Japan’s Canon Institute For Global Studies (CIGS) Presents New Working Paper On Climate Science Data Inconsistencies

Reposted from the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 15. June 2021

Statistical data alterations, huge data gaps and dissenting experts are among the problems plaguing climate science, new Japanese CIGS working paper highlights. 

In November 2019, the Canon Institute for Global Studies (CIGS) released a working paper noting that natural factors are also very much at work when it comes to climate change.

Now CIGS has added another.

New working paper

new working paper has been released, in Japanese – authored by KiryeNet – and it reports that climate change goes well beyond one trace gas running the climate show and that there are a number of data inconsistencies and sloppiness in climate science and computing trends.

The latest 28-page document (below) cites a number of sources, including NoTricksZone and many other leading critical sites and dissenting scientists.

Canon Institute for Global Studies’ working paper looks at some of the great data inconsistencies of climate science. 

NASA GISS data alterations

For example, the recent CIGS paper looks at how NASA GISS has tampered with the historical datasets so that trends that were once flat or even cooling now end up showing warming instead:

Image: Canon Institute for Global Studies (CIGS), cropped here.

Another example of NASA fudging data to produce warming trends cited in the CIGS paper was one published by NoTricksZone:

Image: cropped here.

Cooling – not warming

The new CIGS publication also shows how Japan’s mean winter temperature has in fact cooled over the past 30 years, and not warmed like many have been falsely led to believe:

Image: cropped here.

NASA researcher: data before 1980 not reliable

The working paper also cites another NoTricksZone’s article, on Japanese climatologist and former NASA researcher Mototaka Nakamura, who points out that changes in the average temperature on the Earth’s surface before 1980 are unreliable.

Much of the globe’s surface indeed was never measured in the past, with stations mainly located only in USA and Europe, NASA shows:

 Moreover, NASA at times calculates annual averages for years even when up to five months of data are missing, for example:Marquette, Michigan.

Image: cropped here.

The Canon Institute for Global Studies aims to play an active role in shaping the future by precisely plotting out future directions and visions, disseminating information, providing roadmaps, and serving as a venue for outstanding human resources with the sophistication and sensibility to substantively improve the world.

4.7 35 votes
Article Rating
131 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kevin kilty
June 16, 2021 6:19 am

The response is likely to be “shoot the messenger”.

Ron Long
Reply to  Kevin kilty
June 16, 2021 6:46 am

That’s right, Kevin, the mainstream media will bury this faster than you would bury a dead rabid skunk. Nobody is going to tell Biden et al so never mind.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Ron Long
June 16, 2021 7:50 am

By “bury,” do you mean “ignore?” ‘Cause it will be crickets on this from the Marxist State Media

Bill Powers
Reply to  Kevin kilty
June 16, 2021 7:53 am

For all too many of those billions around the world with the opinion that the globe is warming, its mans fault and it can be laid at the feet of using fossil fuel to improve humanities quality of life, we can apply an observation made by Mark Twain: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

It is going to be nigh on impossible to convince the average Joe and JIll that the world is not coming to an end but rather that they have been fooled by a purposeful hoax. The Central Authoritarians, with a major assist from the Propaganda Press and Billion dollar backing from Uncle Sugar, the masters of misdirection, have raised 2 and 1/2 generates of fools.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Bill Powers
June 16, 2021 8:22 am

The average Joe has never bought into much of this crap.

beng135
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 16, 2021 8:34 am

Except one particularly stupid one.

Editor
Reply to  beng135
June 16, 2021 8:50 am

Thanks, beng135, that made me laugh.

Regards,
Bob

Reply to  beng135
June 16, 2021 11:14 am

To be fair, I doubt either he or the infamous Algorithm really believe it. But expressing belief furthers their goals.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  TomB
June 16, 2021 11:23 am

Today, Zhou Bai-Den only believes what the cue cards put in front of him say.

beng135
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 17, 2021 8:15 am

Along w/his better half, Jillang Qing Ja-Cobs Bai-Den.

Last edited 3 months ago by beng135
John in Oz
Reply to  beng135
June 16, 2021 6:08 pm

Joe, your ‘illustrious’ leader, seems to be well below average.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 16, 2021 9:10 am

Your certainty is why the propagandist will win in the end Nicholas. Spend some time with Millennials and GenZs. They have been brainwashed from cradle to today. They will not be convinced that they have been fooled.

To their understanding, the planet is doomed and it is all mans fault for burning fossil fuel. Why it is the majority opinion. Consensus if you will. The propagandists don’t need to convince all of the people, all of the time, just most of the people on key globalist issues. just a voting majority and they are there. Not nearly or almost, but there. Greta’s portrait is being painted for postage stamps around the world.

Reply to  Bill Powers
June 16, 2021 10:39 am

Back in the 1960s, many in my generation were convinced that we were all going to die in a nuclear cataclysm. A teacher of 6th graders in the 1980s told me she had a student who would frequently exclaim, “We’re all going to die!” Fatalism seems to be a way of reacting to all the changes young people are going through in their adolescence and early adulthood.

Richard Page
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
June 16, 2021 12:36 pm

Some grow out of it and some never grow up.

