“Perhaps the most interesting question in all this business is how it can be that the scientific community has become so over-the-top in support of its own propaganda about the seriousness and certainty of upcoming drastic climate change. Scientists after all are supposed to be unbiased in their assessment of a problem and are expected to tell it as it is. Over the centuries they have built up the capital of their reputation on just that supposition. And for the last couple of decades they have put that capital very publicly on the line in support of a cause which, to say the least, is overhung by an enormous amount of doubt. So how is it that the rest of the scientific community, uncomfortable as it is with both the science of global warming and the way its politics is being played, continues to let the reputation of science in general be put at considerable risk because of the way the dangers of climate change are being vastly oversold?” Garth Paltridge*
Some answers are here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26056202-7583,00.html
* ‘Global warming hotheads freeze out science’s sceptics’ by Christopher Pearson, in The Australian, on September 12, 2009
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Unfortunately the same will happen to Garth. Good article.
“Almost the only scientists at liberty to speak their minds are retirees, such as William Kininmonth and Paltridge himself.”
There is obviously much more than reputation at stake here. As with Al Gore there is a fortune to be made, elections to be won, power to be seized and carpet bags to be filled to overflowing.
That’s all on top of the joy of telling the world that “you are all going to DIEEEEEE!!”
As children we have all been brought up to respecting science as a noble inquiring endeavour, seeking to find the truth through scientific method.
Sure we became aware of conflict between science and religion.
However the total corruption of the science of climatology by politics over the last 30yrs. has driven this branch of science to a new low.
“overhung by an enormous amount of doubt”
Not so, believers are completely convinced by their own propaganda that AGW exists and is dangerous. That this may have nothing to do with reality does not occur to them.
I agree with the comments above and believe that we are living in a mini (hopefully) “Dark Age.”
A time when science, reason, truth and plain old common sense have all been discarded in the name of Going Green. This radical, untruthful environmentalism has been a feeding ground for our sensationalist gorging media, who have forsaken all requirements needed to be called “the fourth estate.”
Balance and truth are claimed but rarely take precedence over personal opinion and political predjudice.
However, methinks the tide may be turning.
We have to play our part.
Pikey.
When I hear the phrase ‘scientists say’ I switch off. The term like several others has lost all meaning. ‘Gay’ was the first of them, then ‘queer’, then ‘climate change’ and now ‘scientist’. I’m sure there are others. Some people advertise dictionaries with the claim of umpteen new words: rubbish. We are losing words as they fall from usage thanks to politics and ubiquitous self-serving ignorance and charlatanry.
Dribble – that you know for sure that AGW isn’t true says something about cognitive dissonance and your perception of reality. I find it utterly amazing when confronted with such a vast array of independent evidence that you’re 100% sure it’s bunk.
Of course a whole body of believers reckons the issue is undersold if anything.
Some of us will find out won’t we.
Luke,
The enormous amount of evidence is to naught if the underlying initial assumption is wrong.
Science builds it’s explanation from prior established, empirically verified facts.
AGW isn’t based on this methodology – it is based on a belief that increasing CO2 causes warming and decreasing it in the atmosphere causes cooling, but this assumption is accepted as being true by consensus, not experiment.
Any assumption that has not been physically confirmed by experiment is essentially an unsubstantiated belief and it does not matter how much evidence you pile onto that initial belief, if the initial starting point is wrong, the rest becomes irrelevant.
And as far as AGW is concerned, the initial starting point is wrong. The rest follows and is proven by the inability of any GCM to have predicted the observed cooling.
Your problem is you don’t understand the difference between empirical science and unsubstantiated dogma couched in scientific jargon.
Putting it terms you might understand, your bullshit radar is broke mate.
In the last 10 years, how many papers have been published in the peer-reviewed medical research literature proving that penicillin cures pneumonia? Answer: none.
Yet the rest of the scientific community continues to let the reputation of science in general be put at considerable risk because no-one has done the research.
