The International Temperature Data Review Project
London, 26 April 2015 – The London-based think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation is today launching a major inquiry into the integrity of the official global surface temperature records.
An international team of eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians has been assembled under the chairmanship of Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. Questions have been raised about the reliability of the surface temperature data and the extent to which apparent warming trends may be artefacts of adjustments made after the data are collected. The inquiry will review the technical challenges in accurately measuring surface temperature, and will assess the extent of adjustments to the data, their integrity and whether they tend to increase or decrease the warming trend.
Launching the inquiry, Professor Kealey said:
“Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising. While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested. We hope to perform a valuable public service by getting everything out into the open.”
To coincide with the inquiry launch Professor Kealey has issued a call for evidence:
“We hope that people who are concerned with the integrity of climate science, from all sides of the debate, will help us to get to the bottom of these questions by telling us what they know about the temperature records and the adjustments made to them. The team approaches the subject as open-minded scientists – we intend to let the science do the talking. Our goal is to help the public understand the challenges in assembling climate data sets, the influence of adjustments and modifications to the data, and whether they are justifiable or not.”
All submissions will be published.
Further details of the inquiry, its remit and the team involved can be seen on its website www.tempdatareview.org
The controversy
Climatologists have long been aware of the poor state of global surface temperature records and considerable effort has been put into adjusting the raw data to correct known errors and biases. These adjustments are not insignificant. For example it has been noted that in the temperature series prepared by NOAA for the USA, the adjusted data exhibits a much larger warming trend than the raw data.
Source: http://1.usa.gov/1gQRThX
It has also been noted that over the years changes to the data have often tended to cool the early part of the record and to warm more recent years, increasing the apparent warming trend.
Although the reasons for the adjustments that are made to the raw data are understood in broad terms, for many of the global temperature series the details are obscure and it has proved difficult for outsiders to determine whether they are valid and applied consistently. For all these reasons, the global surface temperature records have been the subject of considerable and ongoing controversy.
The panel
In order to try to provide some clarity on the scientific issues, the Global Warming Policy Foundation has invited a panel of experts to investigate and report on these controversies.
The panel features experts in physics, climatology and statistics and will be chaired by Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham.
Terms of reference
Detailed terms of reference for the panel have been published.
Submissions of evidence
With four major surface temperature series to consider, each incorporating several layers of adjustment, the scope of the inquiry is very wide. The panel is therefore seeking to benefit from the considerable expertise that already exists on the surface records and is inviting interested parties to submit evidence.
After review by the panel, all submissions will be published and can be examined and commented upon by anyone who is interested.
The deadline for submitting evidence is 30 June 2015.
Report
No timetable has been set for the panel to report.
Contact
The International Temperature Data Review Project
Chairman
Professor Terence Kealey
terence.kealey@buckingham.ac.uk
The International Temperature Data Review Project
http://www.tempdatareview.org/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have little hope for this effort (though I do applaud it). Without the power to compel either witnesses or evidence, it will simply be written off as a publicity stunt by biased players, regardless of how well founded any conclusions arrived at turn out to be.
I’m more amused though at this continual attempt by both sides of the debate to validate a methodology by which to validate the earth’s temperature record. Even if the temperature record were 100% accurate, it would tell us nothing about the earth’s energy balance. I’ve discussed this with many physicists and the opinions range from (at best) temperature being a poor proxy for energy balance, to (at worst) utterly ridiculous, with far more leaning toward the “at worst” end of the spectrum.
If it is publicity that one seeks, then have an inquiry into the applicability of an “average temperature” to measurement of a change in earth’s energy balance. You’ll have quite the time getting scientists from either side of the debate to step up to that claim because it contravenes Stefan-Boltzmann Law and this is easily demonstrable even to a layman with nothing by high school math under their belt.
When one looks at unadjusted records from well sited locations away from urban influence, the same pattern keeps showing up and that pattern is different from the one being foisted.
One would be hard pressed to find one single such location that in any way matches the latest versions of the surface station graphs of the average temperature of the earth.
If the average temperature of the planet was indeed going up and up, then it stands to reason that over time the average temperature of individual sites would be going up and up as well.
then it stands to reason that over time the average temperature of individual sites would be going up and up as well.
In a system with high internal variability that assumption is false.
Is it really that hard? 1st, create random data with the same power spectrum as the 20’th century instrumental record (for each station) but without a trend and then run it through the currently used homogenisation algorithms and see if they add a trend. If they do scrap them and if they don’t, they should be accepted.
londo,
It’s really that hard. I believe you’re thinking of a McIntyre-esque analysis of synthetic red noise (IIRC) for centred vs. non-centred PCs and the alleged propensity for one vs. the other to produce Hokey Schticks. Such an analysis won’t tell you much about surface station homogenization algorithms because they don’t just attempt to detect inhomogeneities in the “raw” data, they look in the meta-data records for each station for things like, but not limited to:
1) Station moves.
2) Time of observation changes.
3) Equipment changes.
As well, there are the UHI adjustments, which each shop does differently, based on satellite observations of nightlights as a population density estimate, population records themselves, etc.
All of which are known to produce trend biases. Some interesting readings for you:
http://variable-variability.blogspot.ch/2014/11/participate-in-best-validation-study.html
http://variable-variability.blogspot.ch/2015/02/temperature-trend-bias-radiation-errors-screen.design.html
http://variable-variability.blogspot.ch/2015/01/temperature-bias-from-village-heat.html
The one most relevant to you question is the first link because that project does create synthetic temperature data series into which known types of various inhomogeneities are purposefully introduced as a way of testing which homogenization algorithms produce the result with the best fidelity to the “true” synthetic temperature trend.
I now expect some wag to comment that even the “real” temperature signal is synthetic.
Brandon Gates —
About Muller’s BEST — It flunked peer review at a couple of journals. I think then a brand new pay-to-publish journal in far off India accepted it (after the check cashed). It was their very first article. (and might have been their last. Their business model failed, I think.)
And as I remember it, Muller’s own daughter who was director of BEST asked that her name be taken off it before it was submitted to peer review.
Perhaps you should not tout BEST so much.
Eugene WR Gallun
Eugene WR Gallun,
IIRC, the owner of this forum promised to accept BEST’s results no matter what they were. Why did the worm turn?
PS: and crikey, the post you’re responding to doesn’t say a damn thing about BEST. Distracted much?
When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do?
That promise was made based on the premise that BEST would be an honest attempt to review the temperature data.
Once it became obvious that the authors had no desire to produce an honest report, the promise was no longer valid.
MarkW,
The same. Key is: so far as the facts are knowable.
How is it that you know what goes on inside the heads of the reviewers?
Here’s hoping the auditors remember to include land area outside the US:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lwQfxPaXFd0/VNoo9h7vUhI/AAAAAAAAAhA/iW8rexGjbgU/s700/land%2Braw%2Badj.png
And that they don’t forget that 70% of the surface is ocean:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HGT605CXR7w/VNoo9mjLeuI/AAAAAAAAAg8/QK_0C_L-hYc/s700/ocean%2Braw%2Badj.png
Because I simply won’t stand for sloppy climate scientists who very curiously adjust the entire globe to be warmer in the past:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-opy7LoBO__w/VNoo9u5ynhI/AAAAAAAAAg4/_DCE5Rzm9Fw/s700/land%2Bocean%2Braw%2Badj.png
Nope. No sir, this will never do.
——————
Graphics by: Zeke Hausfather, Berkeley Earth (speaking of … haven’t they already done something like this?)
More info: http://variable-variability.blogspot.ch/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html
They don’t need to concern themselves with land in or out just with the justification for driving the 20th century data up by 3°C.
Stephen Richards,
I don’t see how that comment is at all relevant to the plots I posted, particularly since:
1) The bulk of the adjustments are prior to 1950 which is before CO2 levels began ramping up in earnest.
2) The net result of the adjustments are to make the entire globe warmer in the past, not cooler.
Brandon, I’m from Missouri. Show me where The net result of the adjustments are to make the entire globe warmer in the past, not cooler.
David Ball,
I refer you to my very first post in this thread, just above: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/26/inquiry-launched-into-global-temperature-data-integrity/#comment-1918623
just a small point on the GHCN monthly data ;
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
There are 2 files QCU (unadjusted ) and QCA (adjusted) . However the term “adjustment ” only applies to the procedures carried out after the raw data has been received and makes no allowance to any corrections to the original field data that was collected by different organisations or stations. They make this clear in their README file.
I do not think that we should assume that it is not the original field data that is the object of this enquiry , unless , Brandon , you have inside info of which the rest of us are unaware.
mikewaite,
Indeed I am well aware of that. Both sets of data have lived on this very laptop for quite some time now.
I think that if you want to raise the issue of data tampering prior to it hitting NCDC’s intake process that it’s up to you to substantiate it, not me.
Failing your ability to back up the question you yourself have raised, my default thought process is to ask why such a widespread effort to falsify temperature records from around the world has not yet found it within its power to jigger the results to match the output of the model predictions.
Or indeed why the published ocean adjustments make the past warmer, not cooler. I mean, why adjust at all if the data coming in have already been massaged to their liking?
In short: I cannot “prove” to you that no malfeasance is happening if it isn’t …. I can’t prove a negative. Nobody can. Endlessly speculating about malfeasance is ridiculously easy, and as such, really not at all my duty to defend, or even within the realm of possibility — he who implies the existence of a thing needs to be the one to make it stick.
