while accumulating less heat due to the biases created by the minimum.

      • Nicely done, Professor Steele!

        I think…. Mr. M0sher should sign up for your class (they seem not to have taught that one at Berkley…).

      • Jim Steele, the statement Mosh quotes flat out states that radiative imbalance due to CO2 increase cannot be responsible for Q. Your example only shows that it is numerically possible for your conclusion to be correct, not that it must be.

      • Janice, please it’s “Berkeley” not “Berkley”, but this is only a minor quibble. Given that both city and state have transuranic elements named in their honor, having both been discovered at LBL, it might occur that Cal does not always deserve its reputation for fringe academic lunacy. The fact that signage at the borders and posted throughout the city proudly proclaim “Nuclear Free Zone” is an irony very much not lost on me however.

      • Brandon, Certainly my “example only shows that it is numerically possible for your conclusion to be correct, not that it must be.” That should go without saying for any scientific argument that has yet to reach the status of a “Law”.

        It would be more helpful if you could demonstrate how a declining maximum temperature trend would evolve while accumulating more heat. That would move the debate along.

      • In the above example the specific heat variable was kept constant. The lack of usefulness of a global average temperature as a measure of heat accumulation gets worse when natural droughts and population effects dry out the land and air. A drought can raise temperatures without adding heat.

      • Jim Steele,

        Certainly my “example only shows that it is numerically possible for your conclusion to be correct, not that it must be.” That should go without saying for any scientific argument that has yet to reach the status of a “Law”.

        Unless I am missing a key point, that very logic undermines the strength of your conclusions, quoted here in fuller context:

        Still the trend is very much the same, very accurate, and totally supports my assertion: Maximum temperatures have not risen since the 30s! If maximum temperatures have not exceeded that earlier peak, CO2 has not caused any regional “accumulation of heat” due to the hypothesized radiative imbalance; and Parmesan is still very wrong for suggesting global warming was extirpating butterflies.

        It would be more helpful if you could demonstrate how a declining maximum temperature trend would evolve while accumulating more heat.

        If mins and maxes are I’ve got to work from, I may be sunk same as you are. One’s first inclination would be to ask whether the actual population values follow some normal distribution or not, and if so what the skewness and kurtosis look like. With mean being derived from range/2, obviously looking for hints about skewness by comparing mean to median won’t work.

        I believe the proper thing to do here is integrate.

        That would move the debate along.

        All things in good time.

  14. Adjustments were inflicted despite the fact the data had been quality controlled and adjusted several years before.

    So they acknowledge that the QC was inadequately controlled the first time.
    One wonders why they think they are competent now?

  15. Jim Steele: Don’t want to be thought ‘picky’, but twice in the above piece you mention ‘British Arctic Survey’, when I’m sure you mean ‘British Antarctic Survey’.
    I don’t know how you, or any other researchers interested in the truth rather than toeing the party line, put up with the levels of abuse you are subjected to. But keep on keeping on. Please.

  16. I’m not familiar with Miesler’s work but I know that Soubanger from Hotwhopper does a pretty good ad hom

  17. I have long been puzzled by changes in published historical weather records AFTER they have been corrected for site changes and recording times, such adjustments being perfectly reasonable to achieve consistency.

    If scientists want to homogenize for some specific purpose such as gridding, let them do so and reveal the algorithm they use.

    However, there is no justification for continually changing temperature or precipitation date that was recorded decades ago. The practice may be unlawful because the results cannot be said to comply with the statute that requires such data to meet Federal quality standards.

    • Frederick Colbourne January 8, 2015 at 3:27 am
      “If scientists want to homogenize for some specific purpose such as gridding, let them do so and reveal the algorithm they use.”

      That is exactly what they do. Here is the paper; the code is available. USHCN and GHCN provide both adjusted and unadjusted versions of the data. Adjusted is intended for gridding. No-one is obliged to use the adjusted.

    • “…Federal [data] quality standards…”

      Interesting concept; we probably need some of this.

      Obamacare’s year-long (and continuing) difficulty calculating the number of enrollees to plus/minus 10% is hilarious. But then I’m a retired CFO who routinely published financial statements accurate to 2 decimal places.

  18. A minor pedantry – but better correct irrelevant errors than leave them for the trolls to crow over – the organisation you call the British Arctic Survey” is actually called the British Antarctic Survey.

  19. Here’s a puzzle for the homogenizers, or anyone really.
    I have a digital thermocouple thermometer with 2 probes. One tells me the temp in my living room and the other is outside the living room window, under a ‘Stephenson screen made of house bricks. Its just for curiosity really but I often compare its outside reading to what my local Wunderground station is reporting. So I know how big a coat to put on when I go the feed my cows!
    Despite us being only 5,750 metres apart and as rural as you could get, the differences are sometimes truly astounding.
    None more so than just recently, the evening of Jan 3rd to be precise. My thermocouple was reading minus 2C outside and Brampton Wunderground was showing plus 1C It was frosty, the place was white.
    So I went and got the data from my 2 dataloggers, one hanging off the washing-line in my garden and the other hanging from a fence, in a field 500 metres away. They tracked each other almost perfectly and agreed with the thermocouple.
    Brampton is actually 2 weather stations, the Wunderground one and another reporting ‘officially’ to the Met Office here: http://wow.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/view?siteID=25930296
    They tracked each other.
    But it got worse. earlier in the day from 13:30 onwards, my 2 dataloggers tracked each other and were reading 3 degrees warmer than Brampton, yet after 16:30, they were reading anything up to 4 degrees colder (degrees centigrade) I have seen them do strange things, but not both at the same time.

    So, what went on there?

  20. Different microclimates. Right now my sensor located 12 inches aboveground reads 9.5 F. My other sensor located 6 ft aboveground reads 11.5 F. Later in the day these readings will reverse. Why? The lower sensor is closer to the ground which radiates directly to space at night. Later, when the ground is receiving direct sunlight, it will warm more than the upper sensor. Local microclimates cause large differences in temperature, which is useful to those homogenizing data with a purpose in mind.

    • Another effect overlooked is that cold air sinks, so that in hilly areas the dips & valleys will tend to be colder than the tops.

  21. There is a huge difference between town and country. I live on the edge of a large town in southern England. Although we had reports of minus whatever for a few days a week or so ago (lovely frosts), my quite expensive weather station was saying that the temperature probe never went below freezing once. So I worked out that there was a difference of about 3-4 degrees c between the Met Office’s data of the nights before, and my back garden where the probe is in the shade. That’s a lot. During that spell I had to visit a place in the countryside where they said they had had minus 6 degrees c the night before. My data said it was 0.

  22. typo:

    But like DuDu’s Emperors, declines in Adelie Penguins are rare local events, restricted to about 5% of Antarctica’s coastline and best explained by changes in the win direction.

    Maybe they will start winning in the other direction.

  23. We have a house in Southern Spain and I have a weather station with an external sensor, this sensor is placed in the kitchen window recess and is in permanent shade. The kitchen window faces West, and is at the back of the house, where we have an enclosed terracotta tiled, enclosed yard. In the summer when the sun is directly overhead at about 14:00 (In the Summer, Spanish time is 2 hours ahead of UT) The temperature rises significantly as the terracotta tiles heat up, by about 15:00 it is impossible to walk on the tiles in bare feet because they are so hot. I would say that the temperature registered by the sensor is only accurate in winter and to a lesser extent in early Spring and late Autumn. This how data is cherry picked and has been mentioned before on WUWT that many temperature monitoring stations are near airport runways, where the black body radiation is higher and the heat from the jet engines of the planes is not taken into account. LIkewise I would guess that any studies carried out where cherry picking or manipulation of data cannot be done are discarded if they do not show GW is taking place. Of course the phrase “peer reviewed” is meaningless when the peers (Christopher Monckton excepted) carry out the review.
    This at last brings me to the point of this post, any ground based temperature measurement has to be erroneous, satellite data isn’t and it is satellite data that has demonstrated that there has been no GW for over 19 years. That has to be the crux of the AGW debate, because people like Mielser can procrastinate about penguins, polar bears and heat devouring oceans (how AGW, which is an atmospheric phenomenon, can keep the air at the same temperature but cause the seas to warm is beyond comprehension!) all they wish, but the bottom line is that there has been no global warming!

