THERE has been some anecdotal evidence suggesting that last month, October 2008, was unusually cold. The sophisticated weather-watcher, of course, waits for some official global temperature data to be published before concluding very much.
Al Gore’s scientific advisor, James Hansen from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), publishes a monthly mean global surface temperature.
Some dispute the methodology Dr Hansen uses to arrive at his monthly mean values, but nevertheless I have observed that his GISS data is usually somewhere in the vicinity of the data from the Hadley Centre at the UK Meteorology Bureau and the Satellite data compiled at the University of Alabama, Huntsville – though yes Dr Hansen’s data is usually on the warm side.
Furthermore, while many warmaholics, like Dr Hansen, claim the last ten years of no increase in global temperatures is insignificant in the scheme of things, they at least don’t deny the actual measurements and despite their protests, and media headlines continuing to suggest a climate crisis, their actual data shows no warming.
Then there was that recent article in one of the more prestigious journals suggesting global warming has probably stalled until at least 2015.
So, who would have expected a sudden spike in the global temperature record for October? Not me.
Contrary to the expectations of many climate change sceptics, and much to the delight of many warmaholics, the recently published GISS global temperature anomaly for October 2008 of 0.88C shows warming.
Not just a bit of warming, but to quote meteorologist Anthony Watts, the anomaly is the largest ever for October, and one of the largest anomalies ever recorded.
Some sceptics are claiming that the spike is a mistake, that it’s all to do with wrong temperature recordings in Russia. Dear oh dear, as long as it’s not a case of NASA attempting to correct again for the apparent recent cooling.
Anthony Watts is posting updates at his blog on the unfolding saga, including information direct from Dr Hansen’s GISS team.
Update November 13, 2008
The corrected temp anomaly now posted at the GISS site is 0.68C
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
The temp anomaly for October according to the UAH Satellite data is 0.167C
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/uah_october_2008.pdf
A big difference.
And so much for the anecdotal.
Update November 13, 2008 PM
It was thought that the issue with the GISS temperature anomaly for October related to the northern hemisphere, in particular, parts of Siberia. But the corrected map from the Hansen team, to accompany the corrected anomaly, now shows changes to Australia and the Canadian Arctic Islands in particular warming for October since Monday, November 10. Read more here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Dear oh dear, you will be wondering if NASA really made it to the moon, next. Surely such conspiracy theories are beneath you?
Its not data refinement and validation, or an aspect of the scientific method at all.
Its just incompetence -pure and simple.
Its also fails a basic principal of public record keeping.
The data collectors should not also be involved in the interpretation/analysis
One can NEVER trust the GISS when the head of the organisation is also a political activist supporting one interpretation of the data he is supposedly responsible for.
But when it emanates from the same country that has near bankrupted us all through financial imcompetence then its not surprising. Anything goes in the good old USA
Surely if the temp had gone the other way and showed an incredible drop Hansen would have been all over it with a fine tooth comb.
But no because the temp went high north this numbskull couldn’t wait to paste it up as further evidence of AGW.
According to Anthony it seems that it has disappeared until further notice. Pity because poor Jim and his team must have been smacking their chops at this huge temp increase.
What a pack of blithering idiots.
The published temperature anomaly of 0.88C for October was still at the GISS site when I drafted this post late last night [in Australia]. It is my understanding that there has been no official explaination as to what is going on?
does it matter?? – this is the chart that counts
(( http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif ))
GISS have published a news update on their GISTEMP website:
2008-11-11: Most data posted yesterday were replaced by the data posted last month since it looks like some mishap might have occurred when NOAA updated their GHCN data. We will postpone updating this web site until we get confirmation from NOAA that their updating programs worked properly. Because today is a Federal Holiday, some pages are still showing yesterday’s data.
It still doesn’t excuse GISS/NASA’s quality control for not checking the source data. See my post on this story:
http://australianclimatemadness.blogspot.com/2008/11/october-anomalies-giss-goes-skyward.html
Cheers,
Simon
Australian Climate Madness
This should make Cohenite’s top ten dumbest posts ever…
“THERE has been some anecdotal evidence suggesting that last month, October 2008, was unusually cold.”
Yes, and anecdotal is always the best. Why do you ignore the BoM data shwoing Australia was warmer?
“Al Gore’s scientific advisor, James Hansen from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), publishes a monthly mean global surface temperature. ”
No he doesn’t.
“Some dispute the methodology Dr Hansen uses to arrive at his monthly mean values, but nevertheless I have observed that his GISS data is usually somewhere in the vicinity of the data from the Hadley Centre at the UK Meteorology Bureau and the Satellite data compiled at the University of Alabama, Huntsville – though yes Dr Hansen’s data is usually on the warm side. ”
It’s not his data.
“Contrary to the expectations of many climate change sceptics, and much to the delight of many warmaholics, the recently published GISS global temperature anomaly for October 2008 of 0.88C shows warming”
It’s already been pulled.
“Dear oh dear, as long as it’s not a case of NASA attempting to correct again for the apparent recent cooling.”
What recent cooling? January and February were cool, but since then temps have pretty much returned to ‘normal’ to ‘warm’. And the corrections to the Argo data were clearly necessary, did you actually read the article?
This is a very weak attempt to discredit, it reflects very poorly on your abilities as a scientist Jennifer.
Some are trying to shift blame to NOAA. However, as posted on WUWT site, NOAA does the U.S. The error involves Russia, and nearby areas, Ireland, and some others. Though I do like those who carry on so about the small errors that have been found in the satellites, or say the ARGO data, since this error looks like a real whopper. Especially since the GISS algorithm is always changing past data relationships. Lucia’s got a bet you can make on how much the October GISS temp anomaly change will be. Lots of fun for those who wish to compare their projections with a possible reward of brownies.
NT; stop making work for me; compile your own lists; GISS is notorious for manipulating data so that it becomes consistent with AGW;
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63360
The test is do any of the ‘mistakes’ or adjustments work against AGW; well no; perfect science. As to Keenlyside and cooler temperatures until about 2015 because AGW has stalled; as lucia notes and Douglass and Christy have shown, the CO2 effect is either negligible or less than nothing so AGW cannot stall if it is negligible or nothing; and no this doesn’t mean I think there is no greenhouse effect; just that it is small and exhausted.
“The data collectors should not also be involved in the interpretation/analysis”
Nonsense. As if scientists routinely have the resources to employ external data collectors!
