ALMOST exactly three years ago Michael Hammer showed that the official temperature rise profile for the 20th century in the United States is largely, if not entirely, an artifact of adjustments applied after the raw data is collected from the weather stations [1]. It was a very neat little analysis, first published at this blog. It was a neat little analysis that was, for the most part, ignored.
Back then, meteorologist Anthony Watts was busy documenting evidence of problems with the official temperature record in the US because of poor placement of weather stations and Ross McKitrick was attempting to calculate just how artificially elevated temperatures might be as a consequence.
Then interestingly, just last month, John Hinderaker cited the original study by Mr Hammer at Powerline [2] and other studies, concluding:
‘These disclosures highlight a key fact with respect to global temperature data: the data sets are utterly lacking in integrity. Global warming alarmists confidently announce that worldwide temperatures have risen by, say .1 degree over a decade. It would be extraordinarily difficult to take measurements at many locations around the globe that would actually demonstrate that proposition. But the real situation is much worse: no one tells you what temperatures were actually measured at the world’s weather stations. Rather, they report claims of global warming based on “adjusted” temperature data–adjusted by alarmists, with the systematic purpose of manufacturing a rising temperature trend. If you subtract the “adjustments,” it may well be that there has been no net warming over the last 100 years at all.’
Ho Hum. But no one was publishing the proof in the technical literature.
Then along came an announcement by Mr Watts last Sunday that he had documented, and had ready for publication, the proof that the U.S. temperature record had been diddled. In particular his new analysis demonstrated that the reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward [3]. What Mr Hammer was explaining three years earlier, and for a longer period.
Given Mr Watts had the article ready for submission for peer-review, why didn’t he just get on, and get it published?
Well, apparently Mr Watts was keen to trump Richard Muller, from Berkeley University, who was about to announce that he had an article ready for publication. But Professor Muller’s article proved that not only were temperatures rising, and the official temperature record accurate, but that the temperature rise could be attributed to carbon dioxide.
Ho Hum.
Indeed. Just last October Professor Muller released a study claiming that he had checked out the concerns raised by sceptics, including “the risk of data selection bias” and, temperatures really were rising [4].
But then about a week after that study was released Professor Muller was forced to acknowledge that this BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project) data might also indicate that temperatures have not rise for about 13 years [5].
Indeed, earlier this year David Whitehouse from the Global Warming Policy Foundation concluded that there had been no global warming for 15 years [6].
It should all be straight forward, but its not. In part because it really is important to those who believe in anthropogenic global warming that temperatures are rising and it really is important to many so-called sceptics that they are not.
The following YouTube video entitled ‘Hitler’s Reaction to the Watts Study’ explains some of the politics:
*********
References
1. Hammer, M. June 27, 2009. Does the US Temperature Record Support Global Warming? http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/06/how-the-us-temperature-record-is-adjusted/
2. Hinderaker, J. June 9, 2012. Is the United States Actually Getting Warmer? http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/is-the-united-states-actually-getting-warmer.php
3. Watts, M., July 29, 2012. New Study Shows Half of the Global Warming in the USA is artificial. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
4. Earth Warming According to Berkely Analysis. http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/10/earth-warming-according-to-new-berkeley-analysis/
5. No Global Warming for 13 Years. http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/10/no-global-warming-for-13-years/
6. No Global Warming for 15 Years: David Whitehouse. http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/04/no-global-warming-for-15-years-david-whitehouse/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
So blinkered Jen.
Apart from a bit of tub thumping re Michael Hammer’s article way back and that’s OK, you remain focused on Watts inc etc. when there is so much else going on in our climate research.
I did a wander through the online science mags this morning seeking seeking climate news in July. The Watts v Muller story is but a small part of the action. The climate editorial over at Nature suits the discussion here (imo) and is worth a read. More interesting is an article in New Scientist – “Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought” by Fred Pearce.
Tree rings are my favorite proxy. A we learn to read them properly with regard to influences other than temperature change, there is a wealth of information available that could rival thermometer records. Analysis is an art in both cases too and nobody has the right to condemn these sources out right while sitting on the fringe of understanding
Gavin is very polite. Personally I’m sick of all this ideologically driven anti-science posturing and I’m appy to call this kind of rubbish out as scientifically delusional. With a lack of insight to boot. Cue all the delusional coming out of the woodwork to continue demonstrating this.
“Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought”
Well, it was was warm enough in Britain for that wine industry that interests you, Gav. While Canada’s industry is only two hundred years old, Britain certainly has had wine industries during its three most marked warm eras. (Not that these “warmings” are neat and without inconsistencies: witness, in this present warm era, the extreme winters 2009-2012, especially 2012.)
Even the Danes had some wine happening, in Jutland, as I think I read. The Little Ice Age put an end to that nonsense.
Wine in the west of the USA has had plenty of warmth in recent times, too much even, but the table grape industry further east was hammered by the massive frosts of this April past, the worst anyone remembers. Complicated old world, isn’t it?
Drink responsibly…or you’ll end up a bed-wetter like kd!
And ‘orreurs! It’s actually been cooling for the last 15 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:180/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:180/trend
All this during a period of unprecedented human CO2 emissions. If the warmists [including our own BoM, CSIRO etc] were true scientists they would at least acknowledge this.
But what do they do?
They adjust!
Thanks Jen and congrats Anthony Watts for pointing out what EVERYONE really knows but the ideologists don’t wan’t to know.
So much for an evidence based blog – no discussion on aerosol forcing
No full discussion on temperature more broadly – ocean temps, satellite correlation with land temps, species distribution and behaviour, circulation changes, pattern of warming, widespread glacial and polar melt.
And ye olde USA = the world con
Bunny bait ! http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/bunny-bait.html
On the subject of aerosol forcings, can you imagine these alarmists if there’s a shift to cold? They’ll want us to plug volcanoes with James Bond weapons and threaten China with smokeless warfare if it doesn’t stop spewing particulate pollution.
The bummer is that we need a science of climate, but since the seventies potential resources have been hijacked by a cult best described as Anthropocentric Climate Theory. It’s mostly just a re-run of the creepy collectivism of last century. Same angry misanthropes who love humanity but hate people. None of them are the slightest bit interested in real CO2 emitted in real time. No amount of waste or wreckage bothers them, even if it involves GHGs. Which is pretty weird.
No discussion on aerosol forcing?
Temperature more broadly?
Luke,
The question is about
a) The credibilty of the data and
b) The USE of the data.
You are now trying to claim that it’s about something else.
Jen has opened a discussion about evidence.
It is evidence pertaining to something quite specific.
Broadening it will not make it go away.
Tell us Gav,what caused the holocene optimium and the much higher SL and faster SLR than we experience today? East OZ coastline SL was 1.5 metres higher than now even 4,000 years ago.
After starting to climb out of an ice age what caused the planet to plunge into the younger dryas cold period? Found in Venezuela as well.
Why was the increase in temp after the YD about 11,500 BP so rapid and so extreme?
NOAA says 10C in ten years or perhaps 100 times faster than our present warming.
Why was the sahara desert not present just 6,000 years ago and the area was populated by humans hunting wild animals and crocodiles lived in streams.?
Why was the Eemian interglacial so much warmer than the holocene and the three prior IGlacs as well?
During the Eemian hippos lived in the thames and the rhine, just 130,000 years BP. Of course SLs were much higher than today as well.
NOAA’s reconstruction of the last 1000 years of the PDO shows much more extreme climate and climate changes than today. Why is that? Whatever the cause this extreme climate change must have been NATURAL.