  24. Jim Steele, you are indeed a treasure. I had long believed that the wonderful science of ecology in modern times had become corrupted like the irretrievable social sciences and no longer produced science at all. I tend to be, perhaps, a bit too cynical these days and I’m delighted to have this status ‘adjusted’ on this score. I hope you have lots of honest colleagues like yourself. Any sociologists, anthropologists… out there that would like to correct my impressions?

    • Thanks Gary for the kind words. My hope is also that the science of ecology can attract more respect once we weed out the bad science corrupted by politics.

  25. Dumont D’Urville station temps from 1956 to 2014. Supplied by Meteo France to the British Antarctic Survey.

    http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/surface/Dumont_Durville.All.temperature.html

    Recorded Monthly Temps (decreasing that is).

    Then in anomalies versus the average temp for the month.

    I’ve been maintaining a database of many Antarctic stations. They all show this type of trend, slightly downward (other than the Antarctic Peninsula which warmed somewhat up until about 2000 but has since been cooling).

    • Well, here’s a link that shows (or purports to show) that the vast majority of global warming in the past few decades has taken place in very high Northern latitudes — well North of anyplace with significant population. http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_NotGlobal.htm

      Not sure exactly what to make of it, but your graphs of Antarctic data would seem to fit right in

      • Indeed most of the warming is recorded in the Arctic but not due to hear accumulation but due to heat ventilating through open waters and thinner ice. The lack of insulating ice was caused by a change in the Arctic Oscillation that removed thick multiyear ice and blew it out into the Atlantic. That oscillation is reversing and thicker ice is forming. NOAA reported multiyear ice cover increased from 22% to 33% this last year. As that continues Arctic temperatures will decline.

      • That would imply that the “warming” is also taking place where it is interpolated rather than measured.

  26. On USHCN: I love graphs, as many do, but I need to trust them, which I increasingly don’t.
    If results generating graphs cannot be replicated because the raw data is constantly under revision; we have lost the ability for meaningful scientific criticism; one of our institutions.

    Is one answer for the USHCN to continuously publish a) the raw data, b) the filter algorythms used at different points in time so critics and supporters alike can replicate data being used in a particular graph, and c) post their latest and greatest ‘managed dataset’ with graphics of their choosing.

    Is another answer for WUWT to set a graphics standard policy for guest posts, such as data sources and download time are required for each graphic posted, as well as vertical and horizontal scales.

    I would love a six line summary of this post at either the top or bottom, so I can cut and quote it to my not so skeptical friends. e.g. 2015 data reconfirms Yosemite is cooling from the 30s, penguins not threatened by climate change etc.I can’t usually afford the time to slog through adjectives like fallacious and slandering and I think you lose all but the already convinced in the volume of the post. Meant as a constructive comment to increase your band width.

    Cheers.

    • cookiemonster01:

      I would love a six line summary of this post at either the top or bottom, so I can cut and quote it to my not so skeptical friends. e.g. 2015 data reconfirms Yosemite is cooling from the 30s, penguins not threatened by climate change etc.I can’t usually afford the time to slog through adjectives like fallacious and slandering and I think you lose all but the already convinced in the volume of the post. Meant as a constructive comment to increase your band width.

      Ditto. Not just for this post, either. The ‘Share’ command in Safari makes it easy to email links to posts on WUWT to friends and relatives, but I know most don’t have the time to spend studying long, often intricate arguments, and references to people they never heard of, not to mention reading lengthy Comments threads. Some are inclined to Realist (or Skeptical) views, but are much more likely to scan a pithy abstract or executive summary than to plough through the nitty gritty.

      How about using the teaser space on the Home page for abstracts rather than just the first few sentences? Maybe make composing one a requirement for a guest post?

      /Mr Lynn

      • I agree and I have been constantly torn between a quick pithy post that is easily shared versus a lengthy post that provides the needed detail. I generated first detailed wildlife surveys for consultants but initially left off the executive summary.The consultant admonished me stating the executive summary is the most important section, because very few people read all the details. But as scientist we must provide the supporting evidence so that those who want to critically analyze an interpretation can do so. So indeed an abstract or executive summary is a good compromise. I hoped my title would be an adequate teaser, but teaser space is a good idea

      • but I know most don’t have the time to spend studying long, often intricate arguments, and references to people they never heard of, not to mention reading lengthy Comments threads. Some are inclined to Realist (or Skeptical) views, but are much more likely to scan a pithy abstract or executive summary than to plough through the nitty gritty.

        Folks want a simple answer.

        HARRY Truman famously asked to be sent a one-armed economist, having tired of exponents of the dismal science proclaiming “On the one hand, this” and “On the other hand, that”.

        You can have all the simple answers you want and they’ll be right less than half the time.

        If you want to argue that butterflies aren’t going extinct in the California mountains because of climate change, you have to get down and dirty with the data.

      • Executive summary, yes. But whatever you do, don’t stop writing your well-reasoned arguments. If those with the attention-span of a mosquito can’t be bothered to read your narrative, remember there are those who can.

      • As already mentioned below and on other posts, I also miss an Abstract at the beginning or a summary at the end. I and others have also made this point on Mr. Tisdale’s posts. This post could be so much better if being more “objective” and not fashioned as a “contra” to Mr. Miesler. I consider the question of homogenisation of the temperature record so important and I am surprised that it receives so little attention. I keep reading the Heller/Goddard “outbursts” on the increasing difference between raw and “manipulated” data – reducing pre 1960 temperatures and increasing current readings and find it so disturbing and being unable to judge independently the veracity of his work I keep looking for verification or otherwise by wiser persons. Where are the “smart” people who can put a proper perspective on this? Is Heller/Goddard right/wrong? This is important because the CAGW now seems to centre around CO2 causing “extreme weather” and the suggested activity by the different agencies to move the global temperature up to the models rather than the other way round. I could do with som real clarification.

      • John Peter, I agree that a more useful post would have focussed on homogenization insanity, but I also needed a quick hit to counter Mielser’s lies and character assassinations that spam the internet. I don’t think that needs to be done any more.

        There are many others, far more skilled than I, that could tackle the issue of monthly homogenization and its ability to drastically alter trends year to year. There are many people who have graphed the temperature trends over the past 10 years and I would love to see a page developed that compiled and compared the shifting trends created by homogenization over recent years after the quality control of historic data had already been completed. The arguments from people like Zeke Hausfather have centered around why homogenization is needed and indeed there are times that may be the correct solution. But the dramatic change at Death Valley in just 2 years is a clear example of why homogenization is wrong and could easily be abused.

        A picture is worth a thousand words, and s page demonstrating the perpetual whimsical alterations in historic trends would be very illustrative of the problem.

  27. Thanks Jim. You’re over a sensitive target and getting alot of flak. Tactically, when that happens, double-down on the attack.

  28. I suggest we need to ask Congress for a full investigation.
    ==================
    Repeated homogenization of already homogenized data makes no sense. It runs the risk of introducing error through over-processing.

    In theory homogenization removes noise, leaving only signal. However that is not accurate. In practice, noise reduction removes both noise and signal, and it introduces synthetic noise that was not in the original signal. You try and maximize noise reduction, while minimizing signal loss and synthetic noise. However, no process is perfect.

    So one must be careful when applying noise reduction. Applied too heavily it will remove the noise and the signal, and leave synthetic noise. Repeated homogenization of homogenized data runs the risk of corrupting the data, as the small errors inherent in homogenization accumulate with each processing cycle.

    • ferdberple

      As a layman I simply don’t understand the need for “homogenization” – hopefully you can help explain.

      As long as discrete data (e.g.: temp for a given time & location) errors are not cumulative (e.g.: 1 degree error on Monday & 1 degree error on Tuesday starts off Wednesday with a 2 degree error), isn’t this what error bands are for?

      • Chip

        The greater the variability of temperature data the more difficult the ability to find a significant climate trend. The homogenizers label variability as “inhomogeneities” and thus justify their efforts to homogenize the data. They make the assumption that changes in a trend are the result of undocumented changes at the weather station. So they make an algorithm to cut and splice the data wherever there is a questionable inflection point. But there are many natural dynamics that alter local trends, and many of the adjustments were made at inflection points caused by El Nino or the PAcific Decadal Oscillation. The problem is algorithm requires some assumption as to what constitutes a suspicious difference in trends. If two stations warm due to increasing populations and the 3rd does not, the 2 “urbanized” stations create a regional expectation for the assumed trend. They may then homogenize the 3rd station to look like the other two thus erroneously incorporating the population effect into the 3rd station which then amplifies the regional trend, and there have been many examples of that mistake.