If this had been rigorously applied during the history of science we’d still be sitting in caves banging rocks together.
Maybe or maybe not a conspiracy, but more clear evidence of bias. As Steve McIntyre has put it: ‘Let’s consider the opposite situation. Suppose that March temperatures had been inadvertently carried forward into April, yielding a massive cold anomaly in Russia. One feels that Hansen would have been all over the opposite error like a dog on a bone – he would have been his own bulldog.’ Likewise, do you think so much effort would have gone into re-calibrating Argo if it had showed warming in the first place?
SJT,
No conspiracy theory from me, just a mix of disbelief and amusement – which the more dispassionate reader may be able to discern.
NT,
You confuse me. Lets go through your complains with my analysis one at a time.
1. I didn’t say the anecdotal was the best, just that it is out there.
BOM data is to some extent irrelevant in the context of this blog post – but ever since David Jones declared that his piece for Melbourne’s The Age was based on data from the weather station in Melbourne’s central business district my level of skeptism regarding output from BOM has increased.
2. I am not sure whether with your second point you are denying that James Hansen is Gore’s advisor or that James Hansen publishes monthly mean global surface temperature data. I understand both to be correct.
3. You state that the GISS data is not Hansen’s data. If you read the GISS website, in particular the stuff on global temperatures, it is full of text directly attributable to Hansen in which he explains how he developed the unique method his team uses to compile and publish information on global temperatures.
4. At the fourth point you claim that the GISS global temperature anomaly for October 2008 of 0.88C has “already been pulled.” Sorry, but when I drafted this blog post last night it was there and as I draft this comment it is still there. I am reading the data from this page:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
5. You dispute that there has been recent cooling. Well before the October data was posted, which now appears to be wrong, even the GISS data showed a cooling trend for this year.
“it is full of text directly attributable to Hansen in which he explains how he developed the unique method his team uses to compile and publish information on global temperatures.”
That’s right he compiles the data, he doesn’t collect it.
OK, So who’s data is it … once compiled? And who should take responsibility for it?
“THERE has been some anecdotal evidence suggesting that last month, October 2008, was unusually cold.”
This is nonsense. Does it refer to a particular location ie city, state, country or is it global? Whose “anecdotal evidence”? is it someone on the bus, talkback radio or Jennifer’s neighbours. Anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it when the real evidence is measurable. I thought October in Perth had been cool but it turns out the average temperature had been above average, so there you go. You just can’t rely on a gut feel about temperature. Some people will feel it is hotter, some will feel it is colder. You also have to take into account the range of minimums and maximums as that can effect perceptions.
Slim
There is a vast difference between a scientist(s) collecting his own data in order to perform an experiment, to that of a large data base that has been put together with considerable infrastructure involved, and there by consumed large sums of public monies and is available for general use as part of the public record.
But when the scientists are also the public record managers and creators, then there is trouble brewing.In Hansens case the impact on credibilty of the GISS has been profound.
We are already witnessing the similar confusion of roles here in this country with the BOM stepping outside its remit ==which will be to its detriment as well== unfortunately.
Hansen is clearly responsble for how the data is compiled and presented, but has he personaly read every thermometer– of course not.
Jennifer,
Th point I was making is that anecdotal evidence is generally poor. Also if you look at the data for Australia for October you will see it is higher than average – So, the question is, does real data (from BoM) defeat pretend data? You decsion to ignore BoM data is, well, lame.
Hansen doesn’t collect the data. The data is from various agencies around the world.
He doesn’t personally publish the data, NASA does. He often uses it though.
“it is full of text directly attributable to Hansen in which he explains how he developed the unique method his team uses to compile and publish information on global temperatures. ”
Yes he developed the technique, but the raw data isn’t his.
“You dispute that there has been recent cooling. Well before the October data was posted, which now appears to be wrong, even the GISS data showed a cooling trend for this year.”
This is wrong. If you look at the GISS anomalies from Jan-Sept, they don’t show a cooling trend…
Cohenite
The Oct data showed that GISS had sdjusted August’s anomaly down from 0.5 to 0.39
Your assumption that data is always adjusted up is wrong.
Rosco,
“I thought October in Perth had been cool but it turns out the average temperature had been above average, so there you go. ”
That strange because I thought it was quite warm. I think it started cool, but then got quite hot – we had about 5 days in a row over 30.
I guess anecdotal evedience is not so good, here we are noth living in the same place but with different viewpoints.
That’s because it was adjusted up from .39 and then back down again.
If you look at all measurement data together the trend is obviously a cooling
(( http://www.climate4you.com/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979.gif ))
Here’s the october temps showing Australia. Much better graphics than NASA’s.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/EQUATOR%202008%2010%20vs%201998-2006.GIF
the same site also has september as a comparison.
Janama
“If you look at all measurement data together the trend is obviously a cooling”
ummm from when to when?
What trend are you talking about?
From 1979 to now, is up.
It is a bit off topic but Dr. Lindzen has written a paper recently regarding the impact of politics on the climate sciences it is a bit long winded and takes some getting into but it very informative and worth the patience to get through it. You will find it here.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
On the subject of unmolested data the oldest continuous temperature record from a thermometer with absolutely no adjustments is from central England and dates back to 1659 you can see the maunder minimum effect at the start. Certainly no hockey stick here.
http://www.climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm
NT – I was referring to Jennifer’s comment about recent cooling – the chart I linked to surely shows that – can’t see it? I know a good optometrist.
Gee some of you guys are hard work!
Rossco and NT,
the words ‘anecdotal evidence’ in the above post are in bue, as there is a hyperlink to all this anecdotal evidenfce :
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/news-reports-for-october-indicate-global-cooling/
NT; Janama beat me to it; like I say, GISS has not adjusted in a way contrary to AGW; I know no admissions will be forthcoming but the day I hear an admission of error from AGW will be the day I know I’m not dealing with fanatics and egos but honest people.
The temperature trend from 1979 has been up because of the +ve PDO (or an El Nino dominated ENSO) as Bob Tisdale has shown and the temperature trend has been due to abrupt transition step-ups as FIG 4 here shows;
http://mclean.ch/climate/Aust_temps_alt_view.pdf
Another step up with the 1998 El Nino;
http://i35.tinypic.com/110drw6.jpg
Jennifer,
yes I did see that post. But if you look at REAL data, we don’t find that October was particularly cool. Both RSS and UAH have Oct about the same anomaly as Sept… Not particularly cool.