Mr.
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
June 16, 2021 1:28 pm

In 1957 Neville Shute’s book “On The Beach” and the subsequent Stanley Kramer movie was taken as such a sure-fire prediction of impending nuclear apocalypse that our parents were trying to arrange for us kids to move from Australia to live with relatives in Idaho.

They of course didn’t know that Idaho was home to a complex of ICBM silos, so was probably a first-strike target area for incoming nukes from the Ruskis.

Or maybe they did 🙁

Palaver
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
June 16, 2021 10:17 pm

At least being vaporized by a nuclear weapon was a slightly more rational fear than being flooded by “cataclysmic” sea level rise of a millimeter every four months.

Dave Yaussy
June 16, 2021 6:26 am

The Canon Institute for Global Studies looks like an interesting organization that visitors to WUWT might be hearing more about. Data-driven analysis of energy and environmental issues, without relying on emotion or anecdotal evidence? They might be onto something . . .

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
June 16, 2021 2:03 pm

Data-driven analysis of energy and environmental issues, without relying on emotion or anecdotal evidence?

In Science™ no less! Who woulda thunk it!

John Dueker
June 16, 2021 6:28 am

Who will have the courage to publicly share the truth?

Certainly not MSM I’m trying to suggest these real science stories to my elected representatives and a few Fox personalities but so far no one will stick their neck out.

John Garrett
June 16, 2021 6:36 am

I LOVE the image showing the location of temperature measuring stations prior to 1980.

I have long maintained that the global temperature record prior to the advent of satellite-based measurement in 1979 is completely UNRELIABLE.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  John Garrett
June 16, 2021 6:41 am

And, it is a number that does not, never has, and never will represent “climate”.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 16, 2021 2:23 pm

Even if we could take appropriately spaced readings at appropriate time intervals (daily max/min I think is an epic fail, I would favor hourly) for a long enough time (even 60 years may not be enough, the AMO and PDO are not the only oscillations on this Earth, we may never find them all) all across this Earth, and accurately average them without fudging the raw data, it still would not represent “climate”. The major failure is not including moisture levels, there is more heat represented by the changes in the air’s moisture level than there is in the entire annual swing of sensible temperature. (Go ahead, somebody check me on that, I haven’t actually done the math myself. When doing HVAC design, I found the greatest difference (in the CONUS) between Winter Design conditions and Summer Design conditions was 137°F in [some city] in Wyoming. But Winter Design conditions ignores the wet-bulb, only Summer Design conditions include the moisture level. And Summer wb for that place in Wyoming wasn’t all that high. I think we might be looking for places in the hot and humid zones that get huge summer air flows off a body of water, and then in winter time a cold front can come across great expanses of land mass, bearing arctic temperatures and almost no moisture. What’s the difference in latent heat between those extremes?) And furthermore, to actually encompass “climate” we need a factor that quantifies storms and droughts and yadi, yadi, yadi… and that number hasn’t been quantified yet.

In other words, just in case anybody is wondering, all this argument about “Climate Change” is realistically a tempest in a tea-pot. Records are scarce, spotty and excessively manipulated, all evidence of “global warming” may be only evidence of UHI, all we really have to even prove there has been “Climate Change” in the last 100 years, or even 200 years, is anecdotal evidence and we all know how reliable that can be! So before anyone can convince me we face Catastrophic Climate Change™ they first have to convince me, with evidence, that we even face climate change!!!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
June 16, 2021 4:49 pm

Absolutely, there is a reason that weather forecasts and weather reports include wind-chill temperature, which is only semi-quantitative but based on relative humidity. Out West, like Wyoming, when deep cold fronts blow in, temperature drops of 60-70F over 1-2 day periods are not at all unusual.

bdgwx
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 16, 2021 2:48 pm

I agree with you on that point. The global mean temperature isn’t very representative of the climate. I just don’t think you can boil the climate down to one number like that. However, it is an interesting and useful property that can be used to assess energy transfers between land, air, ocean, snow/ice, etc., determine if the climate system has a warming/cooling/neutral tendency, score the skill of global warming predictions, assess paleoclimate eras, etc. In that regard it is important that we estimate it and track it over time.

Doonman
Reply to  bdgwx
June 16, 2021 9:39 pm

Yes, GASTA is a great tool for research because its all we have. But it should never ever be used for the world’s policy formation as it sucks for that.

1 deg C GASTA for the last 100 years is not anything for humans to be alarmed about. There were hippos in the Thames during the Eemian with zero human CO2 emissions, but no one cares about that now.

Neither Bill Nye or Greta Thunberg cry on TV over the missing hippos because no policy wonks will pay them to do that. Somehow, humans and the biosphere have adapted to the hippopotamus’ ecological disaster.

shrnfr
Reply to  John Garrett
June 16, 2021 6:47 am

The global temperatures were reliably measured from sat data prior to 1980. The lazy bums just do not want to reanalyze it and include it in the record.