Oh, and while I had your attention, in a previous thread you wondered if I might have some comment about the 2nd derivative of CO2: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/22/a-statistical-definition-of-the-hiatus-in-global-warming-using-nasa-giss-and-mlo-data/#comment-1916561
Would you be so kind as to answer if the plots I provided were along the lines of what you were looking for? Thanks.
By the way, Nick, I don’t think we’ve averted an ice age, though if sensitivity is as high as some of the alarmists would fear, then we may have ameliorated the beginning of it.
I also think, that if we could know natural variability perfectly, and if we could settle on an ideal temperature, then we might be able to geoengineer our way to prevention of an Ice Age. This would require transnational co-operation and coercion which is unlikely to happen short of aliens imposing it. I note that a mile thick sheet of ice is not alien, but might work anyway, or the mere thought of it.
In the meantime, AnthroCO2 with obvious great greening and evident(?) gentle warming is the best, most naturally reversible, method of geoengineering a little leeway between us and the iceberg of glaciation.
And leeway we could use. The lookouts are already screaming at the bridge; the ship’s officers are playing at Monopoly.
=====================
Oops, misplaced that one. Oh, well, I’m just gonna have to admire it where it is.
===============
Kim,
I found it anyway. I am on mobile now, will comment more later at home.
BTW, I do not share Mr. Gate’s apparent confidence re averted ice age either.
Mr. Gates,
Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us what type of an audit you would approve of ?
Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like what you just said is that things are pretty much just the way you like them and you’re not going to stand for any changes.
” it sounds like what you just said is that things are pretty much just the way you like them”
Actually, he did not say that.
menicholas,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/26/inquiry-launched-into-global-temperature-data-integrity/#comment-1918702
See Item (6).
I keep forgetting that so many here don’t have my honed sense of irony.
It’s simple. If we’re to use only “raw” data, you get a more rapidly warming planet out of it because the adjustments to the SST timeseries warm NOT cool the past. Since oceans are 70% of the surface, the NET adjustments in GISS, HADCRUT4 and BEST global land/ocean surface temperature anomaly products end up reducing the long-term warming trend from 1880 to present.
So, which would you rather have, the “raw” data or adjusted?
Brandon Gates;
So, which would you rather have, the “raw” data or adjusted?
The notion that SST can be accurately reconstructed via 100 year old thermometer measurements taken by throwing a bucket overboard and pulling some water up to stick the thermometer in, by sailors who kinda sorta know exaclty where they were, strikes me as unreliable to begin with. No amount of adjustment can compensate for the data being at best spotty in the first place.
davidmhoffer,
That doesn’t answer the question I asked. Which do you want, the raw or adjusted data? Going back in time to take new readings the “right” way is not an option.
Lewis P Buckingham,
Not for 70% of the planet’s surface:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HGT605CXR7w/VNoo9mjLeuI/AAAAAAAAAg8/QK_0C_L-hYc/s700/ocean%2Braw%2Badj.png
You are the third person to have not answered my direct question: which do you prefer, the raw or adjusted data?
Brandon Gates;
That doesn’t answer the question I asked. Which do you want, the raw or adjusted data?
I thought I was clear.
Neither.
davidmhoffer,
Then as I see it, you have very little basis for making evidence-based arguments about AGW.
Brandon Gates;
Then as I see it, you have very little basis for making evidence-based arguments about AGW.
You know very well that my comments were in relation to SST data only, and the subset of that data which was arrived at by taking temperatures from buckets of water by people who were uncertain of exactly where there were. I said nothing about other data. But self admitted condescending jerk that you are, you choose to ignore the substance of my remarks and instead attribute to me that which I never said. When you are ready to have an honest discussion about this or any topic, please do let me know.
I will answer, even though I made the point clearly elsewhere on this thread.
I like my steak, chicken, and fish cooked.
Vegetables and data are best served up raw.
davidmhoffer,
I’m sorry, but land surface data only cover 30% of the planet. It’s not at all clear that we can simply ignore the other 70% and make reasonable conclusions about what’s been happening with the entire globe before OR after the IPCC say we began to have a noticeable affect on climate due to emissions, land use changes, stratospheric aerosols, black carbon soot deposits, etc., plus the myriad of natural variabilites both internal and external.
Frankly, why you should just want to toss away any piece of data which doesn’t conform to your arbitrary data quality standards is quite beyond me. What say ye?
I came to this discussion ready to have an honest conversation, David. No need to get petulant just because my evidence doesn’t conform to the narrative. And I quote:
The controversy
Climatologists have long been aware of the poor state of global surface temperature records and considerable effort has been put into adjusting the raw data to correct known errors and biases. These adjustments are not insignificant. For example it has been noted that in the temperature series prepared by NOAA for the USA, the adjusted data exhibits a much larger warming trend than the raw data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
It has also been noted that over the years changes to the data have often tended to cool the early part of the record and to warm more recent years, increasing the apparent warming trend.
Although the reasons for the adjustments that are made to the raw data are understood in broad terms, for many of the global temperature series the details are obscure and it has proved difficult for outsiders to determine whether they are valid and applied consistently. For all these reasons, the global surface temperature records have been the subject of considerable and ongoing controversy.
Emphasis added. The question being raised is that the “controversial” adjustments are artificially increasing the rate of warming. However this plot …
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HGT605CXR7w/VNoo9mjLeuI/AAAAAAAAAg8/QK_0C_L-hYc/s700/ocean%2Braw%2Badj.png
… shows that adjustments to surface temperature data taken from the oceans warm the past, thus reducing the long-term warming trend. And this plot …
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-opy7LoBO__w/VNoo9u5ynhI/AAAAAAAAAg4/_DCE5Rzm9Fw/s700/land%2Bocean%2Braw%2Badj.png
… shows that the net effect once the ocean and land data are combined is also a reduction in the long-term warming trend. I’m not talking about whether or not either the land or ocean temperatures are accurate, and you know damn well that I’m not. As well, you bet your sweet posterior I’m a condescending jerk when people try to weasel away from the actual point I’m making and then complain I’m the one putting words in their mouth.
Any time you want to directly address the actual question I am raising instead of dithering around, you just go ahead and let me know.
Ta.
Brandon Gates;
Any time you want to directly address the actual question I am raising instead of dithering around, you just go ahead and let me know.
You interjected into a specific discussion I was having with Pippen Kool and extrapolated the conversation to the general case that you were discussing with someone else.
If you weren’t so certain of your mental superiority and took the time to actually consider who said what about what, you might bring some value to the discussion. But you are certain of your mental superiority, you don’t bother to keep track of what others are saying to whom and why, and when called on it you return to a reprise of your condescending jerk approach. Unfortunate since you are one of the few warmists who turn up here that actually understand the science.
davidmhoffer,
Not in THIS subthread. In THIS subthread I wrote to menicholas:
It’s simple. If we’re to use only “raw” data, you get a more rapidly warming planet out of it because the adjustments to the SST timeseries warm NOT cool the past. Since oceans are 70% of the surface, the NET adjustments in GISS, HADCRUT4 and BEST global land/ocean surface temperature anomaly products end up reducing the long-term warming trend from 1880 to present.
So, which would you rather have, the “raw” data or adjusted?
That’s the GENERAL case of both land + ocean timeseries combined. Into THIS subthread, you replied to So, which would you rather have, the “raw” data or adjusted? with:
The notion that SST can be accurately reconstructed via 100 year old thermometer measurements taken by throwing a bucket overboard and pulling some water up to stick the thermometer in, by sailors who kinda sorta know exaclty where they were, strikes me as unreliable to begin with. No amount of adjustment can compensate for the data being at best spotty in the first place.
Which is a comment on the accuracy of the SPECIFIC case of ocean temperature measurements, NOT to the GENERAL case of whether temperature adjustments increase the long-term warming trend by cooling the past.
Keep ducking, dodging and weaving, David. I’ve got all the time in the world.
And we might have informative and intelligent discussions about it if you were actually capable and/or willing to take your own advice and not change the subject when the properly skeptical questions and arguments I make tend to falsify one of the key premises in the narrative of the head post.
This isn’t an issue of intelligence at all, it’s one of intellectual integrity.
Now. The land + ocean data are what we have. They’re going to continue to be used as we have NO OTHER OPTIONS available to us prior to 1979 when the satellite data became robust enough to use. In the GENERAL case of land + ocean, which would you prefer, the adjusted or non-adjusted? Why?
Brandon Gates;
Not in THIS subthread. In THIS subthread I wrote to menicholas:
You quoted MY words which were SPECIFIC to bucket data, and when I replied you construed them as being applicable to ALL data.
David. I’ve got all the time in the world.
What an empty life you must lead.
davidmhoffer,
Your words SPECIFIC to the bucket data are about accuracy. Fidelity to reality of the physical system. That argument is out of context to THIS subthread, in which YOU are replying to MY argument about whether global temperature timeseries are being manipulated to the hot side in the GENERAL case.
How in any way is your opinion about my life, someone you don’t know personally, in any way shape or form relevant? Hmmm? Do you think your silly taunts make me feel bad and will thus distract me from the fact that you’re dodging my on-target, salient points about the b/s assertion that climate scientists are manipulating global temperature data in the GENERAL case to support a false premise?
You betray the vacuous nature of your position with every such dodge. Please, by all means, keep on doing it. The more you and yours here at WUWT show your irrational, empty, nebulously-supported allegations of malfeasance for what they are, the better.