Janama, Jennifer was saying that there was a cooling trend in 2008.
Here are the monthly data from Hadley Centre:
2008 0.069 0.194 0.443 0.273 0.279 0.311 0.397 0.394 0.371
No cooling trend…
Look at all the other data sets and you see a similar rise in the anomalies.
The chart you show doesn’t clearly show any cooling trend during 2008. If you look from the start of 2008, to October it goes up.
And to be honest talking about ‘trends’ over such a short term is pointless…
Cohenite
“GISS has not adjusted in a way contrary to AGW;”
This doesn’t make any sense.
However, I’ll assume you mean they doon’t adjust the temps down? In that case, you are wrong.
They adjust the data as more come in. Remember they report monthly temps on around the 11th of each month. HOWEVER some data don’t arrive for some time after that date. Some data are later found to be wrong…
So, for August the initial anomaly was 0.39. So here is a story about what might have happened…
They got more data it goes up to 0.5, then perhaps they got some more and some was wrong and it goes back to 0.39.
There’s no big mystery.
You are solely concerned with attempting to cast doubt where none exists. You are doing your Lawyer tricks again… Naughty boy… Like when you were using Berner to discredit the Greenhouse Effect, when he actually supports the hypothesis.
Also, why does GISS largely agree with all the other datasets? Are they also adjusting their data up to ‘support’ AGW. It’s such a stupid argument.
NT – Jennifer said “apparent recent cooling.” and from 2007 there has been.
sheesh!
SJT: “Dear oh dear, you will be wondering if NASA really made it to the moon, next. Surely such conspiracy theories are beneath you?”
Next thing you know, people will be suggesting the space shuttles are unsafe… where could this insanity lead?
If humans are involved, mistakes happen.
Possibly these 3 lines of code could be added to the GISS algorithms?
If nAveragedMonthlyTemp > ABS(nTemperatureAnomoly) + 10
MessageBox(“Err… someone please check this data before we publish it and look stupid.”)
Endif
Janama, Jennifer was talking about this year.
As I said above very short term trends are largely irrelevant.
Short term trends are relevant when one is trying to work out what happened to global temperatures in October 2008 – the subject of this post. The anecdotal also becomes relevant when there is an apparent major error with the data collection and compilation effort.
These canned sentences can save everyone time by means of the application of cut and paste:
Short term [climate|weather] trends are [very important evidence for|irrelevant for] proving [AGW|Global Cooling]
Anecdotal weather reports showing record [hot|cold] temperatures demonstrate beyond doubt that we are experiencing a period of [warming|cooling]
[Warming|Cooling] of the [North|South] pole is [empirical proof of|only weather noise] for [AGW|Global Cooling]
Hope the above helps.
Jennifer, both RSS and UAH do not support your Oct 2008 was cool hypothesis.
Anecdotal evidence is rarely relevant, expecially when the collection of that evidence was biased towards cold references (Mark Morano didn’t attempt to quantify whether there were an equal number of “gee it’s hot” anecdotes). And anecdotal evidence is especially irrelevant when there are at least 4 (and 5 if you include the NOAA effort) separated measures of global temp derived from data. And so far two of those show no particular cooling in Oct. I expect GISS when corrected and HadCrut3v will both show similar non-cooling.
You have to admire the practicality of the Russian’s. Don’t have enough Oct data, why not fill in with Sept. data. Reality is flexible, isn’t it?
“Jennifer, both RSS and UAH do not support your Oct 2008 was cool hypothesis.”
It wasn’t particulary cool, but it was still below a flat 11 year trend line. This is significant because we have been in ENSO neutral conditions for 4 months now.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/10/updated-11-year-global-temp-anomoly.html
Place the Oct RSS and UAH on this chart and you can see that they are below the trend line.
NT,
I began my professional career as a field biologist. I often found the anecdotal useful in forming an hypothesis which could subsequently be tested, often through systematic field samplying. After about 7 years of tramping around Africa I was even more strongly of the view that there is a need for both – the anecdotal to inform, and then systematic data collection to test.
What I also came to realize, was that there are a lot of biologist who rarely get out in the field. They have their nose in books and journals all the time and end-up developing all these fancy theories and models (and publish them successfully in peer-reviewed journals) but they might realize many of their pet theories don’t accord with even the anecdotal in the real world if they got out and about a bit more.
I wonder if Hansen et al. ever get to visit many of the weather stations they compile data from.
SJT and NT….. You should be criticizing Hanson, not Jennifer…. Or is it ok that Hanson can simply do the most sloppy of work and still be taken seriously. Using September data for October is like driving through a red light… Unforgivable.
As a private citizen on the road, you would be fined for being so inattentive…. Yet as a scientist who deliberately seeks to politicize his work, who expects his findings to drive Policy that will effect millions/billions…. Hanson can’t even be bothered to do a simple check of his figures before publishing…..
and to top it off, the pair of you attack Jennifer for daring to criticize Hanson’s sloppiness….. Both of you now lack any credibility. You are hollow and shallow. The pair of you are a case study in the meaning of Partisan.
Grow up and stop pretending.
Look NT; Berner’s info has been used to compile this graph of ancient temperature;
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
The data was from Berner’s Geocarb 111 model; in his paper Berner says; “This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.” (p201, FIG 13) 2 things about this; this long term “correlation” is the opposite of what you and luke say; secondly, he is wrong; CR Scotese’s work on paleotemperature produces the long term temperature line which has no correlation with CO2 levels. There are 3 other paleo-CO2 models and none of those show any correlation with temperature; there is also no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the medium term or the immediate past; I’ll produce the evidence for that; how about you produce some evidence for a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels consistent with AGW (ie CO2 increases precede temperature increases or high CO2 levels are similtaneous with high temperature)?
Here are those other models;
http:www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/11/06/science/earth/20061107_CO2_GRAPHIC.html (// excluded)
Here is the lack of correlation between temp and CO2 in the period from 140000-100000;
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaay/eemian.html
Oh bugga; try again;
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html
Here’s another Ferdinand effort for the period 20000-10000;
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/epica5.gif
Jennifer, you don’t seem to see the irony in these two topics.
The erroneous cooling of the oceans was accepted uncritically by the deniers. It was paraded as evidence that the AGW theory was wrong. When the scientists who wrote the paper went back over their data, and corrected the errors, it was portrayed as scientists fabricating results.