Reply to  John Garrett
June 16, 2021 7:20 am

The spatial error calculation would be insane.

bdgwx
Reply to  John Garrett
June 16, 2021 8:05 am

According to Berkeley Earth here is the uncertainty on the monthly global mean temperature anomalies. GISS gets similar results. References (here and here and here)

1850: +/- 0.30C
1875: +/- 0.20C
1900: +/- 0.15C
1925: +/- 0.15C
1950: +/- 0.10C
1975: +/- 0.05C
2000: +/- 0.05C

So I’m curious…what threshold of uncertainty is “completely UNRELIABLE” and at what year does the data switch from unreliable to reliable?

Note that satellite uncertainties are close to +/- 0.2. Reference (here). So if that is the threshold then we can probably say that after 1900 the instrumental temperature record became “reliable”. No?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
June 16, 2021 11:03 am

BS.

It never ceases to amaze me how the climastrologers believe they can completely divorce instrument uncertainties from their global bean counts.

bdgwx
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 16, 2021 11:27 am

Instrument and measurement uncertainty are included in both the Berkeley Earth (see pg 6) and GISS (see pg 6312) analysis I cited above. GISS uses a bottom up approach whereas Berkeley Earth uses a top down approach via the jackknife resampling technique which assesses all sources of uncertainty even those that aren’t obviously identifiable. You are, of course, welcome to link to another global mean temperature dataset with accompanying uncertainty analysis with equivalent or superior diligence. I would definitely review it.

Last edited 3 months ago by bdgwx
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
June 16, 2021 2:54 pm

Learn how uncertainties propagate prior to making pronouncements such as this.

bdgwx
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 16, 2021 6:26 pm

Let’s get one thing straight first. I have much to learn and the more I learn the more I realize how little I know. I’m always willing to dive deeper and learn something new. So if you know of published information that you think I might be interested in or especially if you know of a published uncertainty analysis specifically related to the global mean temperature that comes to a significantly different conclusion now is the time to post it.

But this has nothing to do with my current state of understanding of the statistical elements involved. In fact, I could be completely ignorant of statistics and how uncertainties propagate and yet instrument and measurement uncertainty would still have been considered and included by GISS and Berkeley Earth in their uncertainty analysis.

Last edited 3 months ago by bdgwx
bdgwx
Reply to  John Garrett
June 16, 2021 8:57 am

That image is not showing the location and number of stations prior to 1980. It is showing the location and number of stations with an unbroken temperature time series from 1880 to 2020. The number of stations in 1880 is actually 550 moving up to 2600 in 1900 and to 14000 by 1980. In total there are almost 28000 stations in the GHCN-M repository.

comment image

Last edited 3 months ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
June 16, 2021 6:57 pm

bafflegab claims.

Your stations graph fails to show Hansen’s purge of stations in the USA. Especially where Hansen had his team purge the rural and higher altitude inconvenient stations.

Meaning, you are showing stations as they were added worldwide, at airports and urban locations.

Zero credibility there bdg.

bdgwx
Reply to  ATheoK
June 16, 2021 7:14 pm

It’s not my graph. It is provided by GISS.

Chart (b) is the number stations analyzed by year. It’s not the number added. It’s the number in service at that time.

The current station exclusion list is available here.

The stations in the USA that have been excluded are as follows.

USC00044022 HOLLISTER USA
USC00044025 HOLLISTER USA

That’s it. That is 2 stations both in the same city. That’s hardly what I’d call a purge.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Garrett
June 16, 2021 9:00 am

There are reasons to believe that the Earth is not warming uniformly. I have advocated that instead of reporting a single number for the entire globe, temperature and precipitation changes should be reported for all the Köppen climate regions.

The map you refer to makes it clear why this is important, particularly for historical temperatures. If the poorly instrumented regions have a trend different from the well-instrumented regions, then the reported changes misrepresent the average global changes.

bdgwx
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 16, 2021 9:13 am

The Earth definitely is not warming uniformly. In fact, some regions are even cooling. This data is widely available. In fact, GISS provides this information on their GISTEMP website here. You can even downloaded the gridded data in netCDF format or as a plain text download.

Last edited 3 months ago by bdgwx
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bdgwx
June 16, 2021 4:03 pm

Thanks for the link. However, I couldn’t find the button to display the Köppen climate regions. Maybe you can point it out to me.

bdgwx
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 16, 2021 4:45 pm

You have to download the gridded data and mask the regions you’re interested in. Search the page for “netcdf” and you’ll find the link.

Last edited 3 months ago by bdgwx
shrnfr
June 16, 2021 6:45 am

Gang, you can extend the sat. data back to the early 1970s if you can just exhume the NEMS and SCAMS data and reanalyze it. It would give you good global coverage. For those who do not know those instruments, they were 2 microwave radiometers flown on Nimbus-E and Nimbus-F. The SCAMS instrument is the early version of the current instruments. So much so that I used an image of it to put on a coffee mug for Prof. D. Staelin who was one of the PIs for SCAMS and he could not tell the difference.

Mr.
Reply to  shrnfr
June 16, 2021 9:11 am

Aptly named, if nothing else.

mkelly
June 16, 2021 6:56 am

Sawyer Air Force Base operatored Just south of Marquette until 1995. The temperature trend should be able to be verified via old records. Airplanes need accurate info to take off and land.

Reply to  mkelly
June 16, 2021 7:22 am

Remember, aviation measurements will be biased to produce a safety margin on density altitude calculations.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jean Parisot
June 16, 2021 8:07 am

You should be able to subtract off the bias. Or if you do anomaly analysis it would cancel out.