      • jim Steele,

        The greater the variability of temperature data the more difficult the ability to find a significant climate trend. The homogenizers label variability as “inhomogeneities” and thus justify their efforts to homogenize the data. They make the assumption that changes in a trend are the result of undocumented changes at the weather station. So they make an algorithm to cut and splice the data wherever there is a questionable inflection point. But there are many natural dynamics that alter local trends, and many of the adjustments were made at inflection points caused by El Nino or the PAcific Decadal Oscillation.

        Which is the better assumption, ENSO and/or PDO variability caused an inflection point in observations at:

        1) One measuring station but none of its closest neighbors or,
        2) One measuring station and most or all of its closest neighbors?

        Note, this analysis is also sensitive to the magnitude of the changes seen in the data from the station in question relative to its neighbors, so the binary choice I offer is not a true dichotomy.

      • The problem can not be solved simply and blindly a “majority wins” approach. Each station must be examined. Indeed a change in winds due to the PDO resulted decadal warming trends in one Yosemite locale, a cooling trend in another, and no trend in a third. Those opposing trends are all very accurate representations of how the micro-cllimates being measured had changed due to a larger scale event. Averaging not homogenizing may provide a better picture of the overall trend. The homogenization problem is illustrated by imagining there was a hypothetical 4th station that agreed with one of the other 3, then those two stations in agreement would be assumed to be more “correct”. Instead of averaging the differences, homogenizing the the other stations then amplifies the trend seen at 2 similar stations. During a period of rapid population growth, a lower heat capacity due to drying out of the soil and lost vegetation, and an increase in heat retaining surfaces, then homogenization more often amplifies those warming effects that is not indicative of climate change. That is one reason why tree ring temperature in more natural settings have diverged from instrumental data and almost universally suggest a trend more like the maximum in Yosemite

      • Chip Javert,

        As a layman I simply don’t understand the need for “homogenization” – hopefully you can help explain.

        Like you I am a layman, and though you did not ask me here is my understanding. Things such as station moves, instrumentation changes, time of observation, calibration issues, etc., are known to occur without being documented in station metadata. Add to that transcription errors from handwritten reports, inconsistent reporting, stuff getting lost or garbled, poor (or no) organization — in short flat out systemic human and instrumental error. Pile on to that things like increased urbanization, doing stupid stuff like placing the instrument next to the hot outlet of an air cooling system, etc., ad infinitum, ad naseum.

        The properly skeptical thing to do when anecdote demonstrates that some of these things have happened at some stations is to assume that all these things have happened at every station. IOW, caveat emptor ALL of the “raw” data by default. Since we want to know what has happened in the past and these data are what we have to tell us, we can’t simply wastebin it, so we need to quality control and adjust. This is standard practice in any and all empirical research, and has been pretty much since we started doing observational data-based science.

        Inhomogeneity in this context means that some data from one station looks out of whack compared to its neighbors, or even itself. Sometimes the metatada from the station will tell us it has been moved, recalibrated, undergone an instrument change, etc. When that happens we use that first. Otherwise we have to rely on statistical techniques to identify things which look weird.

        Once something goofy is identified, we have to decide what to do with it. One option is to simply declare the data from that station unreliable and junk it. But since we find suspicious things in almost all station data, that really is not an option. So we adjust, most commonly by comparing the suspect data to its neighbors and letting majority rule. It’s all very democratic actually.

        NCDC calls their algorithm for doing this Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment or PHA.

        Because it’s a scientific AND ethical faux pas to change data permanently and without telling everyone, the best practice would be to keep the “raw” data around so folk can compare it to the adjusted product, document the process by which the adjustments were made, and freely provide all the source code of the algorithm so it can be compiled and executed by independent investigators.

        Which is exactly what NCDC does. GISS does the same for the further processing they do to remove the UHI signal as best they know how, plus other stuff.

      • @ Brandon Gates

        Because it’s a scientific AND ethical faux pas to change data permanently and without telling everyone, the best practice would be to keep the “raw” data around so folk can compare it to the adjusted product, document the process by which the adjustments were made, and freely provide all the source code of the algorithm so it can be compiled and executed by independent investigators.

        Which is why one supposes that the IPCC prefer to rely on CRU where the original data was destroyed and requests for information are routinely obstructed.

      • Brandon since you argue that homogenization is valid and transparent, please explain how the Death Valley trend changes from negative in 2012 to positive 2014. There is nothing at NCDC that justifies it.

      • Jim Steele,

        The problem can not be solved simply and blindly a “majority wins” approach.

        The process can be described as a simple majority wins approach, and indeed I just have. That doesn’t mean it is simple and indeed it very much is not. As for blind, like beauty, much does depend on the eye of the beholder.

        Each station must be examined.

        Technically PHAs do that. But I take your meaning.

        Indeed a change in winds due to the PDO resulted decadal warming trends in one Yosemite locale, a cooling trend in another, and no trend in a third.

        So KNMI has four GHCN-D stations with Tmax daily data matching the search string “Yosemite”:

        SO_ENTR_YOSEMITE_NP,_CA (United States)
        coordinates: 37.51N, -119.63E, 1538.0m
        GHCN-D station code: USC00048380 (get data)
        Found 74 years of data in 1941-2014

        YOSEMITE_PARK_HQ,_CA (United States)
        coordinates: 37.75N, -119.59E, 1225.0m
        GHCN-D station code: USC00049855 (get data)
        Found 110 years of data in 1905-2014

        YOSEMITE_VILLAGE_12_W,_CA (United States)
        coordinates: 37.76N, -119.82E, 2018.0m
        GHCN-D station code: USW00053150 (get data)
        WMO station: 74503
        Found 8 years of data in 2007-2014

        FRESNO_YOSEMITE_INTL_AP,_CA (United States)
        coordinates: 36.78N, -119.72E, 102.0m
        GHCN-D station code: USW00093193 (get data)
        WMO station: 72389
        Found 67 years of data in 1948-2014

        I’ve pulled down Tmin and Tmax for the second one (USC00049855) because that’s the longest record and is the one I spotted in one of the plots in your article. I believe this is homogenized stuff, but can’t confirm … I do know it’s been QC’d. I know where to get daily raw from NCDCs ftp site, I’m wondering where you get yours?

        I haven’t gotten to the point where I’m comparing these four stations to each other.

        Those opposing trends are all very accurate representations of how the micro-cllimates being measured had changed due to a larger scale event.

        I wouldn’t, and won’t, argue by default that the microclimate changes are not real, but I also don’t understand how you’ve ruled out a slew of other known instrumentation and record-keeping issues in the GHCN network at large.

        Averaging not homogenizing may provide a better picture of the overall trend.

        Easy enough comparison to do. I apologize if I missed it, but have you done one?

        The homogenization problem is illustrated by imagining there was a hypothetical 4th station that agreed with one of the other 3, then those two stations in agreement would be assumed to be more “correct”. Instead of averaging the differences, homogenizing the the other stations then amplifies the trend seen at 2 similar stations.

        Let me restate. I’ve got stations number 1 and 2 which agree, and #3 which doesn’t. A PHA would outvote 3 and adjust it to match 1 and 2. The arithmetic mean would give a different answer. Which do you think is more likely to change the overall trend, the PHA or the simple average?

        Now we imagine station #4 which agrees with station 3. We don’t have a tiebreaking vote any longer. Same question as the first scenario.

        The way I’ve stated this glosses over how the PHA voting process works and thinks more in terms how polling booths do. My understanding is that it’s not actually one man one vote.

      • Jim Steele,

        Brandon since you argue that homogenization is valid and transparent, please explain how the Death Valley trend changes from negative in 2012 to positive 2014. There is nothing at NCDC that justifies it.

        I’ve got my hands full with the Yosemite data. I’m not opposed to taking a look at Death Valley, but I can’t do 11 things at once, my limit is 10. As I said to you previously, all things in good time … and in order of the queue.

      • The Pompous Git,

        Which is why one supposes that the IPCC prefer to rely on CRU where the original data was destroyed and requests for information are routinely obstructed.