When erroneous warming was found, it was discovered the very next day. It was paraded as evidence that AGW theory was wrong. When the scientists corrected the error, it was only portrayed as only happening because the blogosphere had exposed their evil conspiracy to fabricate data.
Oh, dear.
Jennifer,
I note you don’t actually address anything I say, just ramble on about your own little historical anecdote… As I said there are at least 4 perfectly good data sets that give you info on Global temps. Mark Morano failed to account for any “gee it’s hot” anecdotes, so I don’t see how you can claim that anecdotal evidence in this case (and note I did say specifically for this case) is useful.
Cohenite
Ohhh So it was Christopher Scotese who thinks that there is no greenhouse effect?
So if I was to use Google Scholar and look at his publications I would find that he declares that CO2 is NOT a climate driver at that it cannot be used to explain paleoclimate?
Do it Cohenite
Here’s the search criteria:
“Scotese greenhouse effect’
Ohhh look what I find… He supports the role of CO2 as a driver. Surprise surprise… Scroll down until you find his name.
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm03&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm03%2Ffm03&maxhits=200&=“PP21B”
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm06&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm06%2Ffm06&maxhits=200&=“PP23E”
Looks like he writes for the AGU… Oh wait they’re naughty aren’t they…
Here’s a goody, Megareefs in supergreenhouse climates…
http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2F0-8137-2370-1.209
What can be said with absolute certainty is that the graphs now make it very clear that the famed hockey stick is now looking more like a drunk smokers willy after failed remedial massage. There is a metaphore for Hansen in there too, don’t you think?
Even my olive trees flowering a month later would say something about October temps … lol
NT; your first 2 links don’t work; the second abstract does have the word ‘greenhouse’ in it; but read carefully; Berner has compiled the CO2 history and Scotese the temperature record; is it my fault that both these 2 greenhouse devotees have produced contradictory evidence? No sir it is not; now stop impersonating a drunk schoolboy and explain that contradiction plus the Engelbeen graphs, if you don’t mind.
Cohenite, don’t give me lame excuses.
Just search for CR Scotese and see what he thinks about the Greenhouse Effect. I found several references where he supports the notion of the Greenhouse Effect and CO2’s impact on paleoclimate. You keep using these researchers names to give your story credibility when none of the researchers support your claim. Stop misrepresenting them.
I have explained this to you several times, and you claimed last time that you were too stupid to understand, remember?
Here it is one last time.
You cannot expect a strong correlation between CO2 and global temp over geological time. There are too many other factors involved. HOWEVER, you can expect that a particular climate in the past has been influenced by the level of CO2.
Cohenite, here is the Abstract… Do you think CR Scotese is for or against the Greenhouse Effect?
“A newly refined reef database, modified to calculate reef tracts in relation to major tectonic plates, and with new paleogeographic maps, indicates that the largest known, and latitudinally most widespread Phanerozoic reefs developed during the Middle Paleozoic (Siluro-Devonian), with an acme in the Middle Devonian. Expanding during times of exceptional sea-level highstands and widespread epicontinental shallow seas, this 26 m.y. long acme of coral-sponge reef growth coincided with the warmest global temperatures known for the Phanerozoic, i.e., with a “supergreenhouse” climate mode well above Holocene interglacial norms. During the Middle Paleozoic, reefs were particularly abundant, occupying large, continental seaboard, carbonate platforms, and vast inland epicontinental seas. Examples of such “extremes” occurred mostly on passive margin settings, and extensive flooded continental interiors, e.g., the 1700-3000 km long tracts of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, Canadian arctic (Innuitian platform), eastern Laurentia “Old Red Continent” (United Kingdom to Poland), eastern Russian Platform (northeast Laurentia), Ural “Fold Belt” (eastern slopes of Urals), Siberia, northwest Africa, and South China. Smaller scale reef belts between 700 and 1300 km long were constructed on isolated tectonic terranes facing Gondwana on the north (Pyrenees, Afghanistan-Pakistan), Mongolia, Kolyma-Chukot, and North China. Large basins and flooded shelf areas, and the reefs featured within them, were not persistently developed throughout the Middle Paleozoic. They especially characterized the middle Emsian through Givetian (late Early Devonian-Middle Devonian). The following Frasnian (Late Devonian) showed more restricted and confined distribution of coral-stromatoporoid reefs, and during the Famennian, coral-stromatoporoid reefs “crashed” and were replaced by calcimicrobial reefs and platforms. During the latter phases of the
Frasnian/Famennian mass extinctions, such microbial reefs were confined to relatively small areas, and metazoan reefs were nearly entirely obliterated, being confined to rare stromatoporoid patch reefs or lithistid mounds. Coral reefs were completely absent during the 21 m.y. long Famennian interval, and no real recovery of “keystone” frame-building, colonial corals took place in reef settings. The Famennian coincided with repeated glaciations, sharp sea-surface cooling events, sea-level drawdowns, and concurrent, matching stable isotope excursions. “
NT
“You cannot expect a strong correlation between CO2 and global temp over geological time. There are too many other factors involved. HOWEVER, you can expect that a particular climate in the past has been influenced by the level of CO2.”
Why?
“too many other factors involved” they are involved all the time!
US temps are mostly normal or below normal so far this year:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Year_Thus_Far_Cold.pdf
NT; I never claimed I was stupid; I just want the choice because I want to be able to see the issue as an AGW supporter does; according to the abstract the “acme” of the “supergreenhouse” was the middle Devonian; and looking at Scotese’s graph this certainly was a temperature peak but why the hell wasn’t temperature higher during the Cambrian and why was it lower during the transition from the Ordovician to the Silurian? This is the point; there were both high temperatures and CO2 levels during the middle Devonian but there was no correlation of temperature and CO2 during the PETM for instance; and you haven’t addressed the more recent dichotomies between temp and CO2. If Berner and Scotese are correct and an atmospheric level of CO2 of 4000ppm produces an increase of temp, compared with today’s GMST, of 9C then the demise of humanity, with CO2 levels currently at 385ppm, is not imminent. More importantly, the higher past levels of CO2 clearly didn’t creat a runnaway scenario, so why do AGW spruikers continue with that alarmist furphy?
>…- but ever since David Jones declared that his piece for Melbourne’s The Age was based on data from the weather station in Melbourne’s central business district…..