Colin Smith
Reply to  Jean Parisot
June 16, 2021 8:39 am

Hopefully they will have been biased consistently.

Steve Case
June 16, 2021 7:28 am

This Jap paper needs some serious fact checking.

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  Steve Case
June 16, 2021 8:10 am

You may or may not be right, but the unnecessary use of “Jap” hurts your credibility. I don’t think any word should be disallowed, or sanctified by being banned, but you might think about how you are presenting what may be an otherwise good comment.

Steve Case
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
June 16, 2021 8:34 am

I don’t know how our good friends on the left would describe the paper in derogatory terms, but I thought maybe the slur would enter their critical race theory warped little minds in addition to their perceived need to fact check / debunk anything that disagrees with their climate cult religion.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
June 16, 2021 9:07 am

I think that the soldiers, marines, and sailors who served in the Pacific Theater can be given a pass on using what is now considered a derogatory term. However, unless you are in one of those categories, your insensitivity to those who are now our allies does not reflect well on you.

Laws of Nature
Reply to  Steve Case
June 16, 2021 9:07 am

Well, it might be more complicated that that! It is possible (I didn´t read it) that the facts are correct, but still paint a wrong picture..
Zeke Hausfather has a number of posts about those corrections and one of the points he made is the TOBS (time of observation Bias) adjustment are responsible to generate trends in the adjusted data from “trendlaess unajusted data”, very similar to the diagrams shown in this post.

So what I am trying to say is, that if the adjustment is justified, showing the adjusted data is misleading and the only form of critique would be to criticize the adjustment method..
(WUWT had a few articles on that, but I am not aware that any flaw was ever pointed out!?

Laws of Nature
Reply to  Laws of Nature
June 16, 2021 12:14 pm

I over read the slur otherwise I would not have answered, moderator please feel free to remove this whole series starting with that one derrogative post.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
June 16, 2021 1:10 pm

Can you actually point to some flawed data, or is racist insults the best you are capable of?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
June 16, 2021 4:14 pm

I didn’t know that “Japanese” was considered a race. I thought that they were inhabitants of an island nation once best known for a surprise attack on the US’s Pacific Fleet while negotiations were taking place in DC. Considering that “Jap” is a contraction of the full “Japanese,” I’ve never understood why some take such umbrage at it. Throughout history, it has been common to call the enemy unflattering names, some much worse than a simple contraction of their actual national name.

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 18, 2021 6:09 am

This defense of use of a term that is well-recognized to be derogatory is both dumb and overwrought.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
June 20, 2021 4:11 pm

Many people are dense enough to think that the opinion held about others can be changed by just changing what they are called. Actually, it works the other way around. The meaning of a word will change to reflect the characteristics of what it is associated with.

“A rose by any other name is just as sweet.”

John Phillips
June 16, 2021 7:59 am

Lovely dog picture on the Kiryenet Twitter profile there.
 
This will be a major publishing event, when CIGS release the final version, it will give Pierre Goslin and Tony Heller – also cited heavily – a much-needed credibility boost. Can’t wait!

John Phillips
Reply to  John Phillips
June 16, 2021 8:21 am

“Opinions expressed or implied in the articles published in this website are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of the CIGS or its sponsor.
©The Canon Institute for Global Studies.”

Mr.
Reply to  John Phillips
June 16, 2021 9:16 am

Yep.
Just like my licensed financial adviser states at the end of every article of financial advice she sends me.

Lawyers, hey – what’re we gonna do?

Reply to  John Phillips
June 16, 2021 12:10 pm

“it will give Pierre Goslin and Tony Heller – also cited heavily – a much-needed credibility boost”
Well, since Kirye has been taken on as a “team member” at Heller’s site, and is one of the frequent authors at Goslin’s site, this is a bit of an inside job.

John Phillips
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 16, 2021 1:56 pm

So Mr and Mrs Heller have somehow uploaded a compendium of their multiply-debunked nonsense to the CIGS website, Pierre Gosslin has linked to it and both WUWT and NTZ have characterised this as a respected Institute ‘presenting’ the garbage as some kind of worthwhile discussion topic?

Did I miss anything?  

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  John Phillips
June 16, 2021 2:32 pm

…multiply-debunked…

I have found this to be a term so nebulous as to be meaningless ever since my first comment on WUWT back in 2008. When the author of the paper who has been trashed, responds to the paper that points out all his errors, that well, he’s just wrong because Science™, that is not a debunk. In fact, that’s a waste of ink. Next please!

John Phillips
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
June 16, 2021 3:55 pm

Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) has a long and undistinguished record of making stuff up.
 
The earliest example that I am aware of is an article in The Register, a UK website covering the IT industry and associated gossip where Goddard posted a nonsense article on Arctic Ice. The website was constrained to publish a response from an actual expert stating that …

Besides this significant error, the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed.
 
https://www.theregister.com/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/
 
 Goddard had a brief gig at this very blog until our esteemed host decided that enough was enough:

“his inability to openly admit to and correct mistakes, is why I booted him from WUWT some years ago, after he refused to admit that his claim about CO2 freezing on the surface of Antarctica couldn’t be possible due to partial pressure of CO2.”