        So far my interactions with Jim have been pretty good at keeping suppositions and snark out of it, dealing with the data at hand, and staying on point. I’d like to keep that trend going, it’s refreshing for me to be having that sort of discussion on WUWT — it’s how things started out for me here and I’ve been missing it of late.

      • @ Brandon “but I also don’t understand how you’ve ruled out a slew of other known instrumentation and record-keeping issues in the GHCN network at large.”

        You put words in my mouth. I dont rule out the possibility of those issues but most of those have been addressed. Your question can be turned around and I could ask why do you rule out natural changes? The problem is neither of us knows why 2 stations have “inhomogeneities.” But I do know from examining different microclimates, that it highly likely that most of those differences are due to how weather reacts with different habitats, and just because you describe the problem as a “a slew of other known instrumentation and record-keeping issues”, doesnt mean those issues are predominate. My guess is natural microclimate differences are a magnitude greater than the issues you describe.

        Since you are looking at Yosemite, read Lindquist (2007) Surface temperature patterns in complex terrain: Daily variations and long-term change in the central Sierra Nevada, California.

        From their abstract “These relationships demonstrate that strong westerly winds are associated with relatively warmer temperatures on the east slope and cooler temperatures on the west slope of the Sierra, and weaker westerly winds are associated with the opposite pattern. Reanalysis data from 1948 to 2005 indicate weakening westerlies over this time period, a trend leading to relatively cooler temperatures on the east slope over decadal timescales. This trend also appears in long-term observations and demonstrates the need to consider topographic effects when examining long-term changes in mountain regions.”

      • Jim Steele,

        You put words in my mouth. I dont rule out the possibility of those issues but most of those have been addressed.

        My apologies, it was not clear to me that you considered the instrumentation and other non-climate technical issues sufficiently addressed.

        Your question can be turned around and I could ask why do you rule out natural changes?

        I haven’t, and as I said previously neither would I argue that by default.

        The problem is neither of us knows why 2 stations have “inhomogeneities.”

        Speaking for myself I very much do not know why. I’m only just getting started looking at the data.

        But I do know from examining different microclimates, that it highly likely that most of those differences are due to how weather reacts with different habitats, and just because you describe the problem as a “a slew of other known instrumentation and record-keeping issues”, doesnt mean those issues are predominate.

        I agree.

        My guess is natural microclimate differences are a magnitude greater than the issues you describe.

        The data I’ve looked at so far are not inconsistent with that guess.

        Since you are looking at Yosemite, read Lindquist (2007) Surface temperature patterns in complex terrain: Daily variations and long-term change in the central Sierra Nevada, California.

        Thanks for the tip. Clearly changes in wind and precipitation patterns are going to do things to surface temperature which would overwhelm any forcing signal from CO2, and must be accounted for before making strong statements that CO2 (all or mostly) diddit.

        I found the link you provided for the source data (I missed that in my first reading) so now I can be sure to be working with the same numbers.

      • @ Brandon Gates

        My snark was directed at the IPCC and CRU, not yourself. I happen to agree with your words that I quoted. If you find that offensive… well, tough titty.

      • I agree with the Git: if the procedure that Gates outlined was used, the air would go out of the global warming bubble fast. I have used that exact argument many times. Raw data, with the entire methodology used to “adjust” it is necessary. Anything else is hocus-pocus and juju.

        In fact, if the IPCC admitted that there are no measurements quantifying AGW, the ‘man-made global warming’ bubble would be promptly rendered airless.

        The alarmist clique is still arguing as if anything they say is anything except their opinion.

        It’s not. All they have are baseless assertions, and they get angry when it’s pointed out.

      • The Pompous Git,

        I happen to agree with your words that I quoted. If you find that offensive… well, tough titty.

        Since you agree with the words you quoted, you should be able to understand the actual bee in my bonnet here, which I’ll restate: thus far this has been an evidence-based discussion about a specific issue, with a minimum of snark. Most days I’m happy to throw mud and not complain when someone lobs a dumptruck of it at me … I could easily wear your nym and be proud of it — it describes me pretty well in a lot of ways actually.

        What is grinding on me here with you is what I perceive to be the diversionary nature of your comment. Any old day of the week here at WUWT is a referendum on the IPCC. I’d simply like to have a technical discussion with someone like Jim who knows what he’s about and not have it turn into a free-fire zone about evil communists trying to take over the world via a preposterously ridiculous conspiracy theory.

        But now that the cherry has been busted, tell me this: if the data are being juked, why aren’t they done so in such a way so that they better match the GCM output???? Sweet Peter, Paul and Mary, why go through all the motions of a serious and legitimate worldwide scientific endeavor to fabricate a lie which is so utterly unconvincing to so many people?

        Once, just once, I’d like to take a hard, properly skeptical, objective as possible look at some data, do some math on it, some ancillary research, all without having the kitchen sink of contrarian talking points lobbed at me for my troubles. Is that so much to ask?

      • @ Brandon Gates

        …turn into a free-fire zone about evil communists trying to take over the world via a preposterously ridiculous conspiracy theory.

        Where on Earth have I ever done that? If you are merely attempting to insult me, you have a very much higher bar to reach.

        Antagonist: “You syphilitic offspring of a Mongoloid’s melt!”

        The Git: “You’re making me homesick. My Mummy used to speak to me like that.”

        if the data are being juked, why aren’t they done so in such a way so that they better match the GCM output???? Sweet Peter, Paul and Mary, why go through all the motions of a serious and legitimate worldwide scientific endeavor to fabricate a lie which is so utterly unconvincing to so many people?

        That’s an excellent question. Why don’t you address it? I note that many are convinced, but they tend to be people who don’t think critically about the evidence. Example: like many farmers in the Huon Valley of southern Tasmania, I used to grow field tomatoes back in the 1980s. Harvest used to commence late February, early March. By the mid-90s harvest wasn’t commencing until mid-April so we gave up growing them, much to the chagrin of the townies who used to come and pick their own for tomato sauce.

        Year on year, we have been continually told that “it’s the hottest year ever”. Which am I to believe? My own lying eyes, or the “quality controlled” thermometer record? Does the growing season really shorten as temperatures increase, or is it the other way around?

      • @ Brandon Gates

        Thanks for the chinwag; it was fun. However, in the absence of tertiary level texts supporting CAGW, I will continue to adhere to The Received View (i.e. what I was taught at tertiary level. And I suspect the comments to this thread will be closed in the not very distant. Feel free to contact me off-line should you wish to discuss things further. Jonathan Sturm (my given names) is the world’s most pompous git according to Gurgle.

        Live long and prosper…

    • The Pompous Git,

      Where on Earth have I ever done that?

      You haven’t in those exact words, but it’s a common enough refrain here in one form or another. Guilt by association. I know, it’s not fair.

      That’s an excellent question. Why don’t you address it?

      I thought I did. I think the grand conspiracies theories of a Warmunist One World Order are ridiculous on the face of them.

      I note that many are convinced, but they tend to be people who don’t think critically about the evidence.

      Two way street. Nobody in this debate is immune from confirmation bias, not even me. You yourself have witnessed me at nearly my most prejudiced (and somewhat jaded but weary) since I first responded to you.

      Year on year, we have been continually told that “it’s the hottest year ever”. Which am I to believe? My own lying eyes, or the “quality controlled” thermometer record?

      Unless your eyes have global daily coverage I’d go with the instrumental record. Were I you, if I had good cause to believe the instrumental record to be wholly unreliable, I’d adopt the agnostic position of not knowing what global trends were doing.

      Does the growing season really shorten as temperatures increase, or is it the other way around?