The piece was specific to Melbourne city but drew on an analysis of numerous stations contained in a series of reports I referred you to plus gridded analyses using more than 30,000 stations – Melbourne just so happens to be a very long record at the heart of a major city which is human face of the drought. It also draws on stream-flows from Melbourne Water and the Murray Darling Basin.
As your own analysis showed the drought is without precedent across southern and central Victoria – in terms of high temperatures, low stream-flow and low rainfall.
The interpretation was based on peer reviewed science by climate scientists, hydrologists etc.
BTW Russia is 2% of the earth’s surface. That simple fact makes this thread meaningless.
There’s a reason they call 11 the mystical master.
we’ve just demonstrated it.
Cohenite,
Ok, here are a list of reasons (and there will be many more that I am currently unaware of):
The Sun has steadily warmed over it’s evolution. It was substantially cooler earlier. Look up the ‘Faint early Sun’.
Volcanic activity has generally decreased over time, so the aerosol content has decreased. But so have the proportions of other GHGs that are produced by volcanoes. Sulfur and Nitrogen dioxides especially. This has altered the chemistry of the atmosphere.
The arrangement of tectonic plates is a huge factor (possibly as important as the Sun), the very hot periods typically have either no continents at the poles or very good ocean circulation (so there is a lot of opportunity for heat transport)
The methane content of the atmosphere has changed a lot over time, and methane is a very strong GHG.
Note that between the Last Glacial Maximum and now, there has been little change in the Solar output, or in the position of the continents. The change in sea level has altered some ocean currents, but not as much as altering the positions of the continents (Of course Louis will disagree with this for no particular reason).
“If Berner and Scotese are correct and an atmospheric level of CO2 of 4000ppm produces an increase of temp, compared with today’s GMST, of 9C then the demise of humanity, with CO2 levels currently at 385ppm, is not imminent.”
OK, this statement is strange. No one has been saying that humanity will demise with a CO2 of even 450ppm. BUT it will make life difficult, yes sea levels will rise (as they have been; see the JASON data). The last time we had a rapid rise in GHGs (from the last glacial maximum to now) there was a large extinction event. When there was an enormous GHG rise at the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, there was a very big extinction event.
Also note that temp isn’t solely determined by CO2, so you can’t divide the 9C rise to 4000ppm linearly. And also note that rising CO2 levels actually promote the release of more CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
I know you will dispute this last statement, because you don’t think there is a greenhouse effect. However, please stop pretending that Berner and Scotese support the view you place on their work.
“More importantly, the higher past levels of CO2 clearly didn’t creat a runnaway scenario, so why do AGW spruikers continue with that alarmist furphy?”
Ummm what do yo mean by ‘runaway’? I don’t think anyone is ‘spruiking’ for anything more than an ‘Enhanced’ Greenhouse Effect.
This point is interesting though. If youlook at the graphs Berner and Scotese made you can see there aren’t many stable states for the Earth’s climate… There is the hot house and the ice house… The transition between the two looks (geologically speaking) rapid and has always resulted in large extinction events.
Cohenite,
If you really want to understand why the climate changed between the Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian you should read about it. Go and see whether there were large scale eruptions, large bolide impacts, or some other feature.
“BTW Russia is 2% of the earth’s surface. That simple fact makes this thread meaningless”
No it certainly doesnt.
The protocol of having an AWG activist in charge if an organisation preparing key data that is a basis for public policy and scientific advice for Govts affecting billions of dollars of expenditure and millions of jobs is absolute crap, as a management protocol.
I trust that BOM doesnt have the same low standards.
BTW Russia is 3% of total area, and nearly 9% of the land area, so on that basis it is quite significant.
So, far we have:
1. David suggesting that Russia is insignificant in the scheme of things. So, persumably the 0.88C anomaly won’t change much in his opinion.
2. NT and others suggesting that all the other data sets are OK. So, presumably the temperature anomaly is really only about 0.2C? The Satellite data suggests just under 0.2C, I think?
3. We haven’t heard from Luke so far at this thread. Luke, what do you think the temperature anomaly for October should be?
Oh, and as regards the oceans, are they warming or cooling at the moment?
I agree with David “That simple fact makes this thread meaningless” but for different reasons.
One only has to listem to the daily news on the ABC, such items as the new president of the Maldives want’s to buy foreign land with their tourist dollars while they still can. US made cars will be greener and business everywhere wants a piece of the recovery based on a more enlightened view of the environment.
Tonight on ABC we saw the Bio Cube. With home grown enterprise such as this we won’t need blogs holding up the pace on the alternatives to corporate empires.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s2412382.htm
There is another question however about what one does with such fuels without modern power tools being made on the same doorstep.
NT; I think CO2 is greatly maligned; you speak of CO2 and a correlation with extinction events; there is another potential gas culprit;
http://www.science.org/au/nova/newscientist/ns_diagrams/104ns_002image1.jpg
I’ll try once more;
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/ns_diagrams/104ns_002image1.jpg
What we experienced for October is this
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/act/summary.shtml
Although I lashed out on an Aldi special last week I am considering returning our new garden pump because no one can say what it will cost us to collect a sufficient quantity of rain to justify us remodelling the catchment and creating the storage.
In drought, rainfall and its frequency are not the only issues. Today I noticed the Yarralumla Creek in the Woden Valley was barely a trickle as recent rains hardly touched the ground. Wild oats everywhere are already white and ready for harvesting.
If left untouched, this most intrusive pest like crop will be fodder for any bushfires as they were in 2003.
Lets ask the experts here how advanced our current growing season is in terms of the landscape completely drying out.
david – “BTW Russia is 2% of the earth’s surface. That simple fact makes this thread meaningless.”
Hey david, take 2% of 5C to 15C positive anomalies and get back to me.
I’m predicting the anomaly for October will drop by at least 0.2C, most likely more.
“3. We haven’t heard from Luke so far at this thread. Luke, what do you think the temperature anomaly for October should be?”
Why would you care what Luke thinks? You always ignore what he says.
Who says Luke thinks.
I any case he has probably met his quota for this month and has gone down to the pub.
David: “BTW Russia is 2% of the earth’s surface. That simple fact makes this thread meaningless.”
Prove it demonstrating with arithmetic.
Malcolm Hill: “Who says Luke thinks” – precisely – he has been expertly trained in what to think, not how. And as far as SJT is concerned, ditto. Between those two, and some of the others here, we have a veritable group of “useful idiots”, some stupid, some glib, but all well qualified to proselytise the AGW litany.
OMFG!!!! The [CO2] lies as well!!!