If parts of the USA had extreme mega droughts lasting for many decades and perhaps centuries there had to be a NATURAL cause .
At those times eastern OZ must have endured massive flooding and super cyclones and for centuries. So what caused this EXTREME climate change just within the last 1000 years and why do we live in such a mild and much less extreme climate today?
BTW the Watts group paper should run the gauntlet of proper review and after some months we may get a better idea of its true worth.
McIntyre states he will now look more closely at the result. At least we know he will be honest and rigorous applying his tests.
From Domesday Book, pub. Conqueror Press (1086), 2 vol. 413pp & 475pp, price £5
The Count of Mortain holds Berkhamstead. It answers for 13 Hides. Land for 26 ploughs.
…………..
In the borough of this town, 52 burgesses, who pay £4 from the tolls, half half a hide.
2 mills at 20; 2 arpents of vines; meadow for 8 ploughs; pasture for the village livestock; woodland.
…………..
Edmer, a thane of King Harold’s, held this manor.
An arpent was about 0.85 acre or 0.4 hectare, the reference to vines and the year of 1086 has an obvious implication. BTW the Domesday Book was Peer reviewed, and I imagine “Conqueror Press” was prescribed reading, though I doubt the book was on sale at £5 for two volumes – my little joke.
Robert; I come to these debates well armed, so different to those who have never held a thermometer for more than a second.
Last night I had a good look at July reports mentioning weather drama or climate change either way and there is so much evidence of abnormal seasons impacting on humans that I concluded most posts here are irrelevant to the wider AGW debate.
For onlookers though. I have a long term interest in crops that includes grapes from colder regions such as Tasmania and NZ. It is safe to say much depends on the experience of the vigneron with the various types at hand. The wine grape range is too broad to assume it’s a measure of temperature.
Wild oysters on the other hand are a great guide to SL max today. In sheltered estuaries the natural shell line is the clearest sign of sea water presence despite our times and tides. Study this if you please!
Gavin – I agree that today wine grapes aren’t a measure of temperature as we have produced many new varieties that will grow in all climates – that was not the case in the Roman period.
Debbie – you don’t discuss half the issue, half the evidence and then decide a more complex question. Especially based on a press release.
“there is so much evidence of abnormal seasons…”
There is indeed, since forever. For recent examples, in the English speaking world, I’d nominate England in 1976 and North America in 1936: horror heat alternating with horror cold. Of course, for seasonal abnormality that takes lives, nothing beats China in the 1930s.
For a climate change that shaped Scandinavian destiny, hence you and me, try that Nordic Bronze Age. When that ended, didn’t a few white guys have to shift!
But hush, we are the New Men in Year Zero. We must cease all such talk of history and the past. I for one hail our new Hipster Masters!
Nice backgrounder. And the video was more fun than a bucket full of doorknobs!
Some years ago on this blog, two of the most prolific bloggers were firstly the completely obsessive Luke , and some chap just called David ..who one could deduce was probably Dr David Jones of the BOM. I am not so sure, that he didnt in fact come clean and declare who he was.
How ever my point is that both of these characters , and others, gave us hoi polloi a bollocking if anyone dared infer that the temperature record of the BOM was in any way suss.
After all that has now transpired in the meantime, involving variously:
1. The NIWA stuff up,
2. The threat of an audit by the ONA ?,and now
3. The Watts paper, plus
4. This Michael Hammer replay,
I wonder where the balance of evidence lies now.
So on top of the highly suss data, from which quite alarmist and exaggerated claims were being consistently made, together with the ridiculous ravings of the Climate Commissars viz Flannery,Steffen and Karoly et al, we can now go back to doing what we were once good at …proper science… not trumped up rubbish being peddled by academic nit wits, who still dont know the difference between cause and effect….and couldnt manage a chook raffle.
Pity about all that money has gone down the gurgler for absolutely no worthwile outcome.
…and on top of which it is now appearing more certain than ever that Swan, Gillard and Combet et al have stuffed up our minig industry that all the future investment is now going into Africa
The current batch of academic and political elites responsible for all this have to be the worst in Australias history.
Luke,
I apologise for being blunt but…..
That is a nonsense comment in relation to the comment I made.
How about you state a REASON for wanting to broaden this discussion in relation to the quite specific issue that is being discussed at this post?
I may have misinterpreted your comment earlier but… it looked like you were trying to dismiss the one of the main points of this particular post.
Here:
‘These disclosures highlight a key fact with respect to global temperature data: the data sets are utterly lacking in integrity. Global warming alarmists confidently announce that worldwide temperatures have risen by, say .1 degree over a decade. It would be extraordinarily difficult to take measurements at many locations around the globe that would actually demonstrate that proposition. But the real situation is much worse: no one tells you what temperatures were actually measured at the world’s weather stations. Rather, they report claims of global warming based on “adjusted” temperature data–adjusted by alarmists, with the systematic purpose of manufacturing a rising temperature trend. If you subtract the “adjustments,” it may well be that there has been no net warming over the last 100 years at all.’
and here:
It should all be straight forward, but its not. In part because it really is important to those who believe in anthropogenic global warming that temperatures are rising and it really is important to many so-called sceptics that they are not.
Today’s temperatures are like the milk you buy from the supermarket.
No such thing as cow’s milk anymore. It’s all been worked over to such an extent that you have to be very sceptical of anything you buy.
There’s ACORN milk, BEST milk, HADCRUT4 milk, CRUTEM4 milk……
At least WATTSUP milk is drinkable.
Truthy – pullease – not decided and unpublished rat dirt. Don’t bung it on. Sceptic rumours aren’t science and evaporate in the wind.
“‘These disclosures highlight a key fact with respect to global temperature data: the data sets are utterly lacking in integrity” Debs – sceptic unpublished bunk ! tripe, rot, rubbish – would you like to buy a harbour bridge? try a refreshing other view and stop sourcing all your bilge from the same well http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/bunny-bait.html
It is surely obvious that talk about a global mean and 0.1 c per decade trends means little to nothing. The error in the measurements HAS to be greater than the trend….so it means ntg.
yes you can argue data needs to be managed to allow for different sitings, altitudes and measurement tools, but can this ever give us an accurate picture of what is happening to climate?would you seriously recommend altering our economic system based on this information and the use of climate models that they even claim to not be forecasting tools?….and we know to be highly innaccurate?
why is it that so much of the data is conveniently massaged higher?
and finally could anybody seriously believe that the warming since 1750 is all/ mostly human induced??!!!……then thank god for us or we would all be living in the little ice age still.
How many of you had a discussion with your parents when you were growing up relating to tax and were told “it wont be long before they want to tax the air we breathe”. Well the cretins are doing it and we have let them!!
Good topical stuff on Rabett, thanks Luke.
“But this lack makes amateurs prone to get caught in the traps that entangled the professionals’ grandfathers, and it can be difficult to disabuse them of their discoveries. Especially problematical are those who want science to validate preconceived political notions, and those willing to believe they are Einstein and the professionals are fools. Put these two types together and you get a witches brew of ignorance and attitude.”
Unfortunately climate science is as sugar to flies for those types.
Seems the usual suspects are here, rabbiting on:
“No full discussion on temperature more broadly – ocean temps, satellite correlation with land temps, species distribution and behaviour, circulation changes, pattern of warming, widespread glacial and polar melt.”
Here is a link about glacial melt:
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/swiss-bishop-calls-on-power-of-prayer-to-bring-back-ice-20120730-239z7.html
“…and archaeologists are having a field day as the receding ice reveals treasures, including the wreck of a US B17 bomber, which crashed in 1944 and came to light last year in a valley above Klosters.”