Menicholas,
Very well. The raw global land + ocean data show more warming than the adjusted:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-opy7LoBO__w/VNoo9u5ynhI/AAAAAAAAAg4/_DCE5Rzm9Fw/s700/land%2Bocean%2Braw%2Badj.png
I expect to not hear any complaints from you in the future about climate scientists manipulating data to make things warmer than they really are.
Brandon Gates;
Your words SPECIFIC to the bucket data are about accuracy.
Ah. So you get to decide what my words mean. Got it.
How in any way is your opinion about my life, someone you don’t know personally, in any way shape or form relevant?
It isn’t. But provoking a two paragraph response was fun and informative. Sorry if I touched a nerve.
the fact that you’re dodging my on-target, salient points about the b/s assertion that climate scientists are manipulating global temperature data in the GENERAL case to support a false premise?
You didn’t make a point. You repeatedly asked a loaded question based on your terminology, your definitions and restricted it to a yes/no answer. You arrogantly define the battle field to suit your own position, and exclude possibilities outside of your narrow yes/no requirement as being possible answers, and then throw a hissy fit when people don’t fall into your clever trap. Either that are you completely missed the additional possibilities.
Brandon: ‘irrational, empty, nebulously supported allegations of malfeasance’
Anger translator: ‘Yo Mama’.
============
B Gates, I’m happy to have skeptics look at the record. It would be a first. So why are you so angry about it?
It’s a distraction from the question of attribution anyway. And if man has brought us from the coldest depths of the Holocene, who’ll maintain a little warmth around here once man’s pitiful little aliquot of fossil CO2 is exhausted?
=================
I’ve occasionally wondered, if Muller was so upset at Mann’s Crook’t Stick, why did he wander off into an examination of the temperature record, as if he’d been distracted from his concern. It’s not as if his inquiry were on point.
And Muller’s attribution argument? Why doesn’t he wonder how cold it would be without man’s input, according to him, and why doesn’t he understand how valuable that warming has been, whatever the cause?
===================
Mr. Gates, I answered a simple question with a simple answer, as you so crustily implored of your adoring throng.
How you choose to reinterpret and extrapolate my response, and by so doing formulate an expectation of what I or anyone may or should say in the future, is entirely up to you.
I have no opinion on your expectations.
davidmhoffer,
When in Rome.
kim,
Anger translator: ‘Yo Mama’.
That works.
B Gates, I’m happy to have skeptics look at the record. It would be a first.
I suppose that’s true if the definition of “sceptic” is something along the lines of “one who would rather die than consider that surface temperature products are reasonably representative of reality.”
So why are you so angry about it?
This is no mere anger. Try naked fury of the sort only moral outrage brings on. It’s the disingenuity of it all, and the fact that so many folks fall for it hook line and sinker. You may or may not be able to identify with that.
It’s a distraction from the question of attribution anyway.
You change the subject and then complain about distraction. Good one.
And if man has brought us from the coldest depths of the Holocene, who’ll maintain a little warmth around here once man’s pitiful little aliquot of fossil CO2 is exhausted?
Oh look, another squirrel I’m going to resist the temptation of chasing.
I’ve occasionally wondered, if Muller was so upset at Mann’s Crook’t Stick, why did he wander off into an examination of the temperature record, as if he’d been distracted from his concern.
You wonder about a lot of things of doubtful relevance to the topic at hand. Is something bothering you about the actual point I’m making here in this thread?
It’s not as if his inquiry were on point.
An irony meter just ‘sploded. Best salve for molten rage there ever was, thank you.
And Muller’s attribution argument? Why doesn’t he wonder how cold it would be without man’s input, according to him, and why doesn’t he understand how valuable that warming has been, whatever the cause?
Oh hell, I’ll take the bait on that one. My own personal view is that you are correct, the slight warming we’ve done thus far is working out as a net plus relative to where things were headed. Difficult to know for sure, but that is my opinion. Literature also tells us that we’ve in all likelihood staved off a true ice age for at least the next several hundred thousand years, also very likely a good thing.
As for Muller’s actual thoughts on this, I do not know … I don’t presume to put words in his mouth. Cheers.
*crickets*
Kim: Well I buggered the blockquotes again. Perhaps mod can help, otherwise I trust you can sort your words from mine.
“Actually, he did not say that.”
Well, that was most helpful and moved the conversation forward in several important ways, eh?
I shall not bother to explain it to you if you lack the conversational skills to discern the distinction between a quote and a summary.
Brandon Gates;
When in Rome.
This isn’t Rome. It is a forum where civil people who have relevant knowledge state their opinions and back them up with data. Cat and mouse games are for children who throw hissy fits like yours when they don’t get their way.
I note you didn’t even bother to ask me what options I thought you may have excluded or failed to consider. Someone interested in a meaningful discussion would have asked. Nay, demanded. Seem like you don’t even want to know. Funny that.
m e n i c h o l a s,
My replies to to are going into spam for some reason, hence the alternative spelling of your nym.
davidmhoffer,
I note you didn’t even bother to ask me what options I thought you may have excluded or failed to consider. Someone interested in a meaningful discussion would have asked. Nay, demanded. Seem like you don’t even want to know. Funny that.
Not at all funny. I’m not interested in what you think the other options are in the context of this particular subthread. I’ve made it clear that I wish to discuss the allegations of data tampering in the surface temperature records, you want to talk about something else. Seems like you don’t. Funny that.
Oh look, I didn’t consider the other possible options just there. I wonder why?
Damn, I need coffee.
Brandon Gates;
I’m not interested in what you think the other options are in the context of this particular subthread.
Exactly. You constructed a scenario and then insisted that respondents choose one of two options. When pointed out to you that there are other options, you childishly assert that you are not interested in other options. You don’t even know what they are, but dismiss them as being out of context.
davidmhoffer,
I know my intent on this thread. I’ve made it very clear, namely that:
1) Very evidently the major surface temperature providers are not manipulating temperature records in the GENERAL case of land + ocean to create an artificial warming trend, and
2) The GWPF’s “review” looks to be just another stunt designed to perpetuate that same myth.
I get it that you don’t want to talk about that. Perhaps you’d be willing to share why the subject makes you so apparently uncomfortable that you wish to discuss ships and buckets instead?
Mr Gates, I have not seen any comments in which my name appears to be misspelled, hello for the sake of brevity I shall let you know that my name is Nick. Menicholas is only a handle.
As for the rest… well… no worries.
If those comments resurface I’ll check them out later.
In any case, as there seems to be little or no information being passed back and forth at this point in the conversation, I think I shall now wander off, in search of more stimulating fare.
Nice chatting’ wit’ cha.
Toodles.
By the way…37f, modified by a 19c, and a straight up 3!
🙂
Brandon Gates;
Sigh. I will try one last time to explain it to you.
1) Very evidently the major surface temperature providers are not manipulating temperature records in the GENERAL case of land + ocean to create an artificial warming trend, and
In the recent past, the prevailing thought among climatologists of note was that land would heat up faster due to CAGW than would ocean. The DISPARITY between the land and ocean trends was trotted out as proof of this. Hence, the warming of the past for ocean temps and the cooling of the past for land temps bolstered their narrative. But let us put aside that for a moment and just look at the end result with no thought to purpose or confirmation bias or any other deliberate act. The vast majority of the land adjustments go all in one direction, and the vast majority of ocean adjustments also all go in one (albeit a different one) direction. If that isn’t cause for an in depth review, I don’t know what is.
2) The GWPF’s “review” looks to be just another stunt designed to perpetuate that same myth.
I doubt they will get the data and cooperation required to come to any conclusions. But suppose for a moment that you are correct. What have you to fear? If there is nothing to find, then they’ll find nothing and you’ll be vindicated. If you are so certain you are right, you should be cheering them on and insisting that their processes and data be transparent so that you can verify them. You should be HAPPY they are doing this since you believe the only outcome of an honest and transparent process is to vindicate YOU.
As for the rest of your diatribe, sorry, but a considerable part of the data (bucket data being one example) is simply unreliable. You argument that this is the only data we have, so that’s what we have to use is preposterous. If you had data showing that the south pole was 1 million degrees last Tuesday, would you say hey, that’s the only data we have, so we have to use it? Of course not. So all the data should be scrutinized for validity and discarded if it doesn’t meet reasonable quality metrics. Does it make sense to do that kind of review from time to time? Of course it does.
Personally I’d throw out the bucket data and a lot of other data too. Well not quite. With the bucket data (as an example) I would start a NEW program using bucket data NOW using the same methods they used back then. I’d collect it for a few years and then compare it to current methods such as Argo and satellite and see how it stacks up. If it stacks up well, then fine use it. If it turns out to be crap, toss it.
davidmhoffer,
How about let’s not because I think it’s a bullcrap argument. Into an evidence-based scientific discussion you have imputed motive, and on no uncertain terms. Now you want to set it aside for sake of discussion? Hump a bunch of that, David. If you have direct (as in NOT circumstantial) evidence to substantiate your accusation, for St. Pete’s sake bring it forward already.
In lieu of that, ask yourself: if there is a massive and powerful enough cabal of dishonest scientists and government officials to pull of such a caper as you suggest, why then to the damn models not match the desired conclusion with vastly greater fidelity?
For shite’s sake man, can’t your wildly imaginative mind come up with a more lucrative scam which would be easier to pull off than the one you’re hinting at???
All the evidence in the world cannot assail faulty logic. Wake up!