Luke, you may be right, the sceptics may be right or the facts may lie somewhere between however when the promoters have this sort of agenda we [and that should include you] can only be more sceptical.
http://www.green-agenda.com/
Maybe things starts moving — and definitely it will not be warmer according to the the sun’s sleeping (go to Watts Up With That and read Svensmarks article in Jyllandsposten).
I recommend a very good article by a fairly young meteorologist on liberal Washington Post, James Rutger.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/09/a_skeptical_perspective_on_glo.html
It’s argumentation from a broad spectra of isues, so please read the whole article instead of these very few (by me) chosen quotes…
– “The argument that the air we currently exhale is a bona fide pollutant due to potential impacts on climate change flummoxes me”
– “when I look at the IPCC 2007 AR4 WG1 report, I can see that without major warming in the next 1-2 years, we will fall outside those bounds”
– “I believe that predictions of human-caused climate change will continue to be overdone, and we’ll discover that natural factors are equally and sometimes even more important.”
AGW isn’t based on this methodology – it is based on a belief that increasing CO2 causes warming and decreasing it in the atmosphere causes cooling, but this assumption is accepted as being true by consensus, not experiment.
that is false. lab experiments with CO2 show without any doubt, that it is a greenhouse gas.
it is rather funny, that you wrote this just a few hours ago under another topic:
As for the Isotope ratio, experiments with methane passed through a vertical rock tube show that C13 depletion occurs the higher methane travels up that tube. Same with mantle oil – as it moves up the C13 preferentially reacts with the surrounding rocks, causing the oil to become enriched in C12.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/abiotic-oil-part-3/?cp=1#comment-134916
you accept lab experiments and their transfer tto a different environment (even substance!) if it fits your believes. you simply deny their existence, if they don t fit your beliefs.
i think it is utterly comical, that you denialists ponder the the reputation of real scientists.
Any government employed scientist who believes that most if not all the warming experienced since 1900 is soley due to Co2 should resign from their cosy little sinecures for incompetence.
Under normal cricumstances a publically funded organisation that accepts a promise of future funds in return for remaining silent on an issue,and/or conversely agrees to pursue a particular outcome from a number of feasible oucomes, should be investigated by an ICAC and the Audit General, and if found to be the case, then the CEO’s of both organisations would be fired.
According to Christopher Pearsons article that would put, the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science and Garnaut himself in the frame would it not.
“lab experiments” eh, sod; those would be by Arrhenius I suppose; it’s about time that nostrum of Arrhenius was put to rest; but in respect of Paltridge, he has already been ostracised;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5416
Paltridge’s paper is simply groundbreaking;
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf
And is entirely consistent with Miskolczi’s measure of the greenhouse effect, the total infrared optical depth [TIOD]; this is the negative natural logarithm of the ratio of the absorbed surface upward radiation by the atmosphere to the total emitted surface upward radiation; despite 100 years of increasing CO2 TIOD has remained constant for the last 60 years;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/optical-depth-trend-1.png
That really should be the end of the matter but still sod goes on about CO2 being a greenhouse gas; well, we’re all greenhouse gased out sod.
Great article! I need to mention the special case of scientists in the US. Science is tolerated here, because its applications give us goodies that make our lives more comfortable. But in other respects, the US is an incredibly anti-intellectual and anti-science country. Here, the inability to see beyond the end of one’s nose is almost a virtue. Merkin anti-intellectualism promotes a naïve kind of skepticism about any environmental doctrine that requires people to make even small sacrifices for the sake of future generations. Ironically, this cultural weakness is a strength in the context of the Climate Alarmism debate.
Another example: A very vocal minority feel that Intelligent Design should be taught along with science courses in public school *science* classrooms, as a counterweight to the evidence-based thinking that genuine science education fosters.
Understandably, Merkin scientists tend to have a siege mentality: It’s us against the screaming hordes of Bible-thumpers. Yes, within a given scientific specialty, there’s the usual amount of academic sniping, and that can be a good thing. But there’s a great reluctance to challenge the integrity of scientists outside of one’s own specialty.