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/co2-blip/#more-1221
If this isn’t proof of the grand climate conspiracy, I don’t know what is. The stunning holes discovered this past week in AGW are unprecedented. Obama and Rudd are ultimately to blame.
I feel better now.
NT acknwledges that January and February 2008 were cool, but says that since then temps have pretty much returned to ‘normal’ to ‘warm’. He also recognises that HadCRU is a ‘perfectly good dataset.’
If these statements are right, HadCRU compiler Phil Jones made a bad prediction five years ago. In December 2003 he told BBC News Online:
“The unusual aspect of this year for me was the summer heat in Europe, with nights in Italy which didn’t dip below 25°C . I won’t be going to Italy in August again. But we can expect nights like that here some time soon, though not as regular events. Globally, I expect the five years from 2006 to 2010 will be about a tenth of a degree warmer than 2001 to 2005” ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3325033.stm ).
The current year is the mid-year of the 2006-10 period. If the temperatures from March onwards have been ‘normal’ to ‘warm’, average temperatures should have been at least 0.1°C warmer than the average for the corresponding months in 2001-05 for Jones’s prediction to have been realised. But for this seven months’ period HadCRU finds that temperatures have been over 0.1°C COOLER than the average of the corresponding months for 2001-05. The earth has become cooler at a faster rate than Professor Jones thought it would warm. He can go back to Italy in August after all.
Ian Castles
Visiting Fellow
Crawford School of Economics and Government
ANU College of Asia & the Pacific
The Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200 Australia
Jennifer,
It won’t be an anomaly of 0.2, as RSS and UAH use a different base period. It will be closer to Sept, so more like 0.5C. I will estimate… or rather guess 0.47C
Cohenite
That’s an interesting graph. So the next question is “what drives O2 levels”? Can you think of a situation where CO2 goes up and O2 goes down? Anything come to mind? Any situations at all… What about conditions where CO2 drops and O2 drops?
It’s really fascinating watching you struggle to find any reason at all that CO2 can’t be a factor. Remember no one says it’s the only factor, just that it is A factor. That graph also demonstrates the problem life has with ‘rapid’ changes in any conditions. You find ‘specialised’ species become extinct and ‘generalists’ start occupying multiple niches.
Gavin, don’t give Jennifer data, she prefers anecdotal evidence. Especially when it is collected by someone else.
Ian, yep looks like a bad prediction… Guess nothing he says is correct. Oh well.
Good points Ian and Malcolm. And when this year is combined with 2007 averages it means that Jones will need an average of +0.3C in 2009 to get anywhere near his prediction. Don’t hold your breath in this sunspot cycle.
By the way, is there any sign of a sunspot yet?
This is the first time I have commented here.I didn’t look at any other graphical and other sites put up, as argument or support about warming or cooling,and,I dont know how long this will last as attitude,I thought Jennifer had made her point well and was sneered at . The strangest dispute here was the one about living in the same city,and two options of anecdotal evidence.So if you align yourself with one particular view of a trend in temperature,you therefore have some compelling sense of being right or wrong!?About a trend!?I have heard some really well presented stuff that suggests warming,and then without a degree in any science,or much faith in my own common sense,or even instinct,I came round to thinking ,the well presented was nonsense. I too like the idea of getting on with technological development,but not pushed by the Al. Gore types.These winners like him,surely need losers to gain.I just wonder,if they didn’t play a leading hand in the recent money crisis..as such people like DavidIcke.com do.The ABC inventors link here is a good technology,but why believe it will go the distance!? After all it can only be a improvement on,existing Biodiesel technology,and like most that ends up on the ABC is overstated in some form to suit the agenda of overpaid staff,and corporate image that it sustains,on the back of a lot of effort unpaid.It is very disappointing to me,Australians have taken to Gorites like science itself emanated from this man.
Well done Phillip,
“I have heard some really well presented stuff that suggests warming,and then without a degree in any science,or much faith in my own common sense,or even instinct,I came round to thinking ,the well presented was nonsense.”
This is pretty much the best rebuttal of science ever.
Ian Mott
“By the way, is there any sign of a sunspot yet?”
Go to Spaceweather.com There have been several this month and I think 4 of 5 (or is it 5 of 6?) were sunspot cycle 24… Sounds like we’re finally past solar min.
NT, I dont think its a question of “we who are doubtful” saying co2 is irrelevant, only that it is not as important as many ( you!) think it is. Hence our concern that we should dramatically make changes to reduce something that is far more likely to beneficial than harmful. WE AGREE OTHER THINGS INFLUENCE CLIMATE…that is the whole point, there are too many other things that vary, to be able to place the rather marginal warming seen over the last 30 years at the foot of co2.
You only have to see the ignorance of comments like Russia only represents 2% of the planet to start to understand the complete lack of real thinking going on by many many people. bahbahbahbahbahbahbah.
Oh, good NT; does this mean I no longer hold the record for the worst anti-AGW argument?
If you bother comparing the O2 graph with the CO2 graph by Berner you will note that they trend in opposite directions; interesting eh, but I’m not doing your work for you. As to CO2; it is not me who says it is ‘the’ factor; AR4, Executive Summary pp131-132 says the Radiative Forcing from all GHG’s is 2.63Wm-2; of that the RF from CO2 alone is 1.66Wm-2, or 63%; it is also IPCC who assert that a doubling of CO2 will result in a temperature increase of about 4.5C; with CO2 supposedly (ignoring Beck for the moment) increasing continually over the 20thC, any sustained temperature drop contradicts AGW theory; there have been many downward temp trends; here are some of them;
1978-1994 (16 years)
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1978/to:1994/trend/plot/uah/from:1978/to:1994
2001-Current (7 years, and lucia has done a combined average of all the indices showing an average decline with only GISS breaking the trend)
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2009
I’ll do the 1995-2000 and 1940-1977 periods in another post.
1995-2000 (5 years including the super El Nino 1998 ‘step-up’)
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2000
1940-1977 (33 years, covering the -ve PDO and concluded by the GPCS in 1976 with another ‘step-up’ in temperature; and using GISS-corrected-data);
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1977/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1977
Cohenite
You are mixing your arguments up.
Ok, so through GEOLOGICAL time CO2 is not the only factor, but one of many factors.
Through RECENT time (say from the last glacial max to now) CO2 is the main driver. What other factors are there? TSI is much the same, there have been some variations in aerosols due to volcanic eruptions… Not much else has changed.