Sigh. I will try one more time to tell you: those reviews have already been done, extensively, in primary literature. The codes which do the adjustments are publicly available for anyone to download, review, compile, and execute at any time. The process is fully open and as transparent as it can be. Calls for additional review seem rather … empty to me … given that any and all private citizens with the requisite technical skills can do them.
I don’t object to what the GWPF say they intend to do in principle. The rhetorical question I am asking is why you and others here evidently think it is still necessary. In short, I am asking: what will it take to convince you that the temperature records are as reliable as the best and brightest domain experts in the world have been able to make them in consideration of the obvious issues underlying how they were collected?
See? I do know how to ask open-ended questions. Trouble is, so very often they go unanswered. Feel very free to surprise me.
ROFL! That’s just marvellous. Win-win for you isn’t it:
Scenario 1: Someone who has been hiding under a previosly unturned rock submits massively damaging evidence of deliberate falsification and the AGW fraud is finally exposed for what it is.
Scenario 2: They don’t get the ill-defined data and cooperation they need to complete a thorough, scientifically valid review and the AGW fraud is finally exposed for what it is.
Scenario 3: They do get the nebulously characterized data and cooperation to complete a thorough, scientifically valid review, conclude there’s no problem, and the AGW fraud proves once again that nobody is immune from its corrupting influence.
Did I miss any?
How many times to I have to repeat myself: nothing. Recall that I came out in support of Steven Goddard’s FOIA request to NOAA, and volunteered $1,000 US of my own funds to cover the cost if Anthony would use his name recognition and assets to organize a fund drive to raise the rest. DB told me to get a life. Anthony still has not responded to the offer, which by the way is STILL open.
BEST already did this exercise. Anthony promised to accept whatever results they came up with. Did he? Do you?
Pardon me if I doubt promise of vindication, with extreme prejudice.
As well, note that we’re back to yes/no dichotomies. Why? Could it possibly be that you’re constructing a framework from within which I must see your view of things? A strawman of sorts, perhaps, just like the one I threw together last quote block? Tends to make one cranky, doesn’t it.
It’s my fondest wish that they’d come out and say, “We did a thorough review and find nothing wrong”. And that at long last you guys would accept the answer of an independent review.
Is that REALLY what you think they’re going to do, David? You’re damn right I smell a rat. I’ve listed my specific reasons for why elsewhere in this thread. Would you care to address them specifically?
I got that already. You objected to my interpretation:
Brandon Gates;
Your words SPECIFIC to the bucket data are about accuracy.
Ah. So you get to decide what my words mean. Got it.
The other main method is temperature readings taken from the engine coolant intake. Later on XBTs and related tech were used, which had the benefit of giving temperatures at depth. So yes, of course there are other data. However, I maintain that my argument in THIS subthread is about the charge that temperatures are being manipulated HOT is FALSE because the records of adjustments to the OCEAN data show COOLING rather than WARMING. Unreliability of the measurements themselves is a DIFFERENT subject.
Why are you attempting to CHANGE the SUBJECT, David? I tend to get a little belligerent and start to fight dirty when people EVADE the SUBJECT. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Am I getting through yet?
Dear me, there are a lot of CAPS and bolded text here. You bet you hit a nerve. I’m beside myself furious, all the more so because you apparently don’t have the first friggin’ clue why … or if you do, you’re not saying.
And on that dichotomous parting shot, I bid you cheers.
“Literature also tells us that we’ve in all likelihood staved off a true ice age for at least the next several hundred thousand years, also very likely a good thing.”
Well, I was not going to say anything else, especially since it appears Mr. Gates is on hold.
But this is an extraordinary statement.
Several hundred thousand years!?!
Seriously?
Because we all know, I am quite certain, that such an interval is several ice age and interglacials periods long, given the recent history of such.
Also, if one is taking the long view, and is honest enough to acknowledge that, absent any intervention, we certainly will have a resumption of ice age conditions, and no one really knows when…but this interglacial is already longer than most recent ones have been, so it could be, really, anytime…including this century.
And the statement also seems to acknowledge that an ice age would be very bad.
So, CO2 is staving off an ice age, but Mr. Gates presumably supports policies that would end CO2 emissions?
Is the thought that the “excess” amount already in the air will persist for “hundreds of thousand years”?
What is the evidence for this?
What is the evidence that CO2 is even causing any warming? Or can?
No evidence of such exists in any historic records. In fact the records clearly demonstrate no hint that CO2 has ever led warming.
For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 was rising and near a maximum value when temperatures began to fall, and was near a low and falling when temps reversed and headed higher.
EVERY SINGLE TIME!
More recently, only one brief interval had CO2 rising as temps did so. Longer intervals had temps falling as CO2 rose, and the current interval has flat temps with CO2 rising more rapidly than ever!
And over the longer time intervals of geologic history, there seems to be no correlation whatever, with CO2 and temps rising and falling with no synchrony at all, even though some of these CO2 levels were an order of magnitude and more higher than present levels.
Any theory that cannot account for facts is on shaky ground. Any theory that is contradicted by very nearly every shred of available evidence is not on shaky ground…it is floating up in the sky completely unsupported.
So, we have staved off an ice age, but should stop the activity that some think has led to this salvation?
Is there some idea that we can engineer the earth? Control the temperature? Steer a course between some imagined catastrophe of warming, and a certain catastrophe of miles thick ice?
I would certainly not mind hearing an explication of this view, and an expansion of the thought process.
http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Past_740_kyrs_Dome-Concordia_ice_core_temperature_reconstructions.png/1024px-Past_740_kyrs_Dome-Concordia_ice_core_temperature_reconstructions.png
http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg
http://www.21stcentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Greenland-ice-core-data.png
A few more graphs that ought to reconcile with the rest of the available data, unless there is some reason to suspect we should ignore it:
http://www.21stcentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Greenland-ice-core-data.png
http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg
We get that B Gates doesn’t want the temp record looked at. We don’t get why he prefers we all remain as ignorant as he is.
We get that B Gates thinks we’ve already averted an ice age. We don’t get why he’d rather we hadn’t.
====================
@Menicholas
Are you seriously not aware that the Alley dataset ended in 1855? Go look it up yourself.
“Present” was 1950.
95 years ‘before present’ is 1855.
Whoever put “2000” label on that graph was intending to deceive. Anthony even has it on his list of fake graphs.
So what happened to temperatures in the 160 years since the dataset of that graph ended?
Hmmmm, Ed; it looks like we’ve bounced off the coldest depths of the Holocene. Is it Nature or is it us? Better hope it was nature, ‘cuz if it’s us we can’t keep up the heavy lifting of warming for very long.
============
Well Ed, you just go right on ignoring the discussion. If picking nits while ignoring what is being said is all you can muster, I suppose we will all have to live with your inability to add anything useful.
Brandon, no amount of massaging can turn inaccurate and insufficient data into good data.
If poor to bad data is all we have, then we just have to accept the fact that we don’t know what the temperature of the planet was 100 years ago. Wishful thinking notwithstanding.
Menicholas,
It appears that I’m back.
That’s what I wrote.
The problem with conventional wisdom is that it often isn’t wisdom.
Sure, nobody does know. But I see that one main function of science is to make estimates.
Does it not occur to you that some people study this stuff for a living, and that for them, “well it could be anytime, really” isn’t the kind of thing that gets past peer review?
Try Berger (1978). Bit of a discussion of it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/17/what-is-a-normal-climate/#comment-1885810
DUH!
Ever hear of the concept, “too much of a good thing isn’t”? Go drink 10 gallons of water in less than 4 hours and tell me how you feel.
No, seriously don’t. It could kill you.
Ah, now you ask a good question.
Alright already, hold on, I’m looking for the reference …
… ah yes, Archer (2005): http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.trigger.pdf
An anthropogenic release of 300 Gton C (as we have already done) has a relatively small impact on future climate evolution, postponing the next glacial termination 140 kyr from now by one precession cycle.
Covered favourably right here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/27/good-news-elevated-co2-may-extend-interglacial-prevent-next-ice-age/
With caveats of course, namely …
… raising that very same question.
It’s kinda funny how you plop up a bunch of charts from ice core studies, invoke lead/lag (for the billionth time, like it’s original or something), but object to what the researchers themselves say about how they interpret the data.
Here’s a fun exercise: please show me where it is written that phenomena described by two dependent variables can NEVER affect each other.
kim,
No, kim, you don’t know jack squat about what goes on inside my head …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/27/outrageous-noaa-demands-262000-fee-for-looking-at-their-public-data/#comment-1892408
I’m all for creating a general FOIA pool which, by law, must be replenished immediately if it overruns its annual budget. All in favor, say “aye”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/27/outrageous-noaa-demands-262000-fee-for-looking-at-their-public-data/#comment-1893671
Since I’m a big supporter of government and scientific transparency, and willing to put my money where my mouth is: If Anthony starts a coordinated pledge drive with Goddard and Clizbe to raise the $262,000 for the FOIA to go through, I’ll contribute $500.00 out of my own funds in support. If the drive reaches 50% of that amount, I’ll contribute another $500.00 as a further demonstration of my commitment to the effort. If, after 90 days from the opening bell of the pledge drive, the full $262,000 is not met, all collected funds are to be donated to: http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/
… and should probably give up trying. Notice how there are no takers to my offer. Notice that my offer is still open.
Tell me again how it is that I don’t want temperature records looked at? There’s a BIG difference between my thinking it’s not necessary, and my not wanting it to happen. Now please kindly remove your words from my mouth, and think about taking your foot out of your own.