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/#comment-130003
 
And yet here he is, on the threshold of global recognition. WattsupWithThat propagating a blog report of a working paper presented by the respected Canon Institute of Global Studies, authored by his wife and substantially based on his self-published ‘research’. Excellent stuff.

I for one welcome the belated recognition of this maverick genius, we can only look forward to CIGS turning this working paper into a properly-authenticated position paper so we can all stop worrying about the manufactured climate crisis. Kudos to WUWT for reversing its earlier shortsighted opprobrium towards Mr Goddard.  ~~

Let’s Go!

Gary Pearse
Reply to  John Phillips
June 16, 2021 7:07 pm

So an ‘actual expert’ on Arctic Ice did all this for you! Woo. It wasn’t esteemed Cambridge Prof Wacky Wadhams as he was affectionately known, who every year predicted ice-free Arctic two years hence? You do know, don’t you, that “station moves” and TOBS became part of the climateers’ warming toolbox.

Here is a long term raw temps chart before total transformation to thermageddon using the toolbox . Is it from America; South Africa, Paraguay, or Ecuador?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/clip_image0022.gif

They all look the same as the unfiddled raw US temperatures. This one is actually Capetown S. Af.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 18, 2021 8:51 am

“They all look the same as the unfiddled raw US temperatures. This one is actually Capetown S. Af.”

Yes, the only “Odd Man Out” is the bogus, instrument-era Hockey Stick chart. The Hockey Stick is the only chart that shows unprecedented warming taking place. And it’s all made up in a computer from the fevered imginations of Data Manipulators.

Thomas Gasloli
June 16, 2021 8:14 am

Inconsistencies & sloppiness seems to be pretty much the rule with federally funded research, hence the reproducibility crisis and the escape of a “gain of function” bat virus from a Fauci-funded Wuhan lab.

Roger
June 16, 2021 8:26 am

So Tony Heller has opened another insurgent front in Japan?
Bravo!

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Roger
June 16, 2021 8:50 am

He and Kyrie got married in Wyoming on June 6 2021.

Olen
June 16, 2021 8:32 am

Someone in ancient times must have been recording the weather but they probably burned him or her at the stake.

Good job by the Japan’s CIGS, putting some factual sense to the climate discussion and putting CO2 in it’s perspective place.

The embarrassment of NASA by Hansen, a political appointee points to how the agency was politicized to support a fraud.

Gordon A. Dressler
June 16, 2021 8:33 am

I’m still waiting on anyone—let alone any “scientist”—to clearly define what the phrase “climate change” really means.

Anyone got a suggestion?

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 16, 2021 8:58 am

No clue what it means, but I know what it has meant.. justification of air tax.

rah
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 16, 2021 9:03 am

I’m still waiting on them to give an absolute answer to the question of what is the optimum Atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  rah
June 16, 2021 11:27 am

I keep asking this question also, and typically hear the crickets chirping in reply.

Peter W
Reply to  rah
June 16, 2021 12:16 pm

The more CO2 the more plant growth. The more plant growth the more food for our growing population. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me all of the problems which have been caused by the 40 or 50 % increase in CO2 we have had already.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 16, 2021 9:11 am

“Any weather events that are undesirable, which can even remotely be attributed to human actions, and can therefore be used to promote political platforms.”

Mr.
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 16, 2021 9:25 am

Changing the phrase to “climate changeability” would be more honest, but hey, “honesty” has no place in climate “science”, judging by the perfidy on open display in the Climate gate emails.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 16, 2021 10:21 am

Just substitute ‘God’ and you will be in the ball park

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 16, 2021 11:17 am

It replaced “global warming” when the globe failed to warm according to the predictions of the climastrologers goat entrails.

Editor
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 16, 2021 1:16 pm

Gordon says, “I’m still waiting on anyone—let alone any ‘scientist’—to clearly define what the phrase ‘climate change’ really means.”

I’m an anyone. Here’s my go at it: Based on the actions of “scientists”, “climate change” means changing the values of past data (or deleting it altogether) to make current weather conditions look as though they are unusual and bad.

Regards,
Bob

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
June 16, 2021 4:17 pm

I’m jealous that you got one my ‘up vote’ than me! 🙂

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 16, 2021 2:35 pm

See my comment above.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 16, 2021 2:46 pm

Change is the default condition of any chaotic system. Climate is a chaotic system. “Climate change”, as used by the media and AGW true believers, is an appeal to ambiguity … equivocation. In other words it is fitted to any narrative in which they choose to apply it.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 17, 2021 12:36 am

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/11/france-declares-calamite-agricole-after-record-cold/#comment-3224841

The whole purpose of the term “Climate Change” is to create a “Non-falsifiable Hypothesis”, which Karl Popper defined as “unscientific”, aka utter nonsense. Warmer, colder, wetter, drier, windier, calmer, it’s all Climate Change according to the warmist fraudsters, and it’s all caused by fossil fuels – all warmist lies, a deliberate, decades-old scam.

In fact, as you point out, the obvious driver is the oceanic cycles, particularly the PDO, and specifically the NIno34 area SST is a good short-term predictor of global temperatures four months into the future, also impacted by major (century-scale VEI5+) volcanoes.