Anyone care to remind everyone of carbon dioxide levels in 1944 compared to now,causing said ‘crashed bomber’ to be covered in ice?
(we all know the answer, but maybe Luke could remind everyone).
It seems prayers are much like carbon dioxide levels, following rises in temperature, not causing.
Disclaimer: some ‘bunnies’ were harmed in this example.
Lukes comment “Sceptic rumours aren’t science ” and seeing some of the contributions above made me think about National Science Week coming up soon. Maybe this blog should close down for the week.
Handjive,
Amongst other alarmists here, you seem to want to change the subject.
But anyway, just for your education; have you heard of regional variations? For instance for me it seems miserably cold in Melbourne this winter, and Mr Koala was complaining in a thread below of the cold in Noosa (Queensland). Oh and compare the US regional drought and hottish weather with some other areas including US and Europe. Oh and back in the mid 1980’s I had some assignments in Windsor Ontario across the river from Detroit. I forget the year, but one April they were water skiing and the next April shipping was stopped by ice.
Oh and as the ice and snow retreats in some areas, pre-fossilised trees have been reported from above the current tree-line. I wonder what that might mean?
Oh and aren’t some glaciers advancing in Alaska or Canada somewhere?
Oh and has not the previously trumpeted fastest retreating glacier in the World around 2006 (Jakobshavn in Greenland) become fairly static recently. (and its rate of retreat over the past century or so has shown no correlation with regional temperature?)
Oh………..no I’d better stop there because it is off topic
Golly gosh,
This anonomously authored article on the BBC website does touch on some views opposing Muller’s recent media blitz!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501
Bob_FJ – I didn’t interpret what handjive said was from a warmist point of view. handjive?
Bob, I think you have missed handjive’s humour? he is making the point that to uncover a ww2 bomber that was buried under ice it WAS warmer at that location 80 years ago…without evil human enhanced warming.
Bob we are wasting our time trying to convince those with the faith, that there is a good chance they are wrong….fortunately I dont think Handjive is one of them!
all of this real world evidence however is trumped by faith in a global mean, globally averaged adjustments, irrelvance of error factors, models, it really wasnt globally warm during the MWP,RWP or Minoan WP, “of course it would be expected that the majority of temperature adjustments would be up…but we do know that 10 data points in 1750 is enough to say what the temp was globally then and basically all warming since is due to evil humans………and we also know that only sceptics cherry pick and warmers really just care deeply about humanity and are actually trying to improve our lives, so when they make outlandish statements its ok………..while we are selfish, greedy, non sustainable and unscientific, in it for the money etc….mmmm.
I know we dont all think the same way and thankgoodness, but one does start to wonder.
Glaciers have obviously been in retreat lately in Switzerland, as in the 40s. They certainly were not retreating in the late 1700s, when the locals started asking God to make the glaciers stop advancing. (Stupid Little Ice Age again!). What’s worth keeping in mind is that the historic Cold Wave of 2012, while it affected the north east of the continent more than other parts, was pretty general and very severe.
Switzerland’s official lowest temp is -41.8C, in 1987 at La Brevine. Since I don’t know the length of the record period etc, this doesn’t mean much. But it’s worth keeping in mind that a remote (RAWS) reading in an uninhabited area of Switzerland last Feb yielded an unofficial record of -45.4C. I’m cautious about “records” etc, but nobody can be in much doubt as to the severity of last February’s cold in Europe. And it’s the fourth winter in a row that’s been very severe in one way or another on that continent.
Let’s hope our Green Betters really do know about climate and energy supply.
But that’s enough of chilly stories. Socratic bazza is blowing kisses to Luke and trying his leaden put-downs. This is where the thread could get grim. Someone find that guy some punctuation!
What was that point you made about analogies Bazza? 🙂
Also love that amateur quip…..chuckle.
Luke,
I agree it is all more about PR spin than anything else….I think that point is rather clearly made in the post that we are discussing here too.
However, my scepticism is because I seriously question that this is about science in the first place….I think the real tragedy is that the ‘science’ and credible evidence has been inappropriately hijacked by the politics and the Political PR spin…..and that would apply to all sides (because in the PR battle there are more than 2 sides)…but it’s most definitely a PR battle primarily.
Muller et al is as guilty as Watts et al as far as that goes….neither of these papers have been submitted to due diligence in what any of us would tentatively agree is proper scientific process….yet both of them are making loud claims in the media…..and producing even further MSM noise and heated debate on numerous blogs.
Much of the stuff that Gavin has linked in the last couple of days is purely based on what Bazza calls ‘ambit claims’ about AGW (albiet pro AGW)….and have no basis in science.
For example:
The vineyard story can be repeated for all sorts of reasons all over the world and are more to do with a run of good luck with the LOCAL WEATHER….and the introduction of ‘cold climate’ varieties than anything else….the attribution to AGW is an ambit claim is it not?
Anyone who has any experience with viticulture would pick that up straight away.
Same goes for that nonsense study on trying to run a psychological profile on ‘sceptics’….for goodness sake…..and concluding that it is a demographic and race issue.
Also….at the heart of this debate is a question over the credibility of data and the way the data is being used to extrapolate or project.
I’m not convinced that is about science either.
Gavin has inadvertantly pinpointed it in a very back to front manner in a previous post…..something about ‘changing beliefs’ being the solution?
Which is also like saying we have a solution looking for a problem…..but can’t actually nail down what the problem is really….but we should believe in the solution anyway.
And how scientific would that be I wonder?
Handjive, John Sayers and Toby,
WHOOPS, sorry, yep, I got that wrong.
And, I now think that I agree with Handjive, and that he is a realist not an alarmist!
Debbie @ 5:02 pm
Nice comment
Bob, Deb’s comments were thorough and on the mark. But I wonder if being an actual producer of actual food might work to reduce her cred in the eyes of some commenters here. Not all of us, of course!
I see luke has connected to the rabbit with his sensational expose of an alleged defect with Watts, namely time of obervation bias [TOB], which eli argues is responsible for the warming bias in the rural locations because Watts has not accounted for this.
Firstly Watts takes data as used by Menne in his paper and says this:
“Many USHCNv2 stations which were previously rated with the methods employed in 200 Leroy (1999) were subsequently rated differently when the Leroy (2010) method was 201 applied in this study. This simple change in the rating system accounts for the majority of 202 differences in the data and conclusions between this study and Menne et al.,(2010), Fall 203 et al.,(2011), and Muller et al.,(2012).”
That is, Watts has used the same data, already adjusted, as the other studies; Watts does not ignore TOB because the other studies have not ignored TOB.
At lines 218-219 Watts notes:
“The intermediate (TOB) data has been adjusted for 218 changes in time of observation such that earlier observations are consistent with current 219 observational practice at each station. The fully adjusted data has been processed by the 220 algorithm described by Menne et al. (2009) to remove apparent inhomogeneities where 221 changes in the daily temperature record at a station differs significantly from neighboring 222 stations. Unlike the unadjusted and TOB data, the adjusted data is serially complete, with 223 missing monthly averages estimated through the use of data from neighboring stations. The USHCNv2 station temperature data in this study is identical to the data used in Fall 225 et al. (2011), coming from the same data set.”
In fact Watts has allowed for TOB because the other studies have allowed for it. What Watts has done is apply a superior statistical method, Leroy 2010, which accounts for UHI in a way the older method did not which explains the warming bias in the other temperature networks.