I haven’t done a scientific poll on this, but my impression is that most Merkin scientists are slightly turned off by the shrill Climate Alarmist rhetoric, but they’re not really motivated to look deeper. It’s so much easier to assume that the person in the other scientific specialty sometimes arrives at reasonable conclusions, and at other times makes honest mistakes, but that he or she is one’s ally in the advancement of knowledge. Unfortunately, the scientific prostitutes involved in promoting Climate Alarmist doctrine are giving ALL scientists a black eye.
cohenite.
Isn’t it …well, natural that Miskolczi and Paltridge are consistent with regard to the H2O content of the atmosphere, since they use the same data? I don’t think you can say that Paltridge 2009 supports Miskolczis hypothesis (or rather theory) — regardless that Miskolczi may be interresting (and if he’s right sensational).
That data, however, proves IPCC to be wrong about positive feedback. That’s important.
Speaking about experiments I think also the full scale observation Svensmark did really impressing. He describes it like this in his article in the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten.
Henrik Svensmark, translated by Nigel Calder (at WUWT) :
“Ever since we put forward our theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.
First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.
Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just rejected that criticism emphatically.
It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect – indeed so great that in popular terms the Earth’s clouds originate in space. “
SOD,
“that is false. lab experiments with CO2 show without any doubt, that it is a greenhouse gas. it is rather funny, that you wrote this just a few hours ago under another topic:”
Unfortunately lab experiments never did nor could – because greenhouses trap heat from stopping convection. A gas actually cannot store heat, which is the state of it’s Brownian motion of its molecules, and instead instantly transfers that kinetic motion to lower temperature gases.
What you confuse is the fact that CO2’s specific heat which is higher then that for O2 for example. Hence inputting a discrete amount of energy CO2 will rise to a higher temperature than O2, everything else being equal.
According to CO2 greenhouse theory, if you fill a greenhouse with CO2 then its temperature will rise to that of Venus. Easy to test, don’t you think? It would make a wonderful source of renewable energy.
Lukey: Dribble – that you know for sure that AGW isn’t true says something about cognitive dissonance and your perception of reality. I find it utterly amazing when confronted with such a vast array of independent evidence that you’re 100% sure it’s bunk.
Of course a whole body of believers reckons the issue is undersold if anything.
Some of us will find out won’t we.”
Lukey dear, I have already said on several occasions that I don’t have any opinion on whether or not AGW is bunk. I will wait for the temperature to decide. What I have been complaining about is the corruption of the climate shonks and their insistence that thay are right without providing total proof that they are right. In a scientific context (rather than a political one), if they cannot provide total proof that they are right they can piss off and drop dead for all I care.
Magnus [great comic]; what Paltridge and Miskolczi have done is 2 independent verifications of the same data; that’s not quite the same thing as using the same data.
And don’t forget Louis that while the CO2 molecule will rise to a higher energy level than O2 it will fall below that energy level when deexcited through transfer of the kinetic energy and the spontaneous emission of a photon. As for increased CO2 levels producing the Venus effect; if that were going to happen it would have already happened;
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
Larry
True true, and the only quibble I had with Paltridge’s book (which I have read) is the lack of distinction between pseudoscience and science.
Pseudoscience relies on rhetoric for its authority and it basically started two centuries ago when the English Whigs/liberals were trying to oust the Tories from government. George Grinnell has described this in 1975 and liked http://www.sedin.org/propeng/grinneng.htm
Lyell used rhetoric to establish his position, not data, and he won the day. Lyell is one of the best examples of Deductive science in which the scientific method is used to build an theory on the basis of some previously agreed assumption. Modern geology, astronomy archaeology are sciences dominated by this method. This happens because they cannot perform in situ experiments because either things are too far away in distance, (astronomy) or too far back in time (geology and archaeology.) I would add climate science to this group simply because they cannot do in situ experiments. This type of science is pseudoscience.
Science per se has the ability to perform in situ experiments and novel hypotheses are quickly falsified by experiment. Not so the deductive sciences which rely on rhetoric (the Lyellian Legacy) for authority.