      I would naively expect longer growing seasons on average. Oh hey, maybe I’m not so naive:

      Note there are some outliers. I can think of all sorts of things incomplete/dead wrong with this study, but it’s paywalled so I can’t read it: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13470.html

    • @ Brandon Gates

      Your problem I think is wanting to universalise/homogenise properties that are local and heterogeneous. Climate is local: “Condition (of a region or country) in relation to prevailing atmospheric phenomena, as temperature, dryness or humidity, wind, clearness or dullness of sky, etc., esp. as these affect human, animal, or vegetable life.” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification#mediaviewer/File:Koppen_World_Map_(retouched_version).png

      You will see that there are lots of different climates on planet Earth, most are the same as they were a century ago. This isn’t to deny climate change; I note that Florida in the USA for example used to be sub-tropical, but now experiences frosts. This is undoubtedly due to anthropogenic effects (land clearance not CO2). See also:

      You introduce some research on perennial plants that appear to show diminished response to temperature. This is hardly surprising given that there was a paper in Nature not so very long ago showing that tropical trees are capable of maintaining a fixed leaf surface temperature regardless of air temperature. However, in horticulture in more temperate climes we have a rule of thumb: we sum the number of degrees above 10C during the growing season and we know that when the required degree days have been reached our crop will be mature. This is also true for the emergence of pests and predators. Average global surface temperature is completely useless for this purpose!

      You also make an error in lumping me in with all other posters in this forum. As it happens, I am (according to The Political Compass) somewhat left of centre and very libertarian. About the same as the Dalai Llama.

      And while you are posing as something of an expert on CAGW, you might want to point me in the direction of a tertiary level text of the calibre of TR Oke’s Boundary Layer Climates that includes CAGW. Thus far, you and your ilk (guilt by association), have been unable to do so, or indeed explain why after 30+ years no warmunist has managed to write such.

      • The Pompous Git,

        Your problem I think is wanting to universalise/homogenise properties that are local and heterogeneous.

        I take a whole system approach from the top down on this issue. Clearly zonal and local responses are going to be heterogeneous this particular system. That’s what makes it a tough nut to crack. And also quite interesting.

        This isn’t to deny climate change; I note that Florida in the USA for example used to be sub-tropical, but now experiences frosts. This is undoubtedly due to anthropogenic effects (land clearance not CO2).

        I don’t see that it is an either/or proposition. Again, my default naive position would assume some mix of both. I’d then set out to determine the mix by appealing to quantifiable observation backed by explanitory physcial mechanisms.

        Average global surface temperature is completely useless for this purpose!

        The plot I posted says “Mean annual temperature” not “Mean annual global temperature” along the x-axis. The scale is -10 to 30 degrees Celsius. Those aren’t typical ranges for global anomalized temperatures.

        You also make an error in lumping me in with all other posters in this forum.

        My view is that guilt by association is always an error, even if it arrives at the correct conclusion. So I try not to. This time my failure was doubly wrong.

        As it happens, I am (according to The Political Compass) somewhat left of centre and very libertarian. About the same as the Dalai Llama.

        Something else I try to do is address the argument, not the alignment, certainly not the person. I often don’t succeed there either.

        Now however … trading barbs can be fun, especially when done with humor. I’m still chuckling at “Mongoloid’s melt” being a term of endearment.

        And while you are posing as something of an expert on CAGW, you might want to point me in the direction of a tertiary level text of the calibre of TR Oke’s Boundary Layer Climates that includes CAGW.

        I’ve got nuthin’ for you by way of a text or comprehensive expertise.

        Thus far, you and your ilk (guilt by association), have been unable to do so, or indeed explain why after 30+ years no warmunist has managed to write such.

        Aside from that being a somewhat arbitrary condition prone to subjective opinion, it does frustrate me sometimes that the things I’m interested in studying are either presented at the freshman university level or the PhD postgraduate level and beyond.

  29. Cheers for the good fight, Mr. Steele. Don’t let them get you down.
    I’m doing a lot of work regarding Big Data – and one of the more interesting outcomes is that I notice just how poorly “research center” types tend to handle disparate data sources.
    For example, I recently investigated a model for predicting criminal activity based on historical crime, weather, social media traffic, census and traffic itself. The problem with mashing up these data sources are that the location accuracy for the various components is radically different: crime records are accurate to the nearest address, weather/census is at best zip code, social media is by IP address and hence is literally multiple miles inaccurate, and traffic is generally major thoroughfares/block level. Yet the mashup predictions purport to show accuracy at specific locations!
    Unlike the precision on scientific calculations where digits are discarded due to uncertainty in the components, for Big Data – the greatest single component accuracy is used as a basis for all the rest!
    I wonder how much of this occurs with climate science – in particular the alarmist bits: those portions of study which expound the most alarmist results, et al.

    • Great point, C1ue (“the greatest single component accuracy is used as a basis for all the rest!”).

      Re: your wonderings about the methodology of the climastrologists…

      I think we can be fairly certain that ANYONE claiming there is such a thing as a “global” weather phenomenon (usually called “warming” by such “scientists”) is either:

      1. mad or
      2. ly1ng.

      In either case, their methodology is of absolutely no concern to me.

      • O Pompous One!

        How did the move off the farm go? I hope that there was more joy in the going-to than sorrow over the leaving-behind. As I told you, I deeply empathize with you about selling a family farm… . I hope that you and your wife are happily settled into your new digs (glad to see that you are still digging — holes for bean seeds, at least smile)).

        Best wishes for a bodaciously bountiful broad bean harvest,

        Janice

      • @ Janice Moore

        There’s quite a lot involved in moving from a place you have inhabited for 33 years. We will put the farm up for sale next spring. That means I will need to commence a new garden at our new home while maintaining the one on the farm.

        The bean harvest was about 50% of average, but that only means we give away/trade less than usual. The freezer is almost full. And the pea harvest is in full swing. Life is good!

  30. Well done, Jim Steele! Thanks for the great teaching!

    Exposing CO2 l1es prevents human misery.

    Thus, the most accurate label for you is: “Humanitarian.”

    If you ever have a bad moment (and all warriors for truth do, from time to time) and feel that all your valiant efforts are hopelessly futile, remember this:

    For an hour, a mieslink may succeed at “making truth itself appear like falsehood,” but,
    “truth stands the test of
    time.”

    Take heart! #(:))

    Truth will defend itself. And truth wins — every time.

  31. Truth doesn’t win every skirmish…. truth sometimes “stumbles in the streets,”… but

    TRUTH WILL WIN THE WAR! Hoooo-waaah!
    #(:))

    Time for a song about Heroes
    like Jim Steele and Dr. Susan Crockford
    and An-thony and our stalwart mod-erators
    and commenters like Jimbo!

    “I Need a Hero” — Avengers scenes (youtube video)

    GO, WATTS UP WITH THAT TEAM!

    You rock!

    • LOL Thanks for the kind praise, I really do appreciate it, but it makes me uncomfortable. The politicization of climate change has embarked on a battle of “our heroes” vs “their heroes.” Our quest is to create respectful debate free of personal attacks and free from the fallacy of authority. We must debate the evidence, the validity of methodologies and interpretations no matter which side if proffering it. Any type “cult of personality” arguments obscure that debate. Miesler persistently uses that tactic to enshrine his chosen researchers of gloom and doom as heroes, and denigrate those who disagree as unworthies. Alarmists enshrine any climate argument that gets published, and denigrate those who expose fallacious arguments and contrived evidence, simply because they have not published. So while I greatly appreciate your counter measure to push back on the alarmists’ non-science, I would prefer to be seen as an average Joe sharing his perspective and that you question every thing I say and scrutinize it thoroughly. And what makes WUWT a great place, is it allows a forum for alternative views that can be scrutinized by all.

      • Dear Jim,

        I hear you… and I appreciate your taking the time to write. I write this reply not to argue with you but to defend the INDISPENSABLE value of praise for the “good guys,” especially those on the front lines, bearing the brunt of the battle, a.k.a. “heroes.” Troop morale is not a merely auxiliary matter, it is of vital importance to winning. Honoring our heroes sharpens our focus on the goal and strengthens our determination to fight.

        So, I understand your point, however…

        this is a WAR for truth.

        Would you have had the Allies demurely refrain from lauding their Montgomerys and MacArthurs and Churchills while the enemy glorified its maniacally v1le leadership?

        That the enemy makes heroes out of thugs, cr00ks, and l1ars is no reason not to honor those who daily lay down their professional lives, enduring v1le s1ander and worse for right.

        Sorry, “Joe” (smile), as Pompous said, you and Dr. Murry Salby and Dr. Soon and An-thony and…. many, many, others… are not “average.” “…. some have greatness thrust upon them… .”

        With admiration, gratitude, and all due respect,

        Janice

  32. As my Dad once told me:

    Just consider the source.

    With something like 7 billion people in the world today it’s getting harder not to occasionally step on a few toes.