The Nino34 Sea surface temperatures seem to be strongly influenced by the end of Solar Cycles, particularly weak ones like SC24 – we also saw some significant cooling for a few years at the end of SC23 – that observation allowed me in 2013 to re-calibrate my 2002 prediction of measurable global cooling to start circa 2020, which is now looking pretty good.

Lest anyone thinks this is a good thing, think again. Humanity suffers during cold periods.
Besides, I’m getting old and hate the cold.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 17, 2021 9:05 am

The Guardian has a new suggestion as in the following comment about the G7 summit failing to provide sufficient resources to the rest of the world –

“Climate finance is provided by rich countries to help developing nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with climate breakdown”

Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent, 14th June 2021

TonyG
June 16, 2021 8:34 am

Any chance of an English translation being released?

Mr.
June 16, 2021 9:07 am

“Much of the globe’s surface indeed was never measured in the past, with stations mainly located only in USA and Europe, NASA shows”

Hhmmm.

A more descriptive catch-cry such as –
“nowhere-near-global warming”

doesn’t carry that same scary impact I suppose 🤔

Steve Z
June 16, 2021 9:23 am

If NASA calculates an annual average for Marquette, Michigan (one of the snowiest places in the USA, on the south shore of Lake Superior) with five months of data missing, then

If the missing months are in autumn and/or winter, the average of the remaining months will be well above averages for years with full data. Global Warming comes to Marquette!!!

If the missing months are in spring and/or summer, the average of the remaining months will be well below averages for years with full data. <Crickets, hide the decline!>.

Let’s face it, an annual average temperature with five months of missing data (42% of the total) is totally meaningless. An honest statistician would simply throw out the whole year, and hope the instruments work better the following year. So how does NASA fudge for missing data?

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Steve Z
June 16, 2021 10:05 am

Those five months were probably snow days. The snow was so heavy they couldn’t get to the instruments to read ’em :<)

Reply to  Joe Crawford
June 16, 2021 8:11 pm

It’s likely a surprise, but the snowiest places rarely have snow days.

Snow days deemed catastrophic to residents of Boston, New Yoik, Philadelphia and other UHI afflicted urban centers are just weather where it really snows.

Attended a security conference in Wash DC during an epic snowstorm once Epic for for DC that is.
What speakers and presenters that made the conference spent substantial portions of their introductions and presentations bemoaning the storm and Washington DC.

Then a presenter from Buffalo, New York got up and proceeded to make fun of the snow wimps.
Those attendees who commuted in to the conference, in spite of the storm gave a standing ovation to the speaker from Buffalo.

bdgwx
Reply to  Steve Z
June 16, 2021 10:35 am

For details on how NASA computes the global mean temperature I recommend reading the initial methods publication.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
June 16, 2021 11:21 am

Studied up on the GUM yet?

bdgwx
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 16, 2021 11:34 am

I’m not sure what that is or how it is relevant to Steve Z’s impression of how NASA’s procedure works or the specific question being asked. I am interested if you have the time to explain though.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
June 16, 2021 3:03 pm

Here we [tinw] see that although the IPCC climastrologers operate under the auspices of the UN, they remain ignorant of, or ignore, important and relevant international standards.

bdgwx
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 16, 2021 6:08 pm

There is no international standard on estimating the global mean temperature. GISS does it this way. Berkeley Earth does it that way. And the way Copernicus does it is so far removed from either that it isn’t even in the same ballpark. Everybody does it differently. That’s a good thing. We want multiple independent analysis using different methods and subsets of available data.

Last edited 3 months ago by bdgwx
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bdgwx
June 16, 2021 4:24 pm
bdgwx
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 16, 2021 5:00 pm

Right. Okay. What does that have to do with Steve Z’s post or the method NASA uses to compute the global mean temperature?

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  bdgwx
June 16, 2021 2:41 pm

See my comment above. But basically, I don’t think we have the data to do it properly. I have never trusted “in-filling”. Are you aware that simply by moving around Mt. Olympus, a total distance of less than 50 miles, one can go from a rain forest with >100 in. precipitation/year to a desert with <8 in. precipitation/per year? And temperature is affected by the amount of moisture in the air! Don’t ever tell me that a neighboring station’s temperature reading can be used in place of any station’s missing data.

bdgwx
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
June 16, 2021 6:18 pm

Every method requires infilling whether people realize it or not. The GISS method uses neighboring stations to estimate sparsely sampled subboxes. The HadCRUT and NOAA methods by their exclusion of these regions effectively fills them in with the global average. It should be obvious to most that grid cells are more highly correlated with their neighbors than with the global average. And this is a significant reason why HadCRUT and NOAA are likely underestimating the warming. It is because their product assumes the sparsely sampled regions are warming at the same rate as the global average which we know is not true due to polar amplification. Note that HadCRUTv5 does use a more rigorous method in this regard which addresses the low bias.

Reply to  Steve Z
June 16, 2021 8:00 pm

Not to worry, that’s why the weather boards of UK and USA invented “infilling” through use of temperatures up to 1,200 kilometers distant.