Eli knew this which is why he is a prestigiateur. Luke apparently did not know this but linked to the rabbit anyway which is why he is a masochist.
“and finally could anybody seriously believe that the warming since 1750 is all/ mostly human induced” – that’s not what is even claimed ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Anyway we can play clubby codgers with lovely cherry-picked anecdotes or do some big picture science – http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/ Figs 5.1 and 5.9 guys.
a duh !
Cohenite – well tell McIntyre you chump http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/#comments
hahahahahaha
“When I had done my own initial assessment of this a few years ago, I had used TOBS versions and am annoyed with myself for not properly considering this factor. I should have noticed it immediately. That will teach me to keep to my practices of not rushing. Anyway, now that I’m drawn into this, I’ll have carry out the TOBS analysis, which I’ll do in the next few days (at the expense of some interesting analysis of Esper et al.)”
It’s science by press release Cohenite – very skankiferous.
Handjive’s talk of a 1944 bomber reminded me of Glacier girl a P 38 bomber recovered from SE Greenland in the 1990s.
It had landed in 1942 and was left to the elements for over 50 years. When they found her she was buried by 268 feet of ice and was cut up and retrieved and eventually fully restored and able to fly again.
http://www.p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm
An amazing story and incredible bravery to penetrate that depth of ice to recover the aircraft.
But that is an incredible depth of ice to cover the plane in half a century. Not much melting in SE Greenland since 1942.
My god, UNEP! It’s enough to make you yearn for a Skeptical Science reference.
“If the trend continues…” Gawd. Last time they used that phrase we ended up with desal plants – delayed by rain, of course.
Is Wikipedia the best reference site for science? Or is Skeptical Science more reliable?
Watch the blink graph at the end of
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/how-the-us-hockey-stick-was-built/
luke, so Watts is coping flak because he uses the TOB adjusted data which the other networks have used and applies his improved Leroy methodology to find that data has a bias for other reasons and is now getting blamed for a supposed deficiency in accommodating TOB!
SP; based on a word or two like skepticism and experiment I had to say wiki has it all then I noticed a link at the other page SS, “Is Greenland close to a climate tipping point?” a must read as it is relevant to posts by Robert and others since my last effort. Gotta to convince Deb too.
With positive feedback re greenhouse gasses, anything is possible including tipping points and rapid rates of change in response to minor global temp shifts, stuff you can’t measure with a grape vine. Climate sensitivity could still be king of the scenarios given this “Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt”- Neven also on SS.
The Greenland surface melt happens every 150 years or so, and the current melt is right on time. Not sure why its “unprecedented”. Probably 20mm of a 2km thick ice sheet melted, and has probably re-frozen already.
Alarming! Tipping points! Be afwaid, vewy vewy afwaid.
Wiki was heavily edited by a warmist named Connolly (I think thats the name), they got rid of him for a while, but believe he’s back. Think he tried to eliminate the MWP.
SS has a habit of altering comments to suit whatever bit of propaganda they wish to push at any time.
My question was not serious. Both sites are basically rubbish that tell warmists what they want to hear. Any “science” content on these sites is an accidental by-product. They are simply not reliable.
And Gavin – you’re right – anything is possible, but he probability of occurance is another matter.
sp sauce – all sceptic sites provide a daily diet of disinformation for ning nongs like you to uncritically parrot. You’e just a psittaciformian prevaricator. Ark … Polly wanna spread nonsense. Ark ! I just repeat what I’m told. Ark !
Archeologists had to hack through permafrost to get to it.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
A whole bloody medieval farm, no doubt set up by skeptics who’d read too many Icelandic sagas. Probably wanted to toss in some grapes, but knew Gav would never fall for it.
The present big melt for July is unprecedented – well, since 1973. That’s sort of unprecedented.
“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist. But Lora is a NASA girl and agrees that if the trend continues it will be worrisome.
If the trend continues, everything will be unprecedented and worse than we thought! Not just worrisome, girl! You want to keep your NASA job, or not?
‘Not just worrisome, girl!
Ha ha ha.Love your work Robert.
Pielke Jr nails a lead IPCC author as he tells blatant porkies to US congress. What is it with these silly alarmists telling porkies that is opposed to what even the IPCC at its most fanciful would try and get away with?
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/ipcc-lead-author-misleads-us-congress.html
Extreme weather events are covered in Lomborg’s “Cool IT” just listing the historical info and using graphs to prove his case. Not Lomborg’s numbers but REAL historical info, something Pielke jr has followed up on over the years.
These people have to be blatant liars or idiots or perhaps both.
Frank Lansner has a look at adjusted and unadjusted temp data in the USA. This is supposed to be the highest quality measurements on the planet, yet HAD crut shows a huge step change in 1946 that doesn’t show up in other series.
If this is the highest quality temp measurements how much confidence should we all have spending countless billions $ on so called AGW. How much confidence should we place in China, India, Sth America, Australian African, etc,etc temp measurements?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/01/a-comparison-of-adjusted-vs-unadjusted-surface-data/#comments
Larry Pickering is still pursuing the AWU scandal. Let’s hope Kernohan gets his day in court sooner rather than later. But what stops the MSM print from tackling Gillard over this info?
Bolt’s had a go and Jones might have another go today or tomorrow.
http://pickeringpost.com/news/gillard-still-no-answers-pt2/139
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Statement&Statement_ID=4f92dad8-2308-4c1e-aba3-b39d33486519
The sooner this idiot scam has been killed off the better…but no doubt the perpetrators and their moronic sycophants that populate blogs such as this et al, will do all they can to protect their investment of our money in their nice little earner.
Luke,
(IMHO)
Since this MSM/Blog PR episode started between the Muller et al and Watts et al papers, this is one of the most sensible things that has been said…..and it was said by you:
Maybe Watts has something – maybe he doesn’t but it is a very braggart way to go about it.
However….I would have to say the same applies to Muller. If anything it was Muller’s braggart behaviour that goaded Watts into behaving in a similar manner. (IMHO)
It also pretty much concurs with Jen’s point here:
It should all be straight forward, but its not. In part because it really is important to those who believe in anthropogenic global warming that temperatures are rising and it really is important to many so-called sceptics that they are not.
The prevailing political mindset also promotes the sort of snobby, opinionated, inflammatory, rhetorical, counter productive and pure nonsense that Bazza cut/pasted from that Rabbet link.
“But this lack makes amateurs prone to get caught in the traps that entangled the professionals’ grandfathers, and it can be difficult to disabuse them of their discoveries. Especially problematical are those who want science to validate preconceived political notions, and those willing to believe they are Einstein and the professionals are fools. Put these two types together and you get a witches brew of ignorance and attitude.”
Please tell me how that would promote anything approaching a discussion about scientific evidence?
IMHO
That is just more of the same.
We have a solution looking for a problem.
We are told we SHOULD believe and trust in the SOLUTION before it is clear what the problem is. We are being lectured that we should just follow along because these people are the SERIOUS people and they are the ones who KNOW what we need to do…..even though most of us mere mortals who are apparently hopelessly misinformed amateurs who should just shut up….keep asking the most obvious questions.
Why is this a valid solution? What is it solving?
What I keep noticing is:
The nature of the evidence for the problem keeps getting changed or broadened or adjusted or has new evidence from another human produced problem or even renamed (eg AGW to Climate Change)… BUT!!!!!!!…. the solution stays the same and it is actually THE SOLUTION that we’re all being told we must trust and unquestionably accept…..NOT the science!