“f you bother comparing the O2 graph with the CO2 graph by Berner you will note that they trend in opposite directions; interesting eh, but I’m not doing your work for you.”
Cohenite, did you read my post above where I asked you if it was reasonable for there to be situations when CO2 went up and O2 down? It’s not that big a deal.
“(ignoring Beck for the moment) ” We should ignore him forever.
The rest of you argument is pointless blather.
You were originally debating whether CO2 could be correlated with paleotemp for the Phanerozoic. Do you now accept that it is pointless to attempt to directly correlate CO2 with temp over the whole of the Phanerozoic?
Toby,
did you just make this up?
“Hence our concern that we should dramatically make changes to reduce something that is far more likely to beneficial than harmful. WE AGREE OTHER THINGS INFLUENCE CLIMATE…that is the whole point, there are too many other things that vary, to be able to place the rather marginal warming seen over the last 30 years at the foot of co2.”
You seem to be claiming it’s all to hard and we’ll never know. It’s a pointless argument. Do we pretend we don;t know that CO2 will raise temps? Do we pretend we don;t know that it’s happened in the past? Do we pretend we don;t know that when climate has shifted in the past it has swung quickly from ‘ice house’ to ‘hot house’? Why should we pretend we don’t know these things and instead accommodate some mysterious factors (that you say we are unaware of) in the hope that the climate won’t swing to the ‘hot house’ phase.
NT, Of course I don’t think that everything that Professor Phil Jones says is wrong, but he does typify the ‘dog in the manger’ secretiveness that is characteristic of much mainstream climate science. It was Jones who notoriously refused a request for data with the comment: ‘We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR [Intellectual Property Rights] to consider.’
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit recalled this response in his post criticising CSIRO’s invocation of ‘restrictions on intellectual property’ as a reason for initially refusing David Stockwell’s request for the data underlying the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report (‘CSIRO adopts Phil Jones’ stonewalling tactic’, 15 July 2008), and McIntyre has within the past 24 hours pointed out that: “CRU (UEA) has refused to provide any data. So it would have been impossible to pin down an equivalent error [to that made in the initial GISTEMP results for October] by them. Nor is there information on their algorithm” (Steve McIntyre, ‘Did Napoleon Use Hansen’s Temperature Data?’ 11 November 2008, 2.27 pm).
On 26 February 2007, McIntyre reported that he had ‘been able to track down third-party documentation on stations used in Jones’ [CRU] China network and it is impossible that Jones et al could have carried out the claimed QC [quality control] procedures’ (Climate Audit ‘Phil Jones and the Great Leap Forward’).
On 19 June 2007 Doug Keenan, a UK-based analyst, emailed Jones saying that what he (Jones) had said in a co-authored 2001 paper ‘proves that you knew there were serious problems with [US-based researcher] Wang’s claims, most notably in the latest report from the IPCC’ (Phil Jones was one of the two Coordinating Lead Authors of the ‘Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change’ Chapter of the contribution of Working Group I to the IPCC’s latest Assessment Report). Keenan politely requested an explanation but received no reply.
Some weeks later Keenan submitted to the University of Albany, NY, a report that provided detailed evidence that Wang had committed scientific fraud. A formal inquiry into research misconduct is now under way.
This is not a personal criticism of Phil Jones, but these are very serious issues. They should not be swept under the carpet at the behest of the IPCC milieu, with those who are seeking the dislosure of data, and open discussion of research results, being treated like lepers. If the science is as settled as the IPCC milieu claim it to be, why are they so resistant to opening up their data and methods to scrutiny?
Ian, that was a very strange segue.
You were being critical of Dr Jones’ ability to predict the future, then launched into this “why won’t they give me the data” rant… Why not just skip the Dr Jones can’t predict the future part?
Update
The corrected temp anomaly now posted at the GISS site is 0.68C
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
The temp anomaly for October according to the UAH Satellite data is 0.167C
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/uah_october_2008.pdf
A big difference.
And so much for the anecdotal via Marc Morano.
And by now Jen you’d be able to tell us what GISS includes that UAH does not ?
NT, I said that IF your two statements were right (i.e., that CruTEM was a ‘perfectly good dataset’ and that 2008 temps from March onwards have been ‘normal’ to ‘warm’) it would follow that Phil Jones had made a bad prediction.
We’ll know more about the standard of the HadCRU record when (and if) inquirers such as McIntyre, Holland and Keenan are able to gain access to information about the identities of the weather stations used and the procedures used to convert station data into global and hemispheric averages. It seems that Jones won’t willingly disclose such information, or explain why Jones et al (1990) was cited in the IPCC Chapter of which he was a lead author even though he knew there were serious problems with (at least) the Chinese data. But, although it’s like drawing teeth, there are grounds for hope that Jones and the CRU will be obliged to come clean in the end.
Your claim that surface temperatures since last March have been ‘moderate’ to ‘warm’ is open to different interpretations, but if the implied comparison is with the trend values for 2008 there are many mainstream scientists who would disagree with you.
I don’t know why you think that my drawing attention to Jones’s secretiveness is a ‘rant’. Do you defend his unwillingness to share data with others? What purpose is served by CRU’s (non)disclosure policies?
Sorry, In the first line, ‘CruTEM’ should be ‘HadCRU’.
And Jones was a Coordinating Lead Author, not a Lead Author.
Jennifer
“A big difference. ”
That’s like saying there’s a big difference between an apple and an orange. Either you have no idea what you are stalking about or you are deliberately attempting to mislead people into thinking there is something anomalous between GISS and UAH.
Which is it?
“And so much for the anecdotal via Marc Morano.”
Yes, it was garbage, I am glad you see that now.
Ian,
“Your claim that surface temperatures since last March have been ‘moderate’ to ‘warm’ is open to different interpretations, ”
So what? You imply there is some confusion. Look at all the datasets, GISS Hadley, RSS and UAH
How do the temps since March compare to the temps in the last thirty years?
Ian
“I don’t know why you think that my drawing attention to Jones’s secretiveness is a ‘rant’. Do you defend his unwillingness to share data with others? What purpose is served by CRU’s (non)disclosure policies?”
I was saying that they were unrelated.
No I don’t defend it, nor do I think it’s particularly bad, I have no idea what is going between Jones and McIntyre… I think McIntyre is a loose cannon.
NT,
I suspect one day soon, GISS and other systems that rely on weather stations, will be done away with.