  33. This is an excellent article. Thank you for the excellent background information and the inside story on the detractors. It is very helpful for everyone to see the concise science in defense of our skepticism while being exposed to the rampant disregard for truth and the inevitable bias due to self interest which you exposed is being flagrantly exhibited by the alarmists that are stalking you.

  34. Ferdberple says ” I suggest that we need to ask Congress for an investigation.”

    I second this motion.

    • Dear E. Martin,

      If you are Edward Martin (and thank you, if you are, for that generous compliment on 12/31) whose family suffered a great loss recently, how are you and all of your cousin’s family doing? I have been praying steadily as promised.

      Your WUWT friend,

      Janice

  35. “Slandering Sou is one of Miesler’s mentors and ally”

    I think you will find they are one and the same and whoever this person is covers a lot of ground under many names – that i have experienced.

    You will notice similar turn of phrase cropping up.

  36. There is ALWAYS more than one way to look at an issue. As a non-climate scientist, but having an interest in global warming, I have found it disappointing that there is no forum where someone like me can hear both sides of the story to global warming issues. The mainstream media is aggravating because almost everything is heavily liberal bias. The Skeptical Science page is a disappointment to me because while presenting a warmist’s view on issues with a lot of information it is obviously biased and has a clear purpose of influencing rather than informing. The Watts Up With that Page is the best place I have found to hear highly knowledgeable people discuss climate news, However it chooses stories that make the reader skeptical of global warming. And maybe thats because all climate news when really properly analyzed WILL make you skeptical of global warming. But rather than just a comment section, I would like to see a page like WUWT have a section with its stories where a legitimate warmist (and the more I read about AGW the more I doubt there is a legimate warmist) can give their rebuttal to WUWT that stories. There may be good rebuttals in the comments but there are a lot of comments to sort through. Because right now when I read about the same subjects on Skeptical Science and WUWT they sound like they are talking about different planets. As a prime example, the temperature adjustments made to data bases from the NCDC. Articles on the WUWT page say they are significant, subtracting several tenths of a degree from the past and adding about a half a degree to current measurements. While at Skeptical Science they show a graph that says the adjustments are basically nothing. I’d love to hear WUWT respond to the SKep Scien chart or Skep Scien respond to the WUWT that charts. Right now there is no forum of dialog where someone like me can read or hear a legitimate point / counterpoint on data where both are talking about the same thing. The pages on Anthony’s blog spawn are useless because their agenda is obviously to smear and influence rather than to legitimately inform or debate.

    • Dear Mr. Thayer,

      The comments are, as you suspected, where you will find the point-counterpoint. You will just have to read them. There won’t be much (I’m not dignifying troll inanities with the term “refutation” — they are just amusing or annoying as the case may be) …. because AGW has so little that it can even attempt to legitimately assert on its behalf. AGW is pure speculation. In some of Ferdinand Englebeen’s (he usually appears to counter Dr. Murry Salby or Bart) and in some of (not all by any means) Nick Stokes’ assertions, you will get the glimmerings of refutation. Because they HAVE no genuine refutation of the undeniable truths asserted by “skeptic” scientists, however…

      you will find that those glimmerings soon fade into darkness once again.

      Sorry, dear truth-seeker — you’ll have to do the homework.

      And remember this, as you study: they do not give bank tellers dozens of examples of counterfeit money to study; they give them genuine bills so that when the fake ones appear, they are easily recognizable.

      Best wishes for discerning fact from fiction,

      Janice (another learner just like you)

      • Thank you Janice. Its not only a matter of fact and fiction, or real or counterfeit, but getting an unskewed set of facts. The liberals say about the Michael Brown case “The police shot an unarmed teenager”, the conservatives say “A 290 pound robbery suspect was shot when he charged a police officer”. There are lots of facts, and you can always pick facts that help you influence others to believe like you do. I’m looking for a place that gives me a true scientific approach learning about the state of our global climate, presenting research and data that isn’t selected to support one view or another, where that information is freely an openly debated on what its significance is. WUWT is the closest thing I’ve found to that. I guess I’m wishing there was a more prominent token liberal like Fox News will give time to that will expose me the information that did not make it through Anthony’s filter, who is, like me, a skeptic on AGW.

    • The pages on Anthony’s blog spawn are useless because their agenda is obviously to smear and influence rather than to legitimately inform or debate.

      You haven’t been reading WUWT for more than a few hours then…

      • I found the “blog spawn” phrase a little confusing and had to reread things before deciding I might actually understand it. Pretty sure that the “spawn” are the folks that have to blog on their own sites ABOUT what is said here. Anthony’s policy of keeping personality and similar gibberish to a dullish background rumble and of banning the – ah (I was going to write ‘gits’ but realized your handle could make that a bit misleading) – individuals that can’t keep things civil and informed means that folks like Sou and Miesner have to maintain their own pages to complain about WuWT content in a format they prefer. Anthony’s policy implements an unspoken corollary of the First Amendment. It guarantees free speech, not an audience.

      • When you quote it alone like that even I read it as a shot against Anthony. It is not. Duster has it right. The pages set up to dispute WUWT immediately tag themselves as a waste of time just with their names. Names like “Wotts up with …”. Come on, thats just transparent sour grapes. If someone set up a page called “Counterpoints to Watt’s up with that” I would read it at least to see if it had any valid points. I’m a Reagan Republican and my best friend for 30 years happens to be a liberal, and even though I don’t agree with him on many political things he often points out things that help me understand what an issue is about that I would never have thought of myself, or would have heard from my conservative friends. Surrounding yourself with people you agree with too much makes you feel good but doesn’t challenge your mind as much.
        Blind acceptance is a bad learning environment, but baseless name calling is 10 times worse. What I really like about this page is the prevailing policy of quoting what you are disputing, rather than general bashing. What makes the Skeptical Science page really just childish to me is the “disputes” are for their own list of general comments like “the temperature record is tainted”. It looks like a list of quotes from an eight year old. Why don’t they post (or at least refer to) an article written by an ADULT, that for instance, claims the temperature record is adjusted, with data on what the adjustments are, and specifically address why the claims in the article of adjustments are false?
        Anyway, I’m glad the author of this article, Jim, wrote it, but its sad that he has to address a slander filled article rather than honest questioning of his work.

    • .

      Because right now when I read about the same subjects on Skeptical Science and WUWT they sound like they are talking about different planets.

      That’s because they are!

  37. “…Since debunking Parmesan, Miesler has been obsessed with slandering me whenever he can….”

    This is a small correction, but the sentence above should be written as “..Since my debunking of Parmesan, Miesler has been obsessed with slandering me whenever he can.” This makes apparent that Steele and not Miesler was debunking Parmesan.

    Very nice editorial. I especially liked this caveat “But the data is most definitely correct, if USHCN is to be trusted.”

  38. The Gollum Story (youtube video)

    So, you see, the Mieslums of the world are to be pitied.

    They have been taken captive to do the will of an evil force which they do not even believe exists.

    Prayer is the ONLY thing that can save them …. if they are willing to be saved. If they will not… one day they will find that they can not.

    The warriors for truth take the trouble to dignify their f1lth with responses as fine as Jim Steele’s ONLY to prevent their leading the innocent astray.

  39. I was wondering why you did not link directly to the offending posts, but having found them, I now understand. Whew.

  40. Mielser could not believe that DuDu’s Emperors had stopped declining … He seems to also deny satellite data that shows the number of known Emperors has doubled in recent years.”

    I assume you don’t mean to imply that the Emperor population has increased. Because the paper you link to does not say that.

    • trafamadore, I assume that paper you refer to is Fretwell’s An Emperor Penguin Population Estimate: The First Global, Synoptic Survey of a Species from Space. They wrote “We estimated the breeding population of emperor penguins at each colony during 2009 and provide a population estimate of ~238,000 breeding pairs (compared with the last previously published count of 135,000–175,000 pairs). Based on published values of the relationship between breeders and non-breeders, this translates to a total population of ~595,000 adult birds.” My claim that the numbers have doubled is based on an earlier estimate that the global population to be around 220,000 individuals in Micol and Jouventin (2001) and referenced in the petition to list them as endangered http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/birds/penguins/pdfs/PenguinPetition.pdf

      Because Adelies breed in the summer the increased population can safely be said to have increased by ~about 53%. Regards Emperors I simply wrote surveys show “the number of known Emperors has doubled in recent years.” Because Emperors breed in the winter when conditions normally prohibit accurate surveys, we can not safely conclude that the doubling of known Emperors translates into an actual growth in population, some of that increase is due to increased detection. But there were enough surveys to suggest there was very likely a substantial increase. Oddly, when population estimates were lower (220,000 individual), the IUCN designated the Emperor as a species of “Lest Concern”, so this near doubling would at the very least suggest the larger population is at a reduced risk. But due to models based on the bogus conclusions about the decline at DuDu, Emperors were uplisted and CBD is petitioning again to make them endangered.