Ahhh Luke,
I am finally beginning to understand. you are eating too many Brer Rabbett pellets!!! They’ll make you fat and gullible.
Must be why Debbie keeps scoring on you.
Dr Christy address.
http://www.youtube.com/user/JimInhofePressOffice
Yep KK,
In my world….rabbits are a recognised pest! 🙂
They are also a human introduced environmental problem….that problem is clearly definable and we have a RANGE OF SOLUTIONS to solve the problems (some more successful than others).
And yes Bazza,
That was an ANALOGY to demonstrate a POINT… not to mount an attack on SCIENCE!
And even more amazingly Bazza, Luke, Gavin et al,
Those SOLUTIONS to the rabbit problem were definitely assisted and informed by science!
So despite all your accusations and insinuations otherwise….
This particular sceptic is a HUGE fan of science.
LOL – and Debbie’s ancestors having introduced the rabbits and so the problem, Debbie doesn’t get it …..
I guess if we asked Debbie what aspect of science for rabbit control she liked – the response would be “I don’t get concerned with details”.
“The first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 1990 predicted air temperatures would increase by 0.30 degrees per decade, and by 0.20 degrees to 0.50 degrees per decade at the outside. But according to NASA satellites that measure almost the entire planet constantly, the trend since then has been 0.17 degrees per decade at most….
Ocean temperatures have only been measured properly since 2003 when the Argo program became operational. Some 3000 Argo buoys roam the oceans, measuring temperatures on each 10-day dive into the depths… Since Argo started, the ocean temperatures have been flat, no warming at all.”
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/climate-change-science-is-a-load-of-hot-air-and-warmists-are-wrong-20120801-23fdv.html#ixzz22LBNeyqR
Question: Which nation contains the point furthest from the Earth’s centre?
Greenland’s Oscillating Glaciers
“Ice core records show that the last time such melting happened was in 1889, with earlier events occurring approximately every 150 years. Evidently, to climate scientists, “unprecedented” means “not recently” or “not in the researcher’s life time.”
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/greenlands-oscillating-glaciers
ROFL! 🙂 🙂 🙂
Who doesn’t get it?
What does this mean Luke?
‘They are also a human introduced environmental problem’
Couldn’t perhaps mean that previous generations (which could just as easily include your ancestors as mine BTW) introduced the rabbits and so the problem….. could it?
How about you focus on the actual POINT?
Happy to discuss that if you have an objection or a fundamental disagreement.
BTW,
Most of your accusations claim that I either don’t understand details or I belong to some type of psychologically deficient group that drinks tea, is functionally illiterate, wears tweed jackets, has red necks, hates scientists, is influenced by old conservative white males and has problems with their belief systems. Your arguments also imply I should just TRUST some incredibly reliable and serious ‘people’ to ‘NAME’ the problem and ‘SOLVE’ the problem with an already decided and already legislatively enacted SOLUTION.
But for the particular analogy we are referring to….would you like the details….or were you attempting to score some type of strategic victory by the ‘I guess if we asked Debbie’ statement?…..because Luke….UNLIKE the debate re AGW there were and are a RANGE of accepted, practical, & useful risk management strategies that were and are informed by solid ongoing scientific research to mitigate a specific, human introduced, problem in Australia….. NOT a singular global solution that is looking for a global problem and keeps changing the definition of the global problem….and somehow that solution is always the same one and the one we should TRUST.
I was going to say Pwnd Luke, but I thought NO, let Luke express it himself.
I’m a very recent viewer of this particular blog and I’m amazed at the vitriol and stupidity evidenced here. All this angst over the Watts paper and the crap on Rabbett is just silly. Watts made a melodramatic performance about his collected data from US weather stations. He didn’t do any statistical analyses and ignored TOBs. Steve McIntyre who has a really good record of statistical analysis, unlike Eli at Rabbett, has said he will have a look at the data if time permits including the effect of TOBs. If the data prove to be statistically valid then Watts has a point. It it isn’t he doesn’t. Obviously, and surprisingly, the level of scientific awareness of this point on this blog isn’t very high. Looking at and considering the evidence presented to the senate by Dr Christy and Dr Pielke, would be far more beneficial to critiquing climate science than the childish discourse on a paper that is yet to be finalised
Then go away and leave our delusional selves to our selves.
Oh Sorry John. I didn’t realise you were unable to stand criticism Pity really as sometimes it helps to see ourselves as others see us. You just seem a spoilt child but I guess you’ll turn out OK when you grow up. In the meantime look at what many comments on this blog are saying and assess their validity, relevance to the topic etc
Debbie said:
“UNLIKE the debate re AGW there were and are a RANGE of accepted, practical, & useful risk management strategies that were and are informed by solid ongoing scientific research to mitigate a specific, human introduced, problem in Australia….. NOT a singular global solution that is looking for a global problem and keeps changing the definition of the global problem….and somehow that solution is always the same one and the one we should TRUST.”
…. and said it particularly well and succinctly. “Global problems” are frequently cited as cause for local problems, when local data is ignored, and that data often disproves the claims. “Ocean acidification” is blamed for failure to thrive in oyster larvae in Puget Sound (Washington), when local surveys show it’s a combination of low pH caused by runoff pollution and a virus. Recent “sea level rise” is cited as a contributing factor in coastal erosion in parts of California when tide gauges show the level hasn’t risen in THIRTY years.
“Increasing drought” is the current hot potato in the USA when NCDC precipitation data shows the opposite for the last few decades, increasing rainfall year round in most states. Pacific Island authorities and homegrown alarmists claim “sea level rise” and increased ocean temperatures as growing problems (or threats) when data collected by your own NTC (The BOM does some very good work which is often ignored by critics) shows the opposite.
I think so-called “climate change” (when hasn’t it changed)? and its claimed consequences have become a convenient peg to hang increasing regulation and unpopular policies on, and in many cases the “proles” swallow it, hook, line and sinker. You have local planning authorities banning coastal development and/or mandating “houses on stilts” when the claimed threat wouldn’t manifest itself to any great degree for at least 50 years, and local data shows no acceleration in moderate sea level rise at all.
“Rewriting the past” has always been considered to be a task undertaken by repressive, authoritarian regimes, and to be abhorred in enlightened democracies, but many we assume to be such appear to condone or even encourage it when it suits their purposes. Your CSIRO and Climate Commission (and government) exaggerate by selection (“cherry picking”) or emphasising global data over local data when it suits them. There should be a word for “lying by omission” – in a court of law there is, and it’s perjury.
The adjustment “diddling” has dwindled almost to nothing for recent data, because there are satellites measuring stuff now, so UHCN and NOAA and GISS and NIWA and others move silently to adjust the past instead. Governments and national bodies like the EPA lap it up, because it’s what they want to see and hear. Let’s call for details and justification of ALL “adjustments” to climate datasets to be published on the ‘net. This is the information age – demand more of it. Good, solid data and the truth derived from it is anathema to alarmism and over-regulation. The infamous “hockey stick” chart is an excellent proxy for distortion and selected truth, the very stuff of alarmists and their desire to change our world for the worse before we can stop them.
Ian?
That was a rather unfriendly, broad brush comment don’t you think?
Is there something particular about the lack of scientific awareness you would like to share?
BTW
I basically agree with your assessment of the Muller vs Watts vs Rabbet vs whatever fiasco.
I think Jen’s comments at this post do as well.
Gidday Ian ,
Best you bring us dumbums up to speed on the science we don’t understand.
Regarding ,of course, the topic at hand. Temperature record adjustment to change outcomes.