Climate science is thus a deductive science and is unable to conduct in situ experiments, hence it’s resorting to reason (the Lyellian Legacy) to establish scientific truth.
Garth Paltridge did not contrast this in his book, nor did Christopher Pearson raise it in his book review/column.
The problem science has is that it has been, for most part, invaded by the deductionists, Socratists to coin a hackneyed term here, and AGW is a logical product of this system, especially when supported by the state. Remember that Lyell’s motivation was primarily political, not scientific.
And so with AGW which is a political movement using climate science as its authority for drastic state intervention in human activities.
Is it therefore a conspiracy? No, not generally as the AGW commentators here are not that sophisticated, and sincerely believe the dogma. I also suspect Gore believes it as well, since Hansen’s ideas are based on his PhD work on the Venus Greenhouse effect used by Sagan et al to counter Velikovsky’s interpretations of Middle East History.
I just hope enough of the AGW mob realise the error in time, otherwise if not last century will benign compared to what these ecowarriors have in store for humanity. Their immediate goal is global population reduction.
Dribble,
Scientific theories can never be proved but can easily be falsified. AGW has been comprehensively falsified by the observed and measured temperatures.
We are in a political engagement here.
Cohenite
And if CO2 temp then gets lower than O2 as you write, then O2 will then transfer kinetic energy back to CO2, and we are really getting into a ridiculous scenario at the molecular level where we can’t do any experiments at all apart from thought-ones with all those have with historical baggage we know of.
“Magnus [great comic]; what Paltridge and Miskolczi have done is 2 independent verifications of the same data; that’s not quite the same thing as using the same data.”
Yes, they used the same data, and verified it of course, which i said.
It’s still no surprice that Paltridge’s result (the amount of H2O) is “entirely consistent with Miskolczi’s measure of the greenhouse effect, the total infrared optical depth [TIOD]”. It’s good for Miskolczi, but Paltridge isn’t close to support his theory.
“Great comic”.
I’m clueless, and (irony) must be totally without humor… or something else.
Marcus A
Cohenite is a lawyer after all 🙂
I vaguely remember reading in newspapers in the late 70s about man- made CO2 having a “greenhouse” effect on the atmosphere.
This perturbed me greatly enough to take notice of this. It was US scientists with a theory of heavy impact. However in further newspaper articles on this topic the quote marks around the words “Greenhouse gas” were missing. Hang-on I thought , the media is converting theory into scientific fact by dropping these quote-marks.
We have “greenhouse gases” becoming gospel here courtesy of the media.
The scientists are going to have their work cut out to maintain CO2 as theoretically having a “greenhouse effect” or just succumb to the mindset of the public and media.
Succumb they did.
Louis: “What you confuse is the fact that CO2’s specific heat which is higher then that for O2 for example. Hence inputting a discrete amount of energy CO2 will rise to a higher temperature than O2, everything else being equal.”
I hope you mean the specific heat of CO2 is *lower* than that for the rest of the components of air.
I found 1.012 joules/gram/deg K for air and 0.839 for CO2 at constant pressure. You are right then that for a certain amount of heat energy the CO2 will show a larger temperature rise.
Sod:
get back to us after you’ve done the CO2 infrared absorption experiment with water vapour at near saturation mixed with your CO2. Then remove the CO2 and do it again. Please do tell us the results.
Eyrie
I stand corrected, and I do mean lower, it takes less energy to raise CO2 1 Kelvin than it does O2.
Marcus A
Interestingly your recollection of time, late 1970’s. By then the universities were infested with the PC Crowd, (I noticed in the middle 1970’s doing post grad) and the soft sciences suffered ever since.
Magnus and Louis;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/Magnus_Robot_Fighter_4000AD_no1.jpg
Louis ,
Correction, I think it was early to mid 70s.
Well Dribble isn’t God so naughty for giving is only partially information with major life and death decisions.