Incidental ignorance I can excuse. Wilful ignorance I find difficult to do the same. I would prefer that you were NOT apparently both.
It might have something to do with the fact that you’re too busy inventing things about what I’m thinking and writing than reading and understanding them for what they’re actually saying. But I’m not inside your head and wouldn’t presume to know. What I do know is that you’re wrong about what I think and why. Cheers.
Ed Coffer asks:
So what happened to temperatures in the 160 years since the dataset of that graph ended?
So this happened, Ed.
Global T went up about 0.7ºC — most of it over the past century.
Notice that the rise stayed within clearly defined parameters, and there was no acceleration despite the sharp rise in CO2 since WWII.
Any normal, rational observer would look at that situation and reject MMGW out of hand.
There are many similar charts showing the same thing. Here’s another:
Reasonable people can see that the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ narrative has no scientific basis. So it is just politics. Because MMGW certainly isn’t supported by observations.
dbstealey,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/offset:14/plot/gistemp/compress:12/offset:13.885/detrend:-0.02/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.42/detrend:-0.23/offset:14/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:14.1/detrend:-0.23/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/trend/offset:14/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:9
Hmm. Why does the center trendline use GISS, which stops at 1880 when HADCRUT3v goes back to 1850? And why not use HADCRUT4?
I take it that means you don’t consider the major temperature time series going back to the mid 19th century fatally flawed?
Re “fatally flawed”
I will answer that question. I do consider that it is unlikely that the time series is accurate and can be trusted.
But, speaking for myself, the point Mr. Stealey makes is valid even allowing, just for the sake of argument, the data as presented.
I think you are likely well versed in these discussions sufficiently to understand that one cannot argue the entire years long house of cards with every point one tries to make.
Re the “extraordinary statement” response above, I am not going to take the time you did, but wonder why you would clog up the discussion with straw men (4 gallons of water), appeals to authority (yawn…did you read my suggestion at bottom of thread re just number our arguments?), assorted cryptic remarks (Conventional wisdom is not? What?), and such.
And did you really ask me how I can possibly disagree with the conclusions of highly biased “experts”?
Menicholas,
I already got that from you elsewhere.
Ok then, speaking for yourself: Why does the center trendline use GISS, which stops at 1880 when HADCRUT3v goes back to 1850? And why not use HADCRUT4?
lol. I’m well-versed enough in these discussions to know that my interlocutors rarely offer me that kind of sensibility. Stealey is the master of that. One good example is his repeated question of me to provide a measurement of AGW based on independently verifiable scientific evidence which both sides can accept. That’s practically a direct quote. I mean, can he possibly load it up any more than that? My consistent answer is that all literature provides is estimates, to which he scoffs, “yeah guesstimates” and then does a victory lap.
Next day, he asks the same damn question.
In short, there are reasons I’m busting him up on this one due to my history with him.
The whole, “I have no clue what you’re talking about, so it must be wrong” tack gets tedious. If you don’t understand an argument, please just ask for clarification and leave as much editorializing out of it as possible. You’ll find I’m far less snarky and more to the point when my interlocutor also makes some effort to keep the rhetorical flourishes out of it.
I seriously don’t want to wade through the tangle to find the original quote. Again, one courtesy I generally afford others is directly quoting them so that there’s no question what they actually said. That’s a standard protocol on Usenet which is where I first cut my teeth in online … debate … back in the early ’00s.
What I remember saying is something along the lines of finding the works and arguments of domain experts far more credible than that of self-proclaimed anonymous armchair experts on the Interwebs. Nothing in there demanding that you cannot ever agree with expert opinion. That’s another one of those annoying word-twisting strawmen that folks on your side of this debate are fond of stuffing in my mouth. I spit that nonsense out with alacrity — ptooooey!
I DISagree with expert opinion ALL THE TIME. When I do, I generally attempt to explain why. Sometimes I’ll say stuff like: look, that guy’s argument just hasn’t convinced me, and it’s MY PERSONAL OPINION that he’s wrong — or could be wrong; it depends on how strong I think I am on the general material being discussed. The whole time I’m doing that, I’m fully aware the whole time that my ignorance of that expert’s domain could mean that I’m the one who is DEAD WRONG, not him. And (usually) fulling willing to admit that.
By the same token, I don’t just roll over and accept what all experts say about everything. I note that they themselves disagree on points, many of which in this debate are too arcane from my perspective to follow.
In short, you can take your charge of my fallacious appeals to authority and shove it. There’s a big difference between accepting expert opinion after a long period of evaluation of many many arguments — many of those in outright conflict with each other — and just taking an expert on faith the very moment one of them says something that I want to hear.
Hi Menicholas,
Gates seems to believe that I am the one who began asking for a measurement of AGW, but I’m not. I am far from the first person to ask that question. It has been asked off and on here and elsewhere for years by others who are more involved with the issue than I am. I am concerned because it is a question that has never been answered. And it should be either answered, or the alarmist crowd should admit that they have no such measurements. Instead, they get personal.
I got that question from a number of other scientists who have posted it right here under previous WUWT articles. It is an excellent question, which goes to the heart of the entire global warming debate. We are being told by Gates and many others that there is a real danger of man-made global warming (MMGW) leading to a climate catastrophe.
They may deny that, for whatever reason. But if there’s no real problem, then why is anyone still arguing? Why is the government pouring $Billions into a non-issue?
No, the scare is MMGW. There is no getting around it.
Therefore, it is reasonable to ask for some kind of verifiable, empirical, testable, measurement-based evidence, specifically quantifying how much MMGW exists, no? What is the fraction of MMGW, out of total global warming from all causes, including natural variablity? Who wouldn’t want an answer to that question?
If we had a verifiable measurement of MMGW (AKA: AGW), then we would have an accurate, predictable climate sensitivity number; the rise in global warming we would expect from a doubling of CO2. But as we know, the climate sensitivity guesstimates range from more than 6ºC, down to zero — and everything in between, depending on who is asked.
Measurements are essential to understanding science. Billions of dollars are spent on the LHC and other instruments, with the singular goal of establishing a definitive measurement of the Higgs boson, and other subatomic particles. Without measurements, all we have are conjectures; opinions. That is not good enough to justify radically altering Western civilization, which is the proposed remedy to a problem that can’t even be quantified!
Gates always gets upset when the complete lack of AGW measurements is pointed out. And no wonder. Without any veriiable, testable measurements quantifying MMGW, the whole alarmist argument begins to resemble a giant head fake. We are being told to worry about the cat under the bed. But no one has been able to look under the bed to see if a cat is there. Or a monster. Or anything. Like turtles, it is opinions all the way down.
We need accurate measurments quantifying the fraction of global warming attributable to human CO2 emissions. It is as simple as that, and nothing less will do. But after many decades of searching by highly trained scientists using the latest equipment, they still cannot measure how much — if any — of the observed global warming is due to human activity.
That means one of two things: either AGW is too minuscule to measure, or it doesn’t exist. I personally suspect the first possibility. But no one really knows.
ollieb says:
There are other possibilities. The 0.8 degree C rise in the past 150 years is 100% due to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
No, because if that were the case, global warming would have risen in lock step with the rise in CO2. But as we see, global warming stopped many years ago, while CO2 continues to rise.
It is also possible that the “natural variability” would have made the LIA continue without the anthropogenic CO2, and Earth would be 0.3 degrees colder…
I agree, that is possible. But to know that, we need measurements quantifying AGW. Otherwise, like everything else, that is just a conjecture. An opinion.
Of course you won’t accept eith3r of these as possible since they goes against your preconceived assumptions.
I asked a question. I agreed that your second possibility is reasonable, even though it is speculation. It is possible. We just don’t have any measurements to verify it.
If you can provide the measurements requested, and they are agreed to by most relevant scientists and engineers, and if they are able to predict future global temperature changes, then as a scientific skeptic I will absolutely accept what you find.
Explain how that is a ‘preconceived assumption’?
ollieb says:
You discount the ENSO/PDO, AMO, and thermal inertia.
Well then, it wouldn’t be 100% human-caused as you claimed, would it? Unless you believe the AMO etc. are all caused by human activity.
I will never change your mind, so let’s drop it. You could change my mind as I said, by simply producing some AGW measurements. But until then, I remain a skeptic — the only honest kind of scientist.
dbstealey,
I just checked, and I don’t “seem” to recall ever thinking or saying any such thing.
On that we agree.
I am concerned about that as well. However, repeatedly asking the question after you’ve been told countless times …
There is no direct measurement of AGW, only estimates.
… isn’t going to make it happen any more quickly. As I’m sure we both would prefer.
Well then, I guess that makes me not an “alarmist” because, I repeat, I have told you a bazllion times that:
There is no direct measurement of AGW, only estimates.
I wonder why. Certainly your charming personality has got nothing to do with it.
Not that you’d ever appeal to authority or anything.
Oh dear, we agree twice in the same post. Hades must be close to freezing. Which means CO2 levels must be up.
Yup, that’s what the literature says. Here’s the part that you’ll love most — the longer we wait around for you to be satisfied that AGW has been measured to six decimal places, the greater the risk of not acting becomes. Great scam, no?
Billions of billions of dollars could be spent and still not figure out how your mind works.
No, I tend to get upset when you start playing fast and loose with the English language.
So DB, when you’re out driving at night, in the fog, on an unfamiliar road and happen upon a blind curve, which pedal do you push on?