Hi there Luke,
Been a hot topic for a long time in the country, who brought in those rabbits . Bloody Deb’s ancestors .
So who’s ancestors brought in the carp?
Or even worse for the environment, did any of your ancestors own a cat ?
Ian – as I’m in my late 60s I doubt I’ll grow up to your expectation.
I’ll stick around as you are first to suggest I should do otherwise.
Ian – type my name into Google and you’ll find out who I am.
Jen, somewhat similar
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/more-entertainment-from-the-us-drought-monitor/
Might need some thought before betting a shirt on wheat futures!
Despite being quite busy this w/e I was compelled to compliment new Ian’s observations “I’m amazed at the vitriol and stupidity evidenced here”. Seems there very few points to be gained by us older over familiar posters.
Ian; when faced with a city full of instruments day by day, I was always adjusting something to keep our customers happy. By contrast another long time tech just sprayed inside each case with CRC to give out the whiff of service.
Instruments through history have been fudged too hence a reconstruction of the records is necessary. In a factory, mill or mine and even their HQ offices and labs, neglect was the largest factor. We all take too much for granted. There is nothing solid under the Sun.
At the end of the day, the climate consensus is just another extremist obsession with some pseudo religious and end-of-the-world crap tossed in and becomes self-parody.
It would be funnier of the rent seeking cynics who made it their careers were not pilfering the tax payers to pull their gag.
Yeah gav, spoken like a true sceptic. Stick around. You’re learning.
Better not mention the war to Luke though. He may not be able to cope.
How refreshing it was to see a sane scientist like Christy explain some of the weather in the USA over the last year or so, in his short address to congress.
Then again when doesn’t Christy sound perfectly sane and balanced among the hopeless numbskulls he has to encounter.
BTW the AWU scandal is starting to hot up, with the Australian overnight asking pointed questions of our PM.
If one former official is granted immunity from prosecution we may finally begin to understand the involvement of some of the major players.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wilson_scandal_i_could_face_criminal_charges/#commentsmore
gavin
“Instruments through history have been fudged too hence a reconstruction of the
records is necessary.”
One of my problems with adjustments and reconstruction is simply, that we do not know which way the instruments erred + or -?
Therefor the records best be left alone and have the errors naturally equalise.
For Debs on Watts and Muller – http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/much-ado-about-nothing/#more-5454 ho hum
Neville keep your political rat dirt on non-theme matters for Bolta eh?
JW; having worked on a large range of U tube type instruments for pressure and temp I suggest most errors stem from sticky floats, failure to properly zero and manufacturing anomalies. Another issue in weather records is part time monitors doing only max min observations.
Discontinuity is also a real threat in any critical analysis. As I moved into process monitoring technology it was easier to watch numerous continuous recorders for odd faults rather than rely on routine samples once a shift say. Labs versus process control was on going in any establishment. Smoothing the waters becomes an art despite data purists.
“We all take too much for granted. There is nothing solid under the Sun.”
I should have said that it was this comment of gav’s that I was referring to, not his adjustment theme.
As JW says, those errors can be in either direction, unless you have good evidence, and Watts has shown that in bad sites [which are in the majority] it is not hard to see in which direction the errors run.
Global warming didn’t melt those street lights, even if the numbskulls thought so.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/02/inhofe-exposes-another-epic-fail-by-global-warming-alarmists-thursday/#more-68564
Geeezzz that’s a good one Luke. It’s not my rat dirt you bozo, you’ll find it comes directly from the unions and your good ‘ol labor party. Or can’t you read or still lacking in simple logic and reason.
I mean you’re very expert on non theme matters , always blasting Debbie and everyone else about their state of mind and questioning our supposed political alliance.
Luke,
This is his conclusion after waxing eloquent about ice sheets etc:
‘I’ve said before that by the end of this decade global warming will be so f***ing obvious that deniers will be laughed at — at best. Perhaps I should revise the time scale for that prediction, because the obvious is knocking at the door. Who knows, depending on what happens weather-wise over the next few months, maybe Mitt Romney will decide to flip-flop on the issue — again.”
I would have to comment that this is no better than what he pretends to be criticising.
He takes a swipe at both of them and then inserts his own ‘opinion’ with those same silly name tags eg ‘deniers’ and also attempts to justify climate predictions with wiggly weather:
‘Who knows, depending on what happens weather-wise over the next few months’,
And how scientific would that comment be according to your oft repeated claim that ‘that’s weather not climate’…or you can’t make global claims based on wiggles etc?
However…..calling the whole fiasco a PR ‘chest thumping type’ exercise is a fair assessment IMHO…..just amusing that he is basically just as guilty.
It still looks like that same duck to me….and it’s not about the science or a genuine attmept at using science to inform risk management strategies…..it’s more about justifying a ‘solution’ that is designed to be some type of ‘one size fits all’ for any alarming weather/climate related issue we can possibly identify as a possible risk.
It has led our climate commissioners to infer ridiculous things like climate change will cause people to get crankier in traffic or that ‘the solution’ will stop that happening and the increasing risk of bush fires in Sydney and Victoria, stop houses falling into the ocean and save the lives of old people in Western Sydney as they’re dying from heat exhaustion.
Yeah right!
So despite your swipe at Neville’s political comments….it appears to be far more about ‘politics’ and ‘policy’ than anything else.
Some of the worst heat since the 1930s in parts of the US. Perfect for it’s-worse-than-we-thought stunts like the melted lamps.
The dumpster fire was big and melted two plastic street lamps above it. The local TV had pics of the fire, fortunately. Might have melted the plastic mid-winter, for all we know. Instead of saying whoops, those quackers tried to tell us the melted lights were a combo of AGW and a “semi-close” dumpster fire. Also, without the (global) warming, the fire wouldn’t have started. Last words by Think Progress are a quote from the photographer. It’s under a photo of two globes, clearly melted only on the side of the fire, with the other globes intact: “Still an amazing photo and not fake as many are saying on here. Enjoy!”
Instead of denying plain reality, why not just say: “I was young and naive yesterday when I said global warming melted the lamps.” Or try an Obama line: “A cigarette chucked in a dumpster didn’t build that fire; something else built that fire.”
I suppose people don’t get to be PM or president for nothing these days. They’re just better than Think Progress where it really counts: spin.
Ian?
If you’re still around?
Is this what you were trying to point out when you wrote:
Looking at and considering the evidence presented to the senate by Dr Christy and Dr Pielke, would be far more beneficial to critiquing climate science than the childish discourse on a paper that is yet to be finalised
???
“Amid the resurgence of hysteria from my friends on the left, I appreciated climatologist Dr. John Christy who testified this week before the Environment and Public Works committee saying that instead of proclaiming this summer is ‘what global warming looks like’ it is ‘scientifically more accurate to say that this is what Mother Nature looks like, since events even worse than these have happened in the past before greenhouse gases were increasing like they are today.’
That pasted partof your comment is not unreasonable in terms of the relevance to this post.
Not however the tone in which you encompassed it….nor the tone of your following comment.
Neither does silly meaningless name tags like “climate denier” or ‘spoilt child’ or ‘tea party trash’ & forever ad infinitum do anything productive.
(I am still wondering how one can ‘deny’ the climate?)
The only place I have seen something like that sucessfully accomplished is in a computer model/ extrapolation/ simulation. 🙂
It’s a bit hard to deny the climate/weather anywhere else (IMHO).