“total proof”
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
“Your problem is you don’t understand the difference between empirical science and unsubstantiated dogma couched in scientific jargon.” say someone who believes in abiotic oil.
Come on – stop playing games.
“And as far as AGW is concerned, the initial starting point is wrong. ” WHY ? ? ?
Malcolm – “Any government employed scientist who believes that most if not all the warming experienced since 1900 is soley due to Co2 should resign from their cosy little sinecures for incompetence.” – WHY ?
What you confuse is the fact that CO2’s specific heat which is higher then that for O2 for example. Hence inputting a discrete amount of energy CO2 will rise to a higher temperature than O2, everything else being equal.
neither me, nor the scientists involved are confusing this.
Sod:
get back to us after you’ve done the CO2 infrared absorption experiment with water vapour at near saturation mixed with your CO2. Then remove the CO2 and do it again. Please do tell us the results.
will you tell Louis, what the experiment result will be, without the water?
after that, we can do the next step…
—————————
breaking news:
flat earth society is also concerned about the reputation of scientists!
Well Dribble isn’t God so naughty for giving is only partially information with major life and Lukey: “death decisions.
“total proof”
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha”
Whats God got to do with it? Poor little climate scientists, isn’t science so hard? So easy to replace with shonk. Diddums.
luke; I may have been too harsh about Meehl;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5944/1114
sod; still think ENSO variation is a zero-sum game?
And what do we find at the end of it all…..
In the last chapter, Paltridge lists some hidden agendas. “There are those who, like president (Jacques) Chirac of France, look with favour on the possibility of an international de-carbonisation regime because it would be the first step towards global government. There are those who, like the socialists before them, see international action as a means to force a redistribution of wealth both within and between individual nations. There are those who, like the powerbrokers of the European Union, look upon such action as a basis for legitimacy. There are those who, like bureaucrats the world over, regard the whole business mainly as a path to the sort of power which, until now, has been wielded only by the major religions. More generally, there are those who, like the politically correct everywhere, are driven by a need for public expression of their own virtue.”
Just another paranoid conspiracy theory. LOL.
Well Dribble – given you’re such a dumb fuck – and I know it’s hard, but a vengeful God would probably give smart climate scientists a run for it – eh eh matey? Such as trying to see a signal emerging from a fog of natural variation. Many instruments having calibration issues or confounding factors. And multiple counter-forcing short term decadal climate drivers. What a bugger? Indeed the more you think about it – AGW either probably proves or disproves the existence of God. The sheer improbability of apes stuffing their own planet versus test of belief?
Coho – yes I’d hidden it from you lest you get your hopes up. But your comment about Meehl is pretty dreadful. So much for your objectivity. Anyway paper is only a wiggle thing.
And Coho paper ends thus:
“However, the results for the climate system
response to solar forcing are qualitatively similar
to those presented here without the QBO, but the
prescribed QBO shows improvements in the stratospheric
response compared to observations. Though
the solar-forced eastern equatorial SSTanomalies
shown here are about half the amplitude of those
associated with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation,
they are relevant for understanding decadal timescale
variability in the Pacific. This response also
cannot be used to explain recent global warming
because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a
measurable trend over the past 30 years”
sod; still think ENSO variation is a zero-sum game?
i do indeed. what part of the term “oscillation” do you not understand?
Yes luke, the obligatory genuflection at the end to the lord and master AGW; that reflex is dispensed with here much better than I can do and it also puts the Meehl paper into context in respect of the lack of measureable trend in the 11 year solar cycle; a point Svensgard and Scafetta may disagree with;
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/atmospheric-solar-heat-amplifier-discovered
Very good sod, now look up damped oscillation. And stationary and non-stationary.
comment from Luke Sept 12 at 9:18 pm
Malcolm – “Any government employed scientist who believes that most if not all the warming experienced since 1900 is soley (sic) due to Co2 should resign from their cosy little sinecures for incompetence.” – WHY ?
Half of the global warming of 0.7 deg C since 1900 occurred prior to 1940. Yet our CO2 emissions did not rise markedly till after this, from about WWII. So this half at least of 20th century global warming must be natural.