1) The accelerator
2) The brake
Speaking of, personally I wouldn’t be at all put out if your choice was (1). Right to the floorboards.
Problem is, I’m in the same car as you are, and being the passenger in a vehicle driven by someone who is near-paradoxical living evidence that Darwin might have been wrong isn’t my idea of a good time.
Gates says:
There is no direct measurement of AGW, only estimates.
Yes, and saying it twice doesn’t change anything. I recall Mr. Gates claiming that he had measurements of AGW, but when his feet were held to the fire he dropped his claim.
Without verifiable measurements we are left with the alarmist crowd’s only weapon: their baseless assertions that dangerous MMGW exists, despite the unarguable fact that we have been through the most mild, pleasant and temperate global climate regime in recorded history. The tiny 0.7º fluctuation in global T over a century and a half is extremely unusual. It is as close to being flat temperatures as anything in in the historical record. So based on nothing at all, we are constantly being told that dangerous MMGW exists. Skeptics’ response: Show us MMGW. Alarmists’ answer: *crickets*.
Next, when I point out that Gates gets personal instead of either posting a credible argument or admitting that he’s got nothing, his response is:
I wonder why. Certainly your charming personality has got nothing to do with it.
Deflection; the usual tactic of the alarmist cult. But disparaging remarks don’t win any debates. Rather, they show the one doing the insulting has nothing.
Next, when I pointed out that other well known scientists had asked the same question about the lack of measurements, Gates again deflects:
Not that you’d ever appeal to authority or anything.
Asking a question is not an appeal to authority, it is just asking a question that Gates can’t answer. But rhetorical fencing is all he’s got, and that explains the million or so words he’s posted that amount to nothing.
Next:
the longer we wait around for you to be satisfied that AGW has been measured to six decimal places, the greater the risk of not acting becomes.
Six decimal places? More nonsense. We are asking for any verifiable measurements. But MMGW is so tiny, if it even exists outside of UHI effects, that the alarmist crowd cannot produce a measurement of any kind. All they have is their evidence-free Belief, yet they tell us that we’re going over a climate catastrophe cliff. But there is not a shred of evidence that “not acting” matters. Acting for no credible reason is what a fool does. And:
Billions of billions of dollars could be spent and still not figure out how your mind works.
Yes, my mind works, and well. Pointless comments like these are nothing more than an admission that Gates has got nothin’. The alarmist crowd lost the science argument a long time ago. Now all they’ve got are juvenile taunts like that.
I tend to get upset when you start playing fast and loose with the English language.
No, Gates gets upset because he’s lost the debate. The English language is an excuse.
As I point out regularly: there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening to the global climate. Everything we observe now is well within past parameters. Not one prediction made by Gates’ crowd of propagandists has ever come true, and they still cannot produce a single verifiable measurement of something that they’re trying to convince everyone is happening all around us.
Nonsense. The ‘dangerous MMGW’ hoax is a trumped-up scam, intended to scare the populace into opening their wallets for a new carbon tax. It is based on complete B.S., and whenever skeptics say, “Show us. Post verifiable evidence that what you say is true,” all we get is a flood of pixels verifying nothing at all.
If AGW was at all significant, we would have measurements quantifying it, and those measurements would answer the question of climate sensitivity. But it is clear that MMGW is so minuscule that it can be completely disregarded — which is why all we get are endless arguments from the climate alarmist crowd, amounting to nothing at all. They are trying to sell everyone a pig in a poke, and it just isn’t working.
Mr. Stealey,
I appreciate all of your explication, even though I have not had much time to comment this week, or even to read all the comments. I have not even been keeping up with new articles at all.
When did life get so busy? Every week I fall behind in things I want to and need to read, and every week I can not catch up on previous weeks.
This is certainly an information packed exchange, that is for sure. I think if the warmistas spent more time expounding on their thought process we would all be better off for it.
Mr. Gates knows both side of the argument, that is evident, although I agree with you that he seems to pretend not to understand the skeptical point of view, rather than not actually understanding it.
I will write more when I have more time, and until then know that that I am trying to find ways to move the discussions forward.
Mr. Gates,
I would have appreciated a more helpful explication of your views regarding future ice ages, and how we have already warded them off for a period of time in the future that is longer than modern man has existed in the past.
I feel certain that if this is a sincere and well thought out premise on your part, that you should have more to say on the subject than you have. I feel that you must spend significant time and effort in composing your comments, here and elsewhere. I for one would appreciate reading more of what you think but have not said.
Talking a lot and saying little is an unproductive way to spend one’s time, I am sure you would agree.
Mr. Bourque,
Surely you can do better than to make trite insults and demeaning remarks, and telling others what they really think? If you have information you would like to share, please share it. Telling someone to go look stuff up without asking a question or making an cogent point seems very tiresome, don’t you agree? Maybe not, I am just guessing.
Kim,
Would love to discuss geoengineering and mitigation with you, and look forward to such in the future.
-Nick
Brandon Gates
Glad i caught you.
You seem like a young guy so apparently don’t know the history of “internal variability”.
Forty years or so ago when the land surface temperatures as issued by various groups seemed to show that the earth was warming at a supposedly unnatural rate, skeptics postulated that the warming was due to “internal variability” (or natural variability as it was often called back then and still so today). in other words the warming was being created by a combination of natural events — not CO2.
Well, can you imagine how the the “real climate scientists” dumped on those ignorant skeptics and laughed at such an idea. CO2 was the only cause of the warming. PEER REVIEWED PAPERS were written debunking the idea of “internal variability”. “Internal variability” was complete garbage according to the big names in “climate science”. The oceans were irrelevant to land surface temperatures. There was no variations in the sun’s energy. The earth’s climate was STABLE and only CO2 was mucking it up. (As an aside back in those days they also refused to acknowledge the Urban Heat Island effect. Really, no kidding. Phil Jones finally acknowledged its existence only about ten years ago. So what’s that tell you about his early data sets?)
So now forty years or so later when temperatures have stopped rising what do the “climate scientists” claim? The pause is due to “internal variability”. Wow, suddenly the earth has this almost magical ability to swallow heat. And we are warned that soon the earth will vomit that heat back at us.
So forty years ago “internal variability’ in earth’s climate didn’t exist — (see the flat part of Mann’s Hockey Stick — no “internal variability” there). That was the “settled science”. Now “internal variability” is touted as the thing explaining the pause.
Well, you get the picture I think. So obviously “settled science” is really just whatever “climate scientists” need to say it is at any given moment in time. This is something for you to think about. History hurts.
Eugene WR Gallun.
Eugene WR Gallun
I was amused to see you complaining at the duplicity and idiocy displayed by Brandon Gates with his postings in several threads concerning “internal variability”. I have been holding his feet to the fire on this in several threads. My most recent post on this is here and says
Richard
Mann suppressed natural variability, so does Muller. You can have the both of them, Gates, and welcome to them. They are unreliable guides to the future.
===================
Eugene WR Gallun,
Seriously? What’s next guys? Are we going to start talking about the size of Al Gore’s privates?
I know that internal variability has been in the literature since at least the late 1960s. Your interpretations of what warmists do and don’t talk about does not interest me at the moment. You’re going to see the history as you see it, I’m going to see it how I see it … it’s a zero-sum argument and OFF TOPIC to my points in this thread.
Once, just once, try to not distract yourself. You may be surprised what you find out when you do.
richardscourtney,
I’m amused to see you complaining about my duplicity and idiocy when the person to whom you are responding is off topic for this thread. Making you off topic to this thread. Making you the one engaged in duplicitous idiocy.
My mood improves a great deal noting the grand humour of it all.
richardscourtney —
Brandon Gates enjoys being chained in Plato’s climate cave using his hands to create internal variability shadow puppets on the wall which he thinks are as real as all the other global warming shadows that pass before him.
Eugene WR Gallun
Internal and external natural variability have been neglected in favor of propagating a laboratory radiative finding through the climate models.
It’s OK. That natural variability is not going away. The deliberate neglect of it can only widen the divide between observations and modeled expectations, which is already occurring.
The deliberate study of natural variability, and the development of better understanding of it, is more likely than not to diminish the role of AnthroCO2 in warming. That’s just simply odds that would apply in any similar scenario of neglected data.
====================
They did acknowledge the existence of UHI, but tried to claim that it was only about 0.01C over the 20th century.
I love the way Brandon keeps posting the same data, over and over again, as if it actually meant what he claims it means.
The error bars on the 1880 data are between 5C and 10C, but the poor boy keeps trying to pretend that we can tease an accuracy greater than 0.1C out of it.
MarkW,
I like the way that you don’t understand that random error averages out. The error bars on a 5 year running mean are going to be quite a bit smaller than the estimated error for a single month during the same interval.
Aah, so, Mr. Gates, you do understand the concept of random errors cancelling out?
Funny how all of the adjustments all add up to cooling the past and warming more recent years.
Funny how that tends to make the temp chart (or time series if you prefer) look just like the CO2 chart. And more so every year.
Funny how the people who want to prove that they should match argue strenuously that everything that can be done to force this correlation is “proper”.
No, seriously…it is very funny.
Or, not.
Menicholas,
There’s a difference between normally distributed instrument error and measurement bias.
Hilarious how I’ve already shown that the net adjustments for land + global temperature time series add up to net cooling, not warming and you still repeat the same slogan about cooling the past and warming the present.