Thanks for the comments Debbie (1.21 pm August 3). If you want to see how other blogs act look at the recent discourse on Real Climate (My o miocene post) where I was well criticised by the respondents there for applauding Dr Christy’s comments to thje Senate. The spoilt child was my response to John/s comment “Then go away and leave us to our delusional selves”. Don’t you think that sounds a bit petulant? I did not and have never used the terms climate denier, tea party trash or forever ad infinitum and I wonder why you imply that I have. As has been made plain by Anthony Watts his paper does need some work and won’t be submitted until end September. So discussion of it seems premature and yes, I do think the comments by Drs. Christy and Pielke warrant more attention. And I stand by my comment that there is a lot of vitriol on this blog but retract and apologise for the comment on stupidity.
gavin said: “Instruments through history have been fudged too hence a reconstruction of the records is necessary.”
Which way should they be “reconstructed” gavin, when the only evidence is the readings themselves?
Ian,
It wasn’t you that uses most of those terms….I apologise if you thought I was inferring you had.
That was actually pointing out that others do so….so in a badly expresed manner I was also agreeing with that point of yours too.
The Tamino link Luke provided uses some of them.
I actually agree with the substance of your original comment….just thought you could have left out the quip about ‘scientific awareness’:
Obviously, and surprisingly, the level of scientific awareness of this point on this blog isn’t very high.
That was what elicited the reaction.
A similar drama has been playing out in Kiwiland over the NIWA temperature diddling and it is coming to a head.
At the moment though there seems to be a media blackout on it:
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/
Good catch, spangles.
Good question Tony.
Excellent article by Tony Thomas in the Australian:
here it is for those who can’t access it:
Thanks for that article John. But is it the same as the Quadrant article? I’ll have to go and see for myself.
Hope a few more people read it in the OZ and begin to understand the biased idiocy and bilge they are sometimes fed by the likes of Flannery and others.
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/
This also provides links to reviews of the BEST paper (1).
Interesting tale of a secret letter. Why isn’t this IPCC outfit wound up and chucked into the nearest rubbish tip?
http://climateaudit.org/2012/08/03/ipccs-secret-letter/
Latham has described Bolt fairly well, although I think he is a moderate conservative with a libertarian streak.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/08/03/ipccs-secret-letter/
His description ( Bolt’s) of society being collectivists on one side and individualists in the centre and anarchists on the other side is interesting.
I’m happy to say I belong in the centre, like Bolt I can’t stand mobs and don’t even like going to meetings much unless I have to.
Sorry just too busy this morning, here’s the correct link.
http://afr.com/p/national/the_sure_footed_mr_bolt_0QIMGk4DGJ5o3yr79Ui0CL
Re: Nevilles comment above viz,
“Why isn’t this IPCC outfit wound up and chucked into the nearest rubbish tip?”
Well Neville, the Tony Thomas gives you a hint why
Add to that a similar article by Montford entitled “Nullas in Verba” regarding the perversion of science in general, and GW science in particular, involving the Royal Society in the UK, and you have an inkling of what the tie up is.
Now add in the various climategates involving the UAE, and one can ask are they acting for the common good and betterment of science, or have they all been beaten with the “just plain dopey” stick.
Not a good look is it.?
Its going to take years to repair the damage, and whilst they continue to make clowns like Flannery Fellows etc…. it cant start soon enough.
Certainly not a good look!
As well as time I suspect it will also take dollars and a change of attitude or focus to repair.
An ideology or perhaps a mindset (?) has been legislated.
Heh,
Herr Muller has now been interviewed and asked about Ross’ reviews. His response was that Ross is wrong so they ignored it!! Oh, and he admits he was never a CLIMATE Sceptic, just a SCIENCE Sceptic!! Probably an agnostic.( Again, he told the Sierra Club that CO2 was going to be our biggest problem or some such. He apparently has reworked at least the meaning of agnostic in the dictionary. Probably a number of other common, scientific, and statistical terms!!)
Hey Luke, y’all got a great one on your side!!
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/08/the-best-is-yet-to-come-an-interview-with-richard-muller
With regard to Tony Price’s Q on adjustments; I won’t guess without seeing the original records again but I did go back to BoM for Wynyard Airport again as I have seen the original data on line as it was (appalling ).
I made suggestions during earlier debates here about how we may cope with such a mess.
I recall obvious discontinuities back then that I could attribute to different thermometers and possibly different methods used over time. For a while I knew most of the airline’s ground staff, in fact several were friends, so I was somewhat shocked by the airport record knowing it was frequently quoted by radio stations 7NT and 7BU. But the real problem was I could compare Devonport Airport and Low Head readings as broadcast on a daily basis and not be suspicious of any of them at the time. I have to conclude that instrument errors were not monitored despite the diligence of marine and airport staff whose trade depended so much on the weather of the day.
You have to conclude like me, that standard met gear as it was and procedures world wide were not designed for intensive data analysis hence the many many data upgrades during the search for climate clues. As I have often said, we can’t go back and do the instrument calibrations one by one but we can apply intelligence and experience to the task of global temperature reconstruction
I was heartened by Herr Muller’s indictment of the Hockeystick, but his pronouncements since seem to indicate that he’s another Hansen in the making. Pope Gregory saw some fair-haired and fair-skinned slaves in a slave market in Rome in the 590s (when it was warmer than now, as shown by the flat handle of the stick), and commented ‘Not Angles but angels’. I’d say Muller was never a sceptic of AGW, “Not sceptic but septic”.
M for T – I always thought “Nullius in verba” meant “not in so many words”, which roughly translated means “we left out much of the uncertainty”.
Jen, O/T but an example of when modelling becomes serious
”
Losing Your Company in 45 Minutes
Posted on 2 August 2012 by E.M.Smith
Knight Capital Group is one of the large trader with $1.4 Billion of revenue last year. Per the profile here:
“Yesterday August 1, they decided to turn loose an automated trading platform. ( I don’t know if this was an ‘upgrade’ to an existing platform or a new venture). It “had issues”. How much of an issue? They did 20 weeks of trading in 45 minutes (so perhaps someone set a time parameter wrong…) In 45 minutes of automated trading it lost about $440 Million. In comparison, it made about 1/4 of that in each of the last 4 years. So 4 years of total earnings, flushed in 45 minutes.”
More at http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/losing-your-company-in-45-minutes/
The software was young and naive when it lost $440 million last Wednesday.
I hope that story is not entirely true Robert, for the sake of the software boys.
Even if they had instructions to the contrary I’m sure they would have put limits and warnings in place to alert the operators or to cease trading when on autopilot?
Well, I would have anyway.
Tony Price says: “”” I always thought “Nullius in verba” meant “not in so many words”, which roughly translated means “we left out much of the uncertainty”.””
In truth Tony, it means ” On the word of no one” which as just as apposite .. and is strikingly relevant when one reads his Report. It is just the AAS issues, writ larger.
….and shows the depths of the unprincipled activism that science has stooped to, even from Presidents.
Its also a reminder also of the quip, that one doesnt have a conversation with most Professors and senior academics,…. “one has an audience.”
Thankfully they are not all like it, just the GW alarmists it seems.
Horace’s original phrase concerns swearing allegiance to no master. “In verba iurare” just means to swear allegiance, it doesn’t have anything to do with repeating the words of others.
However, Latin being the blunt, compressed language that it is, there’s always some play for interpretation. Also, appealing phrases often lose their original context and signification, just like Kipling’s “Lest we forget.”
Back in the 1600s, John Aubrey was looking for a nifty phrase as a slogan for the Royal Society. You had to have one! Separating “in verba” from “iurare” killed the original sense, but I’m fine with it. I’m fine with Tony’s and the Minister’s interpretations. The phrase sounds good, and I get the point.
Of course, if you trace the military phrase right back to its origins, the idea was that you were indeed swearing an oath using the words proposed by the commander – even if he didn’t bother proposing the words! By the first century BC, it just meant swearing an oath.
So everybody’s right…and I’ll stop now!
luke links to tamino, after linking to eli; tamino attempts to shred both Watts and Muller, only suceeds with Muller and then let’s rip with this:
“The impact of global warming is getting clearer, and will soon be obvious even to the hard-core deniers. Arctic sea ice continues its death spiral. Sea level continues to rise. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets continue to lose mass at an alarming pace, and glaciers worldwide keep shrinking. Species continue to migrate to higher latitudes and altitudes. We’re also seeing more and more signs that the “man in the street” can’t ignore. Since the amazing heat wave in Europe in 2003, we’ve seen amazing heat waves in Australia, Russia, the USA (twice). We’ve seen enhanced drought and record-breaking floods. And to the statisticians at re-insurance giant Munich Re, the increase in weather-related disasters is both huge and certain. This is not normal — and it’s not natural.”
This is serious loon stuff.
I still don’t get the TOB criticism with Watts; as I said before this is in his new paper:
“The USHCNv2 monthly temperature data set is described by Menne et al. (2009). The 215 raw and unadjusted data provided by NCDC has undergone the standard quality-control 216
12
screening for errors in recording and transcription by NCDC as part of their normal ingest 217 process but is otherwise unaltered. The intermediate (TOB) data has been adjusted for 218 changes in time of observation such that earlier observations are consistent with current 219 observational practice at each station. The fully adjusted data has been processed by the 220 algorithm described by Menne et al. (2009) to remove apparent inhomogeneities where 221 changes in the daily temperature record at a station differs significantly from neighboring 222 stations. Unlike the unadjusted and TOB data, the adjusted data is serially complete, with 223 missing monthly averages estimated through the use of data from neighboring stations. 224 The USHCNv2 station temperature data in this study is identical to the data used in Fall 225 et al. (2011), coming from the same data set.”
Here is the Fall et al paper:
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf
It is plain that Watts has used the TOB adjusted data; he says this data was:
“further refined in quality control reviews led by two of
us (Jones and Watts), using the USCRN site selection
classification scheme for temperature and humidity measurements
[NOAA and NESDIS, 2002], originally developed
by Leroy [1999] (Table 1).”
That further refinement does not mean that he has tampered with the TOB adjustment, how could he, but merely applied the UHIE test from Leroy as it then was; the point of Watts’ new paper is to apply Leroy’s new methodology with its improved UHIE catching criteria.
If that is the case, and please advise if I am missing something then the TOB issue is crap.
When it comes to behaving like a defence council rather than a judge Tamino is a prime example.
AND he always breaks the first principle and fools himself:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/confirmation-bias-part-3.aspx
The biggest thing the catastros have going for them is the Arctic ice but even that may not be what it seems:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2182803/Greenlands-ice-sheets-vulnerable-feared-claim-scientists-stunning-new-pictures-reveal-ice-loss.html
But then there is this
“Greenland Summit Camp Continues To Get Buried In Snow
Posted on August 5, 2012 by stevengoddard
NASA forgot to mention the fact that their fake meltdown was 99.999% bullshit.”
More at http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/greenland-summit-camp-continues-to-get-buried-in-snow/
And in previous threads
Selective posters inc do it again and can’t help themselves hey?
Greenland stories in abundance this month. I did Google SD’s lead author and found quite a good variety of headlines following Kurt Kjaer’s earlier comments to the media. So each one can make what they like of the fact, melts like this one go in a series of pulses . My pick below.
“Greenland enters melt mode’-‘Island-wide thaw is one for the record books”
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/342767/title/Greenland_enters_melt_mode
btw; I haven’t seen snow from my place this year.
Look up the snow reports and the snow depth Gavin.
Best snow pack in years.
It’s just boring empirical data but you can go and have a look if you like, some of the snow fields aren’t that far from Canberra.
Deb, it was only a hunch (I’m usually right) that no snow indicates a warming world. The ACT had the 3d warmest July on record. It’s official. under “Other phenomena”
“Canberra Airport recorded an average of 6.2 hours of bright sunshine during July, above the historical average of 5.8 hours. The prevailing wind direction was northwesterly, with 61% of 3pm winds between NNW and WNW; 29% of 3pm winds were SSE-SSW, a larger proportion of southerly winds than normal for July”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/act/summary.shtml
Details –
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/act/summary.shtml#recordsTmaxDailyHigh
A hunch?
It wasn’t right this time Gavin.
May I also suggest that the ACT is neither the centre of the world or a basis as a thermometer for the world,
July is just weather Gavin, ask Luke and Bazza.
I lived in Canberra for a number of years. To be honest, a warmer July is a bonus in that often freezing cold place.
For a full appreciation of Muller’s views, take in the podcast and discussions at the included links. Guaranteed to tickle your funny bone.
The unapologetic physicist takes shots at colleague Michael Mann and Al Gore; offers unsupported assertions about debunked ‘Climategate’; calls for conservation and ‘clean fracking’; stands by charge that most Global Warming concerns are ‘exaggerated’…
On Wednesday, Progressive Radio Network host/veteran green journalist Betsy Rosenberg and I were honored to interview, the one-time climate change skeptic Dr. Richard Muller, whose Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project — which was funded in part, ironically enough, by the notorious climate change deniers at the Charles G. Koch Foundation —
Podcast here:
http://bradblog.com/audio/GreenFront_RichardMuller_080112.mp3
Discussions here:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9453
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/8/4/muller-still-not-impressed-by-climategate.html
Gavin!
“Australia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-09/coldest-run-of-temperatures-in-36-years/4117998?section=act
Coldest run of temperatures in 36 years
Updated July 09, 2012 09:49:14
Canberra has experienced its coldest run of temperatures in 36 years, with the mercury dropping below zero for the seventh time in a row.
The minimum temperatures have averaged minus five so far this month.
Meteorologist Ryan White says the warmest night this July so far has been 0.7 degrees.
“The last eight nights in a row we’ve had it pretty much at the minus five degree mark as an average, so it is quite incredible,” said Mr White.
Today the mercury dropped to -4.8 degrees shortly before 7:00am AEDT. ”
From http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/gore-effect-by-proxy-in-south-africa/
Bet you can see snow in the ACT today Gavin. 🙂
Your ABC told us it snowed in Canberra yesterday.
WHICH DATA?
Since it’s been a slow news week here at Jennifer’s blog, I hope that it’s OK for me to ask a stooopid question. Exactly which data did Anthony have access to? The ‘Hitler’ video suggests that it was the raw data. Is the video’s claim reasonably accurate? If so, did GISS or NOAA finally disgorge the raw data from each INDIVIDUAL temperature station in the contiguous USA? Or was it averaged raw data?
Steve Goddard says that John Daly saved the publicly available raw data in 1999, before Hansen got his grubby paws on it in 2000. Was Anthony using Daly’s 20th Century data?
Here’s another possibility that crossed my mind. There were multiple levels of ‘adjustments’, not just TOB. Anthony may have been able to peel away the outermost onion layer. If that’s the case, then Anthony’s claim of the two-fold temperature increase artefact may have been understated.
Sorry, I have not been following this stuff as closely as I should. There are data, and then there are data. Can someone clarify this for me?
Good question Larry!
That’s right at the heart of the dilemna.
The credibility of the data and the use of the data.
I hope someone here can answer that question.