The other half of the 20th century warming occurred from the mid-70s to the mid-90s, and might have something to do with our CO2 emissions. However, this interpretation is complicated by the fact that there has been no significant global warming since the mid-90s (Lindzen).
Cohenite,what has Doug Hoffman got to say about this? Zip. The Meehl paper adds detail to the natural variability picture; this has always been the backdrop to trends caused by longer-term forcings in either direction. The identification of this mechanism has implications for the qualities of other weather behaviors within natural variability, as the paper suggests it can dampen/amplify oscillatory events,even ‘mimic’ them…this is the stuff increasing GHGs works behind. As Luke says;it’s a wiggle thing.
Doug makes his ‘obligatory genuflection’ to his own lord and master-untenable extrapolation.
You’re a bit touchy today Nick; the point is this;
“We show that the two mechanisms act together to enhance the climatological off-equatorial tropical precipitation maxima in the Pacific, lower the eastern equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures during peaks in the 11-year solar cycle, and reduce low-latitude clouds to amplify the solar forcing at the surface.”
I just thought that was another piece in the jigsaw of asymmetry in ENSO which incidentally Sun and Yu amongst others had already picked up; it adds to the idea that ENSO oscillation is not a zero-sum game and suggests a mechanism by which extra [radiative] energy powers the El Nino dominance and adds to not only variation but trend in the crucial 1950-current period; of course this doesn’t peclude longer, stochastic factors or EOF1 as Parker et al describe but even if EOF1s are operating that leaves no scope for AGW; AGW relies on, if there is asymmetry, that the dominance of El Nino and the trend that produces, being due to AGW alteration and delay of El Nino events and types; I would have thought that was far more speculative than empirically noted mechanisms, oceanographic and cloud coupling with a radiative increment.
sod,
We all know CO2 absorbs in the infrared. The question is: how important is this compared to the infrared absorbing properties of water vapour which is abundant in Earth’s atmosphere.
The next question is: even if the CO2 has some small effect compared to the water vapour, how important is the concentration of the CO2 once it gets beyond a certain small amount?
Coho – all the Parker et al paper produces is a simple analysis which says what are the patterns in the data – firstly is a long term global trend – the SECOND – the IPO and THIRD an AMO type pattern. Very simple statements.
The PCA analysis doesn’t say what the long term trend is caused by.
Also nice as 2 datasets and not on land (UHI)
Eyrie
However Coho’s beloved Meehl does here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png read carefully – most of the warming between 1900 and 1994 is attributed to greenhouse forcing.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf
You see you have to add it all up.
Indeed Meehl even believes that the IPO slowed the expression of late 20th century warming. ams.confex.com/ams/88Annual/techprogram/paper_133611.htm
Lukey: “Well Dribble – given you’re such a dumb fuck – and I know it’s hard, but a vengeful God would probably give smart climate scientists a run for it – eh eh matey? Such as trying to see a signal emerging from a fog of natural variation. Many instruments having calibration issues or confounding factors. And multiple counter-forcing short term decadal climate drivers. What a bugger? Indeed the more you think about it – AGW either probably proves or disproves the existence of God. The sheer improbability of apes stuffing their own planet versus test of belief?”
Lukey has clearly been reduced to impotent babbling. ‘Trying to see a signal emerging from a fog of natural variation’ neatly describes a situation in which confirmation bias can be a very serious problem. That is why it should be vital in climate science to NOT have preconceived biases. In climate science the opposite occurs. All phenomena are subject to preconceived AGW bias.
I was sort of hoping Nick would come back but maybe he is a Bulldog supporter and is out on the turps; but anyway you’ve replied luke and far be it from me to suggest you should stop sniffing glue; let me go through this slowly and your Meehl circa 2003 sums up the AGW position [and the reason I was so excited by the recent Meehl paper on ENSO was that it made a stark comparison with his prior alternative universe papers]; that position is that temperature increase during the first half of the century was due to natural causes and during the 2nd 1/2 due to AGW; here’s what we’re talking about;
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/gatemaster99/warmtwice.png
You can see the warming from 1910-1940 is = to the warming from 1976 onwards; now assume the following;
1 Every El Nino is matched in temperature effect by every La Nina and every series of El Nino is matched by every series of La Nina and every discrete period of El Nino dominance [+ve PDO] is matched by every discrete period of La Nina dominance [-ve PDO]; this is the AGW view that ENSO is just oscillation or variation around no trend: the stationary component of climate.
2 During the 20thC there were 2 +ve PDOs and one -ve PDO; over the 20thC therefore there must be a temperature increase due to the dominance of +ve PDOs over that period[ie 1+1 > 1]
3 To argue that AGW is entirely or mainly responsible for the upward oscillation of temperature during the 2nd +PDO of the 20thC means that the natural PDO effect on temperature must be substantially less than the effect from the +ve PDO at the beginning of the 20thC because the increase in temperature at the beginning of the 20thC is the same [if not greater than] as the temperature increase at the end.
4 Why would the 2nd +PDO have less effect than the first? It could only be that AGW is suppressing the ENSO effect.
5 If ENSO is being suppressed by AGW why are temperatures falling during the -ve PDO which began in 1998? Does AGW suppress the EL Nino/+ve PDO but have no effect on the La Nina/-ve PDO? That is, the Keenlyside masking effect only works one way.
To me this is a torturing of logic; the thesis that ENSO has had an asymmetry in favour of El Nino for the last 150 years makes much more sense; and now it seems that, consciously or otherwise, Meehl has added some support to that anti-AGW idea. Good on him!
Only problem is areas of warming aren’t ENSO-ish. “Bugger” says Coho – didn’t think of that and disappears in a puff of AGW logic.
Dribble – why do you keep playing when you’ve been smacked down. So you’d expect not to see a signal emerging from a fog of background variability. Like – are you mental?
We all know CO2 absorbs in the infrared. The question is: how important is this compared to the infrared absorbing properties of water vapour which is abundant in Earth’s atmosphere.
that would be good, but it isn t true. Louis for example thinks:
What you confuse is the fact that CO2’s specific heat which is higher then that for O2 for example.
will you explain to him, that you are not confused and that the infrared absorption of CO2 has indeed been verified by experiment?!?
5 If ENSO is being suppressed by AGW why are temperatures falling during the -ve PDO which began in 1998? Does AGW suppress the EL Nino/+ve PDO but have no effect on the La Nina/-ve PDO? That is, the Keenlyside masking effect only works one way.
it is just funny. a person who thinks that Enso is affecting the global temperature trend does cherrypick the biggest el nino event he can find, as the starting point of his temperature analysis.
the claim that temperatures are falling since 1998 is false, by the way.
Sod wrote:
It is equally true to say it hasn’t risen either. And we are within the resolution of the surface data too. And this is the same as it was 30 years ago. And 30 uears is climate scale. So over 30 years of data still leaves us with overall changes of less than the measurement noise. Good thing things are worse than we thought, or we might have missed it.
sod: and the claim that temperatures are rising because of rising atmospheric CO2 is also false, by the way. Where temperatures are rising it is because of growing energy use at the cited locations. Where they are flat as at Mauna Loa that is despite rising CO2 there. You are like those who thought cholera in London was caused by CO2 (in the form of rising bad air from the Thames). The Royal Society no less also thought bad air (with its CO2) caused malaria. You are a child of the anti-enlightenment, as prone to witchcraft as any PNG tribesman or Fellow of the Royal Society, and as stupid as all of the latter, including of course our own Lord May, as mad as a hatter.
Lueky: “Dribble – why do you keep playing when you’ve been smacked down. So you’d expect not to see a signal emerging from a fog of background variability. Like – are you mental?”
Where have I been smacked down? Only in your dreams Lukey. Once again for the intellectually challenged AGW clowns among us I explain this issue for you again. Confirmation biases and ‘experimenter effect’