    • trafamadore, the paper you refer to I assume is Fretwell’s (2012) An Emperor Penguin Population Estimate: The First Global, Synoptic Survey of a Species from Space. They wrote, “We estimated the breeding population of emperor penguins at each colony during 2009 and provide a population estimate of ~238,000 breeding pairs (compared with the last previously published count of 135,000–175,000 pairs). Based on published values of the relationship between breeders and non-breeders, this translates to a total population of ~595,000 adult birds.” From their paper alone it would appear I exaggerated, but the “doubling” was based on numbers quoted in the petition to place the Emperor in the Endangered species list in which the Center for Bioogical Diversity argued a declining population.

      “In the 1980s, the total Emperor Penguin population was estimated to be around 270,000 to 350,000 breeding adults (Marchant and Higgins 1990, del Hoyo et al. 1992). More recently, Micol and Jouventin (2001) estimate the global population to be around 220,000 individuals.” http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/birds/penguins/pdfs/PenguinPetition.pdf

      Accepting the more recent of the earlier estimates, the newest estimate of 595,000 was conservatively a doubling of “known adults” estimated to be 220,000 in 2001.

      I purposely wrote a doubling of known adults because that number may have been a partial product of increased detection and not safely assumed to be an indication of a growing population. Nonetheless earlier surveys provide enough information to suggest the overall population has most definitely increased to some degree.

      (I posted a version this reply earlier but something went wrong and I dont see it)

      • Now you say, “Accepting the more recent of the earlier estimates, the newest estimate of 595,000 was conservatively a doubling of “known adults” estimated to be 220,000 in 2001.”

        But what you said is that the paper: “shows the number of known Emperors has doubled in recent years”.

        From reading the paper, the increase is due to inaccurate counts in the past and the detection of new colonies.

        This is what they say, “The last global population estimate of 135,000–175,000 pairs, compiled nearly two decades ago, was based on a compendium of previous reports. However, the accuracy and validity of many of the counts used to compile this figure have been questioned. Further, many colonies have not previously been counted, including the ten new locations reported in a recent Landsat survey and the new colonies found in our study. Also, many of the colonies where counts do exist were last counted several decades ago, while other counts rely on estimates from late in the breeding season … These concerns over the lack of a baseline population figure for the species have led to the suggestion that emperor penguins should be re-classified by the IUCN from ‘of least concern’ to ‘data deficient’ ”

        When accusing others of making false claims, perhaps you should not support your claims falsely. Just a suggestion.

      • trafamadope,

        I cannot believe you would argue on Meisler’s side. I can’t believe anyone would.

        But then, sometimes I can be naive, thinking everyone is as intelligent as the average skeptic.

      • Yes I said “shows the number of known Emperors has doubled in recent years” That is not a false claim. I did not take time here to qualify what the meaning of that known doubling was, but I have done so in other posts and in the book.

        I was responding to the gloom and doom, and no matter what the ultimate cause of that doubling, the doubling of KNOWN Emperors is a fact. It means the species is at far less risk than was presumed a decade ago. The IUCN’s designation of Least Concern was based on the 220,000.

        I did not say the population grew like I did for the Adelies. So You can try to twist what I said as a “false claim”, but you are very wrong and it suggest you have more of an agenda.

  41. “Purveyors of Pernicious Prattle “….
    or Purveyors Of Outlandish Prattle….
    POOP for short….(8>))

    • It’s a tough call. Do you let scurrilous lies go unchallenged, or do you thoroughly rebuke them, as has been done here. There is danger of breathing life into the blogs of these puny, insignificant pukes, but I’m a little sadistic and don’t mind watching a good old butt kicking.

      • “Puny, insignificant pukes!”

        Brought to you by RH, Psy-ops Tech FIRST CLASS

        love it.

        #(:))

        “There is a time for everything… .” Eccl. 3:1.

  42. I want to be angry, but that graphic showing penguin populations falling, with a “Temperature” line skyrocketing off the chart makes me laugh.

  43. “The new graph on the left was downloaded on January 2, 2015.” This graph shows means, not maximums.

    • Hi Tony, Look in the upper left corner of the USHCN graphs and see “TMAX”. The graphs illustrate the change in the annual mean of maximum temperatures.

  44. But the data is most definitely correct, if USHCN is to be trusted.

    No and no.

    Unless you are using raw data, the microsite is (damn) clean, and TOBS is reasonably consistent.

    If so, then maybe.

    Trends are tricky: bad microsite exaggerates warming, but it exaggerates cooling, as well. Bad microsite is a trend amplifier, and it doesn’t matter what kind of trend it is.

    But USHCN is the best surface dataset available, so far as I know. At least the metadata for the past 30+ years is pretty good.

    So if it’s USHCN, it’s been surveyed and I have no doubt done up the maps and ratings for it, and the 1979-2008 trends. Let me see what I have on record.

  45. Okay, here’s what I have on Yosemite:

    — It’s a Class 2 station. Site is pretty cluttered fro a Class 2. It would be class 4, using Leroy (1999), but is a Class 2 using Leroy (2010).

    — TOBS was at 7:00 to 1991, then 24:00 to 1997, then 8:00 to 2008. The 24:00 hour period is on the Tmin side, and even if it weren’t, it straddles the middle of the interval, and will therefore not affect trend. And there really isn’t a dime’s worth of difference for a 7:00 to 8:00. So that’s fine.

    — Trend is ~0.100C/decade from 1979 to 2008. Higher than most other California Class 2 stations, but a lot lower than the adjusted/homogenized “official” trend. It hasn’t warmed a lot in CA since the late 1970s.

    — It converted to MMTS in 1984. (“We can adjust for that” — i.e. bump up the trend very slightly.)

    All in all, it’s a good site. Thumbs up.

    So be sure to use unflagged raw data only on this one. (You can step-change the datapoints by +0.1C for TMAX and -0.025C for Timin to account for MMTS conversion.)

    • Am not sure how to interpret your “no and no” comment. I use the graph from Yosemite precisely because it is a relatively good site as you also suggest. I have no quibble with the maximum temperature trend as now presented. I also have referred to Yosemite’s maximum trend in posts because it presented a trend that was seen throughout montane California. It was Mielser who trie to suggest the Yosemite trend was a fraud because current temperatures have never exceeded the 20s and 30s peak and thus no global warming.

      The more salient point is just 2 years ago Death Valley exhibited a very similar trend to Yosemite with a maximum peak in the 20s and 30s. After 2 years of monthly homogenization the trend was completely reversed.

  46. Actually, the steady rise in minimum temperatures in Yosemite and Death Valley is indicative of greenhouse gas-induced global warming — more “insulation” to prevent cooling at night. And as for all the cold records, that’s because of Arctic amplification putting the Jet Stream on a wild meandering course. Whenever you think the world might be cooling because it’s cold where you live, just take a look at the record heat in the Arctic (where all the cold air should be) – http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/#

    • Barry, rising minimums maybe consistent with CO2 warming but not declining maximums. Rising minimums are also consistent with more traffic and waste heat. Rising minimums were most consistent with more El Ninos from 1970s to 2000. After 2000, both the minimum temps and frequencies of El Nino decline which is quite inconsistent with rising CO2.

      Some people do claim that Arctic Amplification has caused the Jet Stream to meander more than usual, but that is pure speculation. I suspect most climate scientists agree the greater meander is a function of the increased high pressure in the eastern Pacific during the current La NIna/-PDO cycle. Trenberth himself suggests the meander is increased by those cooler Pacific Ocean temperatures. Furthermore the topography of the western USA has always caused the jet stream to meander northward and then flow southward on the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains . There are two typical winter storm systems that occur centered around Colorado and Alberta Canada because the Rockies create that jet stream meander which causes upper level divergence and enhanced cyclonic activity. I suggest you read about the formation of Alberta Clippers and Great Plains winter storms. The Alberta Clipper headed right now towards the Great Lakes is a pattern that has occurred for at least 100 years.