K. McNeill
June 16, 2021 10:06 am

Tony Heller has been saying this and reporting on it for years. They continue to call him a denier.

Reply to  K. McNeill
June 16, 2021 12:22 pm

And now, apparently, he has the support of his wife.

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 16, 2021 12:42 pm

You say that almost as if it’s some sort of perversion.

Reply to  Richard Page
June 16, 2021 12:51 pm

Nothing perverse about spouses supporting each other.

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 16, 2021 2:28 pm

So why mention it? It’s like saying ” Pierre and Marie Curie ‘apparently’ supported each other’s work”. Just curious about the context behind your post is all.

John Phillips
Reply to  Richard Page
June 16, 2021 2:46 pm

OMG Yes. Mr and Mrs Heller are the Curies de nos jours.

All we need to do is wait for history to catch up and award their brave contrarianism with the recognition it deserves. This Canon Institute thing is surely only the start. Once they and Lord Monckton have broken through and shown beyond doubt that 100% of the National Science Academies in the world have fallen into the grip of mistaken groupthink we can all relax and buy that SUV ….

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Page
June 18, 2021 9:00 am

“Just curious about the context behind your post is all.”

The context is negative. Tony Heller’s work directly refutes Nick’s data manipulation work, so Nick tries to tear Heller down at any opportunity.

Of course, Nick never visits Heller’s website to confront Heller on the facts directly, he just sits over here and snipes at him.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 16, 2021 2:42 pm

Enough with the ad hominem attacks, Mr. Stokes. Can you prove her wrong? That’s all I want to know.

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
June 16, 2021 4:42 pm

Can you tell me what she said?

June 16, 2021 12:15 pm

“For example, the recent CIGS paper looks at how NASA GISS has tampered with the historical datasets “
It is hard to take seriously writing that is so indifferent as to who does what. NASA does not tamper with historical datasets. It has a popular interface for presenting GHCN (NOAA) historical data. It makes it very clear that it is GHCN data.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 16, 2021 1:38 pm

NASA does not tamper with historical datasets

Correctamundo Nick.

It’s GISS what does it.

John Phillips
Reply to  Mr.
June 16, 2021 4:09 pm

Um, GISS is part of NASA.

(Now wondering how many downvotes this simple statement of fact will earn)

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  John Phillips
June 16, 2021 4:20 pm

John,

I think Mr. was being sarcastic

Mr.
Reply to  John Phillips
June 16, 2021 5:25 pm

Yeah John, isn’t it a tragedy that NASA’s impressive name in space exploration has been besmirched by a parasite outfit like GISS?

To bed B
June 16, 2021 2:34 pm

“Moreover, NASA at times calculates annual averages for years even when up to five months of data are missing, for example:Marquette, Michigan.”

I pointed out, here, that Warburton Range had decades of data missing from the base period but still had a base period average from which to calculate anomalies. They seemed to have used data from nearby Giles (200 km) and had the same data for both stations, the only ones for miles in inland Australia. Despite the two being exactly the same, they were adjusted.

While Warburton Range was still listed as a station when I last looked over 5 years ago, the graph was no longer available. They just ditched the evidence that their methodology was flawed (hide the combine?)

June 16, 2021 9:13 pm

Another example of NASA fudging data to produce warming trends cited in the CIGS paper was one published by NoTricksZone:”

So the article says, with this image:
comment image

But the odd thing is that the blue, according to the legend, is the unadjusted, which has the warming trend. It is the red, presumably adjusted, which is cooling.

John Phillips
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 17, 2021 4:34 am

Its actually v3 unadjusted and v4 unadjusted. Kiryenet is referencing the very carefully selected stations she charted for the ironically named NoTricksZone.

https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/25/adjusted-unadjusted-data-nasa-uses-the-magic-wand-of-fudging-produces-warming-where-there-never-was/

Reply to  John Phillips
June 17, 2021 7:39 am

Thanks. I thought the pattern looked odd for adjustment.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Phillips
June 18, 2021 9:11 am

“Its actually v3 unadjusted and v4 unadjusted.”

Which isn’t unadjusted. One data set shows more warming than the other, so one, at least, has been adjusted as compared to the other.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 17, 2021 5:17 am

Where is the hockey stick? I don’t see it.

bdgwx
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 17, 2021 12:55 pm

Look here for the hockey stick.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
June 18, 2021 9:21 am

I think he is probably referring to the instrument-era Hockey Stick chart. You know, the one that artificially cools the 1930’s so as to make it appear that today is the hottest time in history.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 18, 2021 9:56 am

Here’s an example of one:

Bogus, Bastardized Hockey Stick

comment image

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 18, 2021 10:23 am

That publication does contain instrument-era data from ERA. Here is another instrument-era graph.
comment image

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
June 19, 2021 1:16 pm

“instrument-era data”

That’s funny.