*eyelash-fluttering eye-roll*
Sounds an awful lot like science to me. Personally, if I were telling the world they need to spend trillions of dollars on climate change I would welcome any and all efforts to verify that my data were good.
But that’s just me. My neck isn’t already stuck out there so far that I can’t pull it back in again without looking like an idiot.
There is lot of new stations in warm places. And many cold stations have moved to warmer sites. Well definetly it warms this planet or measured data.
“The panel is therefore seeking to benefit from the considerable expertise that already exists on the surface records and is inviting interested parties to submit evidence. After review by the panel, all submissions will be published and can be examined and commented upon by anyone who is interested.”
Wow. Let me see if I have the big picture here. A bunch of old coots from the House of Lords has called on the people who adjust the records to voluntarily come forward and demonstrate that they are frauds? Or if not that, then come forward with data that indicate they are not frauds? I mean, come on, the GWPF has no authority over any of the groups that measure temperature, and I can’t understand why any of them would even respond.
In any case, it would take a lot of time and therefore money to respond to this investigation. Does Terence Kealey, who is well known for his outspoken opposition to public funding of science, put up the money?
Or are they asking every one who thinks they can find a temperature record that has been adjusted but has not an idea why, to come forward with their “evidence”. And then, will the GWPF just accept this as malfeasance or will they try to understand the explanation for the changes?
The other thing is that they are only worrying about the Land records, when 3/4 of AGW is in the SST?
The other thing is that they are only worrying about the Land records, when 3/4 of AGW is in the SST?
Gotta love it when people come in 1/2 way through the story. If you’d been hanging around for the first half, you’d be aware that the climatologists originally insisted that land temps were dominant for understanding CAGW and that the oceans were secondary. Now the argument is that the oceans are primary.
Well let’s accept the current version of the truth, your version, that 3/4 of the AGW is going into the oceans. FANTASTIC! With a heat capacity 1200 times that of the atmosphere, it leaves us with nothing much to be concerned about. In fact, even if the land temps rise faster (as per the story in the first half of the debate) then that increases the differential and forces an even greater percentage into the oceans.
The oceans ultimately limit how much atmospheric temperatures can vary, and with a heat capacity 1200 times that of the atmosphere, we’ve little concern for centuries. Thanks for bringing this point up.
“you’d be aware that the climatologists originally insisted that land temps were dominant for understanding CAGW and that the oceans were secondary.”
That may be your opinion but, actually, you are quite mistaken.
“your version, that 3/4 of the AGW is going into the oceans”
No. That is not what I said. I said that 3/4 of the AGW is _in the_ SST. The T in SST is temperature. Big difference. Learn to read.
“The oceans ultimately limit how much atmospheric temperatures can vary, and with a heat capacity 1200 times that of the atmosphere, we’ve little concern for centuries. Thanks for bringing this point up.”
That is incorrect. They do not limit, they only slow. And because the rate of uptake of temps from the atmosphere to the oceans is slow, the buffering ability of the ocean is not what you might think.
Pippen Kool;
And because the rate of uptake of temps from the atmosphere to the oceans is slow, the buffering ability of the ocean is not what you might think.
And yet you claim that 3/4 of the AGW is going into the SST. With oceans being areas of high water vapour, downward LW from CO2 (overlapping absorption) has trouble even getting to the surface (dang that radiative physics thing, turns out it goes both ways).
Pippen Kool April 26, 2015 at 2:50 pm
“you’d be aware that the climatologists originally insisted that land temps were dominant for understanding CAGW and that the oceans were secondary.”
That may be your opinion but, actually, you are quite mistaken.
Having had several drawn out knock down raging debates about precisely that issue 10+ years ago, I assurre you that was the prevailing wisdom. That the bulk of warming would be evident in the land based records, NOT the ocean records.
Of course that was all before Trenberth started wailing about the missing heat which he tragically could not find, and subsequently decided it must be hiding in the oceans in the parts where we can’t measure it.
“Having had several drawn out knock down raging debates about precisely that issue 10+ years ago, I assure you that was the prevailing wisdom. “
I just wonder who you were arguing with. Anyone who is aware of how the global is calculated knows that the SST was being used to calculate it, even long ago, and 3rd grade math would tell you that the SST matters more than the Land temps. So I can only assume that 10 years ago you had not reached 3rd grade.
But why argue the point of what was thought 10 years ago. We live in 2015, a year in which the 1st quarter is the highest of all quarters in most (all?) of the surface temp records.
Pippen Kool;
I just wonder who you were arguing with. Anyone who is aware of how the global is calculated knows that the SST was being used to calculate it,
It doesn’t matter who I was arguing with, it matters what we were arguing about.
The prevailing wisdom at the time from the likes of Hansen, Briffa, Jones and others was that the Land record was more relevant to the evidence for CAGW (they still put “catastrophic” in front of everything back then) than was the Land-Ocean or the Ocean (SST) record. The prevailing wisdom was that land would heat up much faster than would Ocean, and hence that signal would dominate. It was only when the land failed to heat up as expected (even before the pause!) that they started yammering about the heat going into the ocean instead.
This debate has always been a moving target from the warmist side, this is yet another example. Thanks for reminding me.
davidmhoffer,
How many centuries exactly? How much warmer can the oceans get from present before it becomes a problem?
What is the basis for your future knowledge of such things?
Pippen Kool;
But why argue the point of what was thought 10 years ago.
Because your side of the argument keeps on changing. Is it CAGW or AGW? Land leading or Ocean? 10 year pause falsifies the models or 15 or 17 or 20? Not only does your side change the argument, you don’t have the integrity to admit that is what happened.
We live in 2015, a year in which the 1st quarter is the highest of all quarters in most (all?) of the surface temp records.
What of the satellite and balloon records? Nice cherry pick. But regardless, it has been warming for the last 400 years. So if true, no surprise.
Your right , they only turned to ‘missing ocean heat ‘ when they land heat they claimed would turn up , according to ‘the cause ‘ , failed to turn up for so long enough even their shameless lying could not cover for it.
And its the reason for Trenberth attempt to reverse the null hypotheses, one of the many anti-science approaches taken by the ‘the Team’ who ironically put much effort into attacking others got not following scientific principles.
P. Kool says:
…because the rate of uptake of temps from the atmosphere to the oceans is slow…
As usual, he believes the tail wags the dog.
There are plenty of folls who have done careful analyses. Paul Homewood in the UK. Jeniffer Merohasy and Ken Stewart in Australia. The New Zealand group. I have already submitted an analysis of GISS homogenization using the surfacesations.org CRN1 stations. Showing artificial warming owing to contaminated stations used in the regional expectation that is core to all homogenization processes in one way or another, including BEST.
If the fictitious “warmth” is primarily found in SST, than AGW is false. Only the sun can heat the ocean, so unless man made CO2 is controlling the sun, this argument refutes the IPCC premise lock stock & barrel.
I’m glad they are doing this, I have lost all faith in global temperature records, I don’t even look at them anymore. Having climatologists make adjustments to global temperature records is a conflict of interest. If there is one measurement of the importance of studying global climate, and determining how much to increase or decrease budgets for climate science, it is the measurement of global temperature rise. Claims that massive amounts of money need to be spent on studying global warming and paying for climatologists guidance in establishing global climate policies is based on global temperature rise.
There was an article Anthony posted last year about a gentleman who had been taking temperature measurements on his land for the government for over 50 years, taking the same measurement from the same spot using the same instrument all that time, yet the government had been adding to his raw measurements an ever increasing amount. This review has to go down to that level, adjustments to individual measurements, because their reasons for making adjustments in general make sense, but without seeing how they are specifically applied we can make no judgment on their validity.
I do not understand. How can you say that it makes sense to add an ever increasing amount to temperatures that are measured in the same place with the same equipment?
It is no longer a measurement at that point, it is a biased manipulation.
In my humble opinion, Tony Heller has such a mass of analysis and data that to exclude him would not be very wise for such an important project.
“Sometimes, you can believe you are entirely right while simultaneously believing that you’ve done due diligence. That’s what confirmation bias is all about. In this case, a whole bunch of people, including me, got a severe case of it.
I’m talking about the claim made by Steve Goddard that 40% of the USHCN data is “fabricated”. which I and few other people thought was clearly wrong.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/
…remember Stephen, there’s a built in algorithm…..every time they put in a new set of temperature numbers….it automatically adjusts the past…..which means, the past temperature history is constantly adjusted
He does not appear to be interested in helping them. I have asked him twice to do so.
(Let’s just snip that scatological comment. -mod)
I was trying to do a manual sweep of WUWT, and only got from day 1 to March 2010. Here are some interesting tidbits to zoom in on. I hope it doesn’t blow up the comment form…
===
According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the
hottest year ever (in the CONUS). 1934 is.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/08/08/1998-no-longer-the-hottest-year-on-record-in-usa/
===
NASA’s Hansen Frees the Code !
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/09/08/nasas-hansen-frees-the-code/
===
Raising Walhalla
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/09/17/raising-walhalla/
===
Grilling the Data
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/09/19/grilling-the-data/
===
Rewriting History, Time and Time Again
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/08/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/
===
Fabricating Temperatures on the DEW Line
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/17/fabricating-temperatures-on-the-dew-line/
===
Adjusting Pristine Data
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/23/adjusting-pristine-data/
===
Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/the-evolution-of-the-giss-temperature-product/
===
McIntyre: The deleted data from the “Hide the Decline” trick
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/
===
===
IPCC reviewer: “don’t cover up the divergence”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/ipcc-reviewer-dont-cover-up-the-divergence/
Steve McIntyre writes: One reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report
specifically asked IPCC not to hide the decline. The reviewer stated very
clearly:
Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in
1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to.
Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in
IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18)
The IPCC said that it would be “inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa
et al. series”.
===
Told ya so – more upside down data in Mann’s latest paper
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/told-ya-so-more-upside-down-mann-in-his-latest-paper/
Peer review doesn’t seem to catch the problem of using inverted data. That’s a
good question for science and the peer reviewers. I suggest those who have
contact put the question to them, because the results will look different when
the data is used properly. In case anyone doubts this. The inversion was
confirmed by the principal researcher that gathered the data, Tiljander, who
confirmed this in an email to Steve McIntyre. – Anthony
Now to answer the question that seems to be on everyone’s lips: yes,
Tiljander series are still used as inverted. This can be seen from the
positive screening correlation values reported in the file
1209proxynames.xls. In fact, going quickly through the screening code, it
seemed to me that they have really “moved on” from the screening employed in
Mann et al (2008): only “two-sided test” is used!
======================================================
GISS “raw” station data – before and after
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/
===
More on the NIWA New Zealand data adjustment story
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/more-on-the-niwa-new-zealand-data-adjustment-story/
===
How “The Trick” was pulled off
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/how-the-trick-was-pulled-off/
===
A devastating response to “There’s nothing to see here, move along”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/
===
Would You Like Your Temperature Data Homogenized, or Pasteurized?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/would-you-like-your-temperature-data-homogenized-or-pasteurized/
===
Darwin Zero Before and After
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/
===
Playing hide and seek behind the trees
Still Hiding the Decline
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/30/playing-hide-and-seek-behind-the-trees/
===
The great thing about old magazines is that once published, they can’t
be adjusted. Jo Nova has a great summary of some recent work from
occasional WUWT contributor Frank Lansner who runs the blog “Hide the
Decline” and what he found in an old National Geographic, which bears
repeating here. – Anthony
[…deletia…]
Frank Lansner has found an historical graph of northern hemisphere
temperatures from the mid 70’s, and it shows a serious decline in
temperatures from 1940 to 1975. It’s a decline so large that it wipes
out the gains made in the first half of the century, and brings
temperatures right back to what they were circa 1910. The graph was not
peer reviewed, but presumably it was based on the best information
available at the time. In any case, if all the global records are not
available to check, it’s impossible to know how accurate or not this
graph is.
The decline apparently recorded was a whopping 0.5°C.
But, three decades later, by the time Brohan and the CRU graphed
temperatures in 2006 from the same old time period, the data had been
adjusted (surprise), so that what was a fall of 0.5°C had become just a
drop of 0.15°C. Seventy percent of the cooling was gone.
Rewriting the decline
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/16/rewriting-the-decline/
===
From the Times, 29November, 2009
presumably if the UEA say what they did to the raw data then the raw data can be extracted from what they have to hand ?
Presumably, is not a safe bet to trust proven liars.
Finally, scientific integrity. It’s ironic that regulators and monopolists are phobic of policies and principles that regulate and break their monopolies. The consensus was a political ploy and the Earth is not flat from a human perspective.
I love Valentia
Everybody and his dog has been led to believe that the raw Hadcrut data is lost – probably along with any sequential adjustments and any reasons for said adjustments.
IMHO, this is a bit of a waste of time unless data holders are fully cooperative. I can’t see them being open in the way that we all know they would need to be, to conclusivly and scientifically demonstrate the vailidity of the data and any adjustments. Still, we can live in hope?
It is simple. Trend of GISS Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index is 0.16 K/decade between 1979 &. 2014. For the same period trend of RSS lower troposphere temperature anomaly is 0.12 K/decade.
According to theory temperature fluctuations in the bulk of troposphere are amplified by 20% globally, relative to the surface. Therefore GISTEMP overestimates surface warming by 60%. No need to say more.
Thanks for the reminder. I seem to recall Roy Spencer mentioning this apparent contradiction on his blog, and how it calls into question either the surface temperature record or the lower troposphere warming amplification that everyone, even skeptics, expects. I did a quick search and couldn’t find it, so I may be hallucinating.
Eh, remit.
Indeed.
I’m a bit concerned about this august group….
The head of the committee, Dr. Kealey said….
“Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising. While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested. We hope to perform a valuable public service by getting everything out into the open.”
The “….we believe that 20th Century warming is real….”
Why do you “believe” that if you have not yet examined the data?
This is a concern……
Perhaps they “…believe that 20th Century warming is real…” because 19th Century cooling was real and it warmed after that?
Gosh I dunno. Maybe glaciers retreating, Arctic sea-ice melting, Antarctic Ice sheets starting to collapse, O2 in the atmosphere decreasing, CO2 and methane in the atmosphere increasing, oceans have become more acidic etc-could just be caused by magic or sumphing.
Glaciers have been retreating for 400 years, 300 years before CO2 started increasing.
Artic ice always melts during the warm phase of the PDO. Now that we have entered the cool phase it has stopped melting and started recovering.
Antarctic ice sheets aren’t collapsing. What little decrease is happening is because of volcanoes under the ice. Antarctic sea ice is setting records.
That CO2 is increasing is not in doubt, what it means is.
Is that really the best you can do?
This effort will be watched by many. I hope it is both open and accurate. If not, I fear it will become yet another point of disagreement.
This is important for showing ‘official process bias’. Which exists. Essay When Data Isn’t. But it is an ancillary question that would mostly address the ‘settled science’ thing.
The key to rebutting ‘mitigation now’ (Obumer and COP21) is to show mitigation probably isn’t necessary, and ‘now’ is a long way off if ever. The main value of a warmer past would be in further lowering of sensitivity estimated by energy budget methods. But those methods already convey that message using the fiddled temps. Plus, those observational sensitivities and the pause falsify the models on which ‘mitigate now’ rests.
So, a worthy exercise, but mostly a tempest in a teapot.
I’m a computer programmer and in programming there is what is called a revision control system.
Any change to the software code gets a new version, and a comment as to the reason for the change.
All revisions are kept and any revision from past can be retrieved.
Why has this not be done with temperature record ?
Because the people in question are neither competent programmers nor competent scientists.
Stevek,
Accounting systems have similar revision control: audit trails.
Why indeed.
One need not be a computer programmer to discern the answer to your question.
Didn’t “Harry” document a lot of this?
Perhaps they wanted to be sure that their work couldn’t be second guessed?
This investigation will be useless. No matter the outcome the truth is that we have only 30 years of truly reliable temperature records. Get back to me in 100 years. FWIW, I am not only skeptical, I do not see any evidence for warming, man-made or otherwise. In fact, call me a Denier. I have no problem with that adjective.
“I have no problem with that adjective.” Yes, you do – it’s a noun, not an adjective.
It is a noun that is also an adjective. “In linguistics, an adjective is a “describing word”.
If it modifies a noun, it is an adnoun.
According to Alex Trebek anyway.
I must have been sick that day in grammar class.
In this case I believe it modifies a word or phrase which is only implied not spoken.
Or not.
Arguing is fun!
Is it possible to sue noaa or nasa because our utility bills have gone up due to a policy that was based on fraudulent data ? Class action lawsuit naming jones,Mann,nasa,noaa etc ?
This sounds like a silver bullet travelling directly towards the heart of M Mann and his cronies. Given the opportunity they usually deflect the bullet before it reaches them. Only when the bullet strikes will I believe that this is happening
Yes, Mann’s middle name is Kwai-Chang. He can walk through walls, and is bullet proof. So far…
I think they should get a gold standard double blind committed agriculture seed researcher in on this deal. If anyone knows the importance of keeping seed plots the same (same location, same number of plots, same surrounding conditions, etc, etc, etc, it would be that person.
…and I also think this will be useless. There is no funding for it. Not oil funding. Not wind tower funding. Not Save The Animals funding. None. Nada. Nyet. No. Forgeddaboudit.
So your opinion is that of P. Kool, that there is no funding so this GWPF “initiative” can not go any where?
Check out Kealey’s bio at cato.org. I think you might be encouraged.
The stench of petrodollars becomes overwhelming as spon as any CAGW hack steps into the room.
Phlogiston, Kealey has written in favor of eliminating government funding for scientific research. Government funding created CAGW.
Tom J
My comment was rather trivial and was not directed at Kealey. I agree with his point about govt funding distorting research, I’ve seen it first hand. It’s hard to know what the answer is, “he who pays the piper calls the tune. I’ve always thought it a mistake for the UK govt to have closed down so many civil service research establishments and replace the research by tenders to Universities. The latter has proved unreliable due to political “sailing with the wind” and cronyism. I worked in a lab where the professor would aim over the heads of the scientific community straight at the media, giving himself a media profile that made him “undefundable”.
There.
Yep. I knew you would bite! LOL!
Ditto.
I do not bite, Pamela.
Much…
Love Bites
by Def Leppard
Why can’t we just build a biodome for these people in some remote place and tell them they are our last remaining hope for civilization and forget about it? Let them figure it out for themselves. Maybe throw in PaulyShore as an incentive. Although, I like Pauly, I wouldn’t want to put him through that.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Long overdue. The state of surface temperature data, on which so much of the climate alarmist claims lie, is nothing short of scandalous. Fingers crossed the commission takes a hard, unbiased look.