      Finally you are right to point out that global warming average is driven by warmer temperatures in the Arctic. But that is due to heat ventilating from the Arctic Ocean – not heat accumulating. So not only is it colder than usual throughout 90% of the USA, the Arctic Ocean is also cooling as illustrated by Wunsch 2014

      • jim Steele,

        … rising minimums maybe consistent with CO2 warming but not declining maximums.

        Oh? By what physical mechanisms?

        Rising minimums are also consistent with more traffic and waste heat.

        In a microclimate setting I agree. However, by what physics would I not also see maximums rising at a similar rate if waste heat were the primary driver? All else being equal that is. Which it never is, but it keeps the discussion of the physics from going off on too many tangents.

      • Brandon ask “However, by what physics would I not also see maximums rising at a similar rate if waste heat were the primary driver”

        During the winter and at night when the rising trends have predominated, there is an inversion layer that traps a thin layer of waste heat and that thin layer is more easily heated by surfaces like asphalt. During the day when insolation breaks that inversion layer, surface layer is more representative a well mixed column of air. In most of east Antarctica where there is a near permanent inversion layer and very little waste heat we do no see a rising temperature trend. To be clear, I do not suggest this mechanism is the only one operating to explain the myriad of microclimates.

      • jim Steele,

        To be clear, I do not suggest this mechanism is the only one operating to explain the myriad of microclimates.

        I absolutely agree with that. I personally don’t look at a temperature time series from any one single station and say, “That’s (not) compatible with AGW theory”. In the case of this one Yosemite station it’s seductively close: the annual average daily mins are rising steadily. Same calc for daily max is dead flat. So the strongest statement I’d make is that it’s not inconsistent with AGW. By my eyes, saying any more than that requires some pretty heavy duty analysis. By default I’m skeptical of being able to do such a thing.

    • Barry,

      Yes, your friends’ scary graphic–the big dark red blob at the North Pole–is scary, scary, scary!

      The Arctic must be burning up, with all that red ink spilled all over it! That big hot spot is pushing all the Arctic air into Florida! Nasty CO2!

      Oh, wait. Could this be an attempt to misinform? Is the Arctic really red-hot? Let’s look at the legend. This is showing “temperature anomalies.” That is the difference between today’s temperature and some “normal value.”

      The shade of red in the Arctic hot spot means that today’s temperature is 35 degrees F “hotter” than that normal average.

      Wow! That’s really hot!

      But wait, let’s click to see today’s temperature in that RED-HOT-burning-spot-that’s-forcing-all-the-Arctic-cold-to-Florida.

      Oh, well, that spot’s temperature is actually MINUS 20F to MINUS 40F.

      So, the “RED HOT” spot (-20F) that’s forcing Arctic air into St Louis is 35 degrees F “hotter” than it’s “normal” temperature of minus 55F?

      If that’s the best you’ve got, you may want to work on some more scary graphics!

      http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/#

    • Barry:

      Again, as in questions 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8, please show your work on part a.

      To receive credit and a passing grade show the nexus, that is the proof of causation, between human CO2 emissions and “insulation.”

      Part b is simply wrong. No credit. We discussed this last week. (for further reading see: https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/)

      If you find that you cannot do this, please make an appointment with my secretary. We will need to discuss finding you a major more suitable to your interests. You have a fine mind, Barry — don’t waste it.

      Yours sincerely,

      J. Moore

      • Note: for those not taking the class with Barry, the question he botched part a. on above was an open-ended essay: “State a proposition about CO2 and defend it.” His teacher has never attempted to fool her students into believing in AGW.

        /s/

        Jane Smith, Assistant to J. Moore

      • About Barry, Janice says “We discussed this last week.
        Barry doesn’t learn and so repeats. This seems to negate your assumption that he has a fine mind.
        But, because you say so I will read his comments on a future post – just to see.
        I’ve been wrong once before in my life. (That’s an old old joke.)

      • Hi, John Hultquist,

        Ah, very clever of you (smile). Either I’m a flatterer or… . I’d never make a good writer of detective stories, that is for sure!

        Oh, but, wait one minute… what I REALLY meant by that “last week” bit was to berate him for skipping class every day last week. Yeah… that’s the ticket (wink).

        #(;))

  47. I replied to Steve Mosher recently about problems with BEST. I can’t seem to access it any more

    Anyway, I pointed out that Warburton in WA, Australia has a very poor temperature record, its only neighbour is 200 km away (Giles) and the QC wasn’t correct (no months with 10 days or more missing was not even close). A break point was still identified and the inhomogeneity corrected to show more warming. Such a correction for a remote station has a large effect on the average for Australia.

    After hitting send, I noticed something more important. The raw data for Warburton was the raw data for Giles. Their algorithm found an inhomogeneity in data from differences with its neighbor which was the same data.

    Now I am utterly convinced that the homogenization is coded to increase the warming trend.

    • GREAT detective work, Robert B.! That bears repeating and with emphasis:

      Their algorithm found an inhomogeneity in data from differences with its neighbor which was the same data.

      • Not that great. I let him know before I archived the page. I can’t get Berkely Earth anymore. My internet cuts out when I try.

      • Bummer! You ARE a good detective. It is just that you are honest… hard for a guy with integrity to remember to counter the tactics of those with none.

        Put out an all points bulletin for the Berkely Earth stuff — every time you see one of the more computer saavy commenters ASK! Eventually, one will read your request for help and do it! — sorry, that person can’t be me :(

      • Hmmm. Do you know who funded the BEST study? Why oh why of all people would they “increase the warming trend”? This is a very unlikely conspiracy theory.

      • @trafamadore; They made an honest mistake that showed up a flaw in the algorithm that should have been spotted. They made a big deal of their quality control and it was lacking. My last sentence was too harsh as they would be working with others and merely should have spotted the problem rather than they put it in intentionally.

        BTW Spot the difference between the phases. http://berkeleyearth.org/funders?/donors/

      • Trafamadore says ” Do you know who funded the BEST study? Why oh why of all people would they “increase the warming trend”?”

        Unless there are obvious misleading sins of omission, the issue is only obscured when we venture into “who done it and why “. The issue with data homogenization is about the statistical slicing and splicing of data that represents a myriad of natural and contradictory microclimate responses. The resulting “assembling process” gets biased by “regional expectations” that are created by a majority wins method that amplifies a assumed trend. As weather stations are increasingly affected by population effects, the more resulting curve fits what we witness from urbanization, and speculate for CO2. Again that’s why tree ring data diverges from instrumental during the baby boom era. BEST used even more fragments from more lower quality stations and less constrained due to smaller fragments that do not show the local long term trend and are more susceptible to such assembling bias. There is also a lack of incorporating natural cycles into “regional expectations. http://landscapesandcycles.net/why-unwarranted-temperature-adjustments-.html

      • berkeleyearth.lbl.gov

        You’ll have to search for Warburton Range and Giles. I can’t access the site and I suspect that it has been fixed in the mean time.

    • Robert, I wonder how many other stations in Australia suffer the same “problem”? As indicated by comments in the “Harry Read Me.Txt” file that came out during Climate Gate, the Australian record is shonky at best.

    • Thanks Don B, Dr. Keen’s graphs and analyses are well worth viewing by all. Meehl and NCAR skewed the sense of growing ration maximum temperatures to minimum temperatures by starting in 1950. From 1950 -1970s there was a trend towards more minimum record as would be expected during the negative PDO. But Meehl’s work doesnt show the 20s-30s that were known for records highs. It seems now the course is cycling again towards an increasing number of record lows relative to highs.

  48. Thanks, Dr. Steele. A very interesting article.
    Data homogenization, of course distorts the data, that’s its purpose, to reduce the differences. Just keep raw data separately and use homogenized data for statistical purposes.

    • Is original (not tampered with ) data available ??? if so where from ??
      WUWT should be hosting unimpeachable original / historical data.

      …..or have they redacted/adjusted/destroyed every thing already.

Comments are closed.