Actual instrument-era data shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. Your chart doesn’t tell that story.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 19, 2021 7:23 pm

Berkeley Earth uses instrument data and only instrument data. The chart is from 1850 to 2020. The “Early Twentieth Century” is included in the chart. The global mean temperature is significantly lower than today. That’s what the chart shows.

bdgwx
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 17, 2021 10:50 am

Marquette has an interesting history. It looks like there was 1 station from 1880-1961 and then 2 stations from 1961 to present. There was a fork that occurred when one of the stations moved 12 km to the west. At the same time the other station moved from a rooftop to the ground. There was an overlap period where the original site actually had two stations from 1961-1979. It looks like v3 may have formed a composite from 1979-2019 from the two distinct stations and omitted the 1961-1979 overlap period from the new station to keep the original station record unbroken. v4 split the records out into two stations; one for the city station that spans 1880-present and another for the airport station that spans 1961-present. Notice the divergence in the Kyrie graph above that begins in 1979.

So to review. The blue line is a single station from 1880-1979, but a composite of two stations from 1979-2019 one of which is now 13 km away. The red line is a single station in which the recording instrument moved from the rooftop to the ground in 1979. This explains the divergence between the blue and red lines from 1979-present. 1979 had multiple large change points.

Kyrie unwittingly found a perfect example of why adjustments are necessary.

Last edited 3 months ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
June 17, 2021 1:31 pm

“Kyrie unwittingly found a perfect example of why adjustments are necessary.”
Yes, although this isn’t really adjustment, rather than a different compositing decision being made going from V3 to V4 (unadjusted). Another that gets trotted out here from time to time is Alice Springs, where V3 made a composite of three successive stations, while V4 treated them as three separate stations (of which, of course, they only see part).

There is another adjustment case which can be fully resolved in Cape Town, which gets a run in this thread. In V3, you can track the city to airport shift in detail, and the record is a composite, but the city site continued under another name.

Craig Austin
June 17, 2021 3:29 am

To date no evidence of “climate stasis” exists, change is constant.

Tom Abbott
June 18, 2021 7:02 am

From the article: “Another example of NASA fudging data to produce warming trends cited in the CIGS paper was one published by NoTricksZone”

Is “fudging” really the right word for what is going on?

I don’t think so. I think fraud is a better description.

The Data Manipulators take a benign surface temperature chart showing no warming or showing a cooling trend, and through their manipulations, they turn this unfrightening climate trend into a “hotter and hotter”, end of the world, climate trend.

All the unmanipulated regional surface temperature charts from around the world show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, yet the Data Manipulators take these benign surface temperature charts and through subjective manipulations turn the temperature profile into a nightmare scenario. It’s fraud. They have seen what the actual historic charts show; Nothing to worry about, and they have changed them through their manipulations into a Human-caused Climate Change crisis.

The only Climate Crisis is in the minds of the Data Manipulators and in their computers, where they create this Science Fiction.

Real charts put the Lie to the Data Manipulations. Real charts show these distortions of reality are not just mistakes, they are deliberate lies intended to sell a Human-caused Climate Change narrative.

Tom Abbott
June 18, 2021 7:22 am

From the article: “Much of the globe’s surface indeed was never measured in the past, with stations mainly located only in USA and Europe, NASA shows”

That’s not true. There are plenty of temperature readings going back into the 1800’s, from all around the world including Australia and India and South Africa and South America.

Granted not every square foot of the Earth was measured, but there is enough, from a variety of different areas around the world, to show that the basic temperature profile of the Earth is benign and not dangerous.

All these regional surface temperature charts show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, which means CO2 is not a major player in controlling the Earth’s temperatues.

This is an example of a regional surface temperature chart:

comment image

As you can see, India shows the Early Twentieth Century to be just as warm as it is today.

The Data Manipulators have taken the India chart (since it represents all regional charts from around the world) and they have turned the benign India temperature profile into a scary, hotter and hotter; hottest time in human-history chart, by maipulating the Early Twentieth Century in their computers and artificially cooling it so that the present looks much warmer than it actually is. The Global Surface Temperature Chart is a Big Lie created to sell the Human-caused Climate Change narrative.

Bogus, Bastardized Hockey Stick

comment image

No unmodified regional surface temperature chart from anywhere on the globe resembles the bogus, instrument-era Hockey Stick chart temperature profile.

The Hockey Stick chart is the only thing the Alarmists can point to that shows excessive, unprecedented warming. And it’s all made up out of thin air. It’s all a lie. Nothing on the planet backs up the Hockey Stick chart profile.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 18, 2021 10:16 am

Your top graph is plot of the highest mean Tmax in each year and only for India. The bottom graph is the mean temperature for the entire globe. Those are two different things. To make an accurate comparison with the bottom graph you need to provide Berkeley Earth’s global mean temperature graph. Here it is.
comment image

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
June 19, 2021 1:38 pm

If you want to measure the highest temperatures then you use Tmax.

Yes, I only provided a chart of India, but that’s not the only regional chart that exists, and they all show a similiar temperature profile to the India chart. None of them look like the Hockey Stick chart you provide. Posting more than three charts in a comment sends that comment to moderation where the poor moderators have to waste their time authorizing it.

All the regional charts have the same temperature profile, yet the computer-generated, global temperature chart looks nothing like the regionals. One of the two profiles has to be wrong. I’ll go with the actual data that shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today and shows the Earth is not experiencing unprecedented warming.

Your Hockey Stick shows unprecedented warming. Nothing else on the planet shows this. The Hockey Stick is all by itself. It’s a political instrument.

%d bloggers like this: