Comments on: New Detailed Analysis of Global Temperature Data Does Not Support Significant Role for Carbon Dioxide

By: franko

franko — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:24:24 +0000

To help beginners get this propaganda into perspective, it is desirable to look at the data. One independent statistician (at Cardiff University) recently decided to do just that, with data from the past 30 years or so around the world. He used technical forecasting expertise to project it five years to produce forecasts. He has not found ANY EVIDENCE OF WARMING. I sorry to shout that last bit. Beginners should also note, that although CO2 emissions are based on very rough guesswork, and we could no doubt do with some quality assurance checks on CO2 measurements, it is generally accepted that atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing during this 30 year spell. The IPCC (pxss be on it) models projected very substantial temperature rises in this circumstance. Now, beginners, where should we go from here? Massive distortion of our economy? Massive injection of resentment across the world against industrialised whitey? Big conference in Copenhagen?

Here is the report from that statistician, not infected with Climate Munnchausen Syndrome: http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/subsites/zhigljavskyaa/climatechange/time-series.html

By: Gaia – Counting Cats in Zanzibar

Gaia – Counting Cats in Zanzibar — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 10:37:58 +0000

[...] Jennifer Marohasy [...]

By: Robin Edwards

Robin Edwards — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:32:51 +0000

I’m still hoping for some clues about how to access Craig’s primary data. I have seen some articles to blogs by him, but of course no contact details there. Must be patient, I suppose.

Meanwhile I’m still enjoying Jeff’s amazing work, and hope to read even more eventually.

Cheers, Robin

By: New Detailed Analysis of Global Temperature Data Does Not Support Significant Role for CO2

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:15:16 +0000

[...] THE REST HERE [...]

By: Jan Pompe

Jan Pompe — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:48:35 +0000

Robin and Gordon: ” It’s good to know that the Loehle data are reliable, and collected by an expert. Thanks.”

I think the important thing about Loelhe’s data is that the proxies have been validated as actual temperature proxies. Tree rings are uncertain to be temperature proxies as there is a band where temperature is optimum above which there is slow growth.

By: Gordon Robertson

Gordon Robertson — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:27:26 +0000

Robin Edwards said…”I did try once, with “Weather” the journal of the Royal Meteorological Society… but the referee clearly didn’t like my conclusions…”

Peer review sucks. It’s initial motivation was to keep nutcases out of scientific journals but it has now focused on supporting popular paradigms. Of course, Einstein would be rejected out of hand these days.

By: Robin Edwards

Robin Edwards — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:39:51 +0000

I’ve looked at your post, Jeff, and replied there. Really great stuff. Surely there must be a case for trying to construct something publishable in a mainstream climatological journal. If not, E & E would surely be pleased with it.

I’ve often contemplated writing something about the tendency of climate to change in steps from one regime to another. I did try once, with “Weather” the journal of the Royal Meteorological Society – must have been about 8 years ago, I suppose, but the referee clearly didn’t like my conclusions, though the editor did! I don’t think the ref understood what I was doing. Must use smaller words next time.

Cheers, Robin

By: Jeff Id

Jeff Id — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:07:08 +0000

Me too. I don’t think that even Craig Loehle had access to that though. (Just guessing)

BTW: I just did a post which I used Mann’s favorite CPS method to extract positive and negative hockey sticks from his groups own proxies.

I also demonstrated temp rises and falls in historic points as well as sine waves just for fun. All of it used the M08 group math and data sets.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/will-the-real-hockey-stick-please-stand-up/

By: Robin Edwards

Robin Edwards — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:44:13 +0000

Thanks for your comment Jeff. It’s good to know that the Loehle data are reliable, and collected by an expert. Thanks.

No doubt the true main signal is coming through after smoothing, tho’ I’d still really like to see the untouched data!

Cheers, Robin

By: Jeff Id

Jeff Id — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:00:22 +0000

Robin Edwards and Gordon Robertson,

I also have checked some of Loehles work out. The difference between his papers on climate and others is that he isn’t doing any post data sorting. Therefore smoothing just makes it easier for your eyes to see trends.

Not that smoothing is correct, all I’m saying is that smoothing hasn’t affected the overall trend as in a Mann paper. The data were pre-calibrated and therefore scale was unaffected by smoothing.

His approach is pretty minimalist as far as typical data molestation in this field. Craig is a forester by trade so he has an excellent handle on tree growth. He has also recently issued papers on the non-linearity of tree response to temp.

As far as my two cents, these are the best representations of climate I can find. The number of proxies is not complete enough to draw conclusions from and the calibration was done by other scientists so I couldn’t review that.