And sooner or later it will be the satellite data (UAH etcetera) that is relied upon.
I think the work by Anthony Watts (and others) has shown how unreliable weather station data can be in the US … so imagine how much worst it might be in other parts of the world.
NT,
Your question ‘How do the temps since March compare to the temps in the last thirty years?’ proves my point that your statement was open to different interpretation. You didn’t say anything about 30 years the first time, and my point was that temperatures in 2008 were COOLER than the average for those months during the five years 2001-05. I didn’t pick those years as the basis for comparison – Phil Jones did. He could have predicted in 2003 that 2006-10 would be warmer than the average for the last 30 years but he didn’t: he specified that these years would be warmer, by a stated amount, than between 2001-05.
I don’t know about McIntyre being a loose cannon – he’s hit the target fairly often in the past few years. And how long would it have taken before the faulty GISTEMP results for October were detected, if McIntyre hadn’t advised Hansen of the error? As I understand it, there are about 100 stations that had the same reported temperature in September and October – and they were in many countries including Russia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Finland, UK and Ireland. As McIntyre points out, if HadCRU made a similar mistake, we wouldn’t know about it. I think that IS particularly bad.
Jennifer,
You avoided my question.
And it’s not strange at all that all four systems actually give similar results (if you use the same base period for all 4).
I don’t think that UAH or RSS will be used that much, I think there will have to be a dedicated system designed to measure temps at particular heights. Don’t forget that the satellites used by UAH and RSS aren’t designed specfically for temp. They have to process their data and are similarly afflicted by glitches.
I don’t understand why you have it in for GISS. The reliability of station data is a different story. I think it’s incredible that the anomaly data is actually quite good. There are few spikes and the data is confirmed by the other 3 data sets. Also note that 70% of the Earth’s surface is water, this is affected by UHI. And the station data that is affected is corrected. You can argue all you like that it’s not good enough, but it’s a trivial argument as there is no evidence that UHI is biasing the results – just look where the higher anomalies are…
Ian.
Yes you made my point for me re: the interpretation. However, when I made that statement it was replying to Jennifer’s assertion that temps had been falling during 2008. This is why I said they had been rising since about March. Actually you could probably say they have been rising all year.
MOre issues with the GISS database:
“All of a sudden, a “hot spot” has developed over the Canadian Arctic Islands and the Arctic Ocean north of North America, that wasn’t there on Monday (it was gray on Monday). A smaller hot spot also developed over Australia.
I had downloaded the GHCN file on Monday (and saved it). I downloaded the GHCN file once again and checked for stations that had October values today, but not on Monday. All but two were in Australia with the other two also in the SH.
I haven’t crosschecked the Australian data but at least there’s some new data to support this part of the change. There was no new information from GHCN on the Canadian Arctic Islands. So what accounted for the sudden hot spot in the Canadian Arctic Islands??
Why can Hansen obtain values for October in the Canadian Arctic Islands today when he couldn’t on Monday?”
from http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4332
“all four systems actually give similar results (if you use the same base period for all 4)”
Well, they don’t use the same base period NT, and even if they did, as WFT has demonstrated, they are still profoundly different with GISS consistently warmer than the satellites; and this when the satellites have proven they have a greater sensitivity to genuinely warmer conditions such as prevailed during 1998;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes
This ‘debate’ has now become totally surreal; there is no correlation over the longer, geological, timescales between CO2 and temperature, and there is none over the short-term; GISS and Hansen have had their hands in the cookie jar so often only a fool or a fanatic would trust them; and if the official IPCC source of data has a track record of unreliability and obfuscation then how can its hypothesis be trusted.
Can we get an explaination from David regarding the late addition of the Australian data?
from Bill Kininmonth:
“From Steve’s comments it appears that the Australian data were not in when GISS did the original analysis. It used to be normal practice for the Australian station summaries to be compiled in the National Climate Centre from field reports and sent as a block to GHCN, Asheville. Maybe the Melbourne Cup holiday meant the summary was late being dispatched. If that was the case, what was the basis for first guess field that, in the absence of real data, became the real solution. A mixture of last month’s pattern and climatology?”
Cohenite
I can’t help you if you refuse to see that CO2 has any impact on climate. The problem is that you simply refuse to acknowledge it. You keep showing lots of graphs that are published and every one of them is published by a researcher who agrees that CO2 imacts climate. I have patiently described to you that there are other climate drivers, yet you still demand that CO2 be forever in lock step with temperature.
I am not going to discuss this anymore because you have simply proved yourself incapable of understanding fairly simple concepts.
“Well, they don’t use the same base period NT, and even if they did, as WFT has demonstrated, they are still profoundly different with GISS consistently warmer than the satellites; and this when the satellites have proven they have a greater sensitivity to genuinely warmer conditions such as prevailed during 1998;”
In the first case, so what? It makes no difference if they are all trending the same way. Typically they all go up the same time and go down at the same time.
Are you seriously saying that this shows they are out of step?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12
This is madness!
How big is the deviation? Is it within error?
You are again simply demonstrating that you just want to put doubt where there is none.
I can’t take you seriously Cohenite. You are as bad as Louis with his abiogenic oil and no plate tectonics.
“Dear oh dear, you will be wondering if NASA really made it to the moon, next. Surely such conspiracy theories are beneath you?”
What is this IDIOCY where you say the phrase “CONSPIRACY THEORY” and think you have made a valid argument?
We all know what herd-animals and compliant insects you dumb-leftists are? These things could be a conspiracy. Or they could be standard leftist idiotic behaviour. The point is that saying the phrase “conspiracy theory” isn’t some magic incantation that can take the place of making a valid argument.
Well what do you know. I went back to see who kicked off that moronic first post. Thinking wrongly that it was Malcolm Hill. So I was just about to launch into Malcolm Hill and then I saw it was that compulsive liar SJT.
I would have thought that the global warming fraud would have died out and you would be all worshipping Barry Too-white Soeloro aka Barrack I “The Usurper”. But no. There you are still SJT. Making a complete ass of yourself. You just read the post. You saw what happened. You saw how they tried to overstate the October temperatures. And so why did you come up with this “conspiracy theory” idiocy for.
We’ve just got to hunt you frauds down and get you fired somehow. Thats what this counterattack against the malicious fraud lacks. It lacks a real determined strategy to bring this compulsive lying to an end. And that can only happen with a concerted campaign to deny the liars stolen-money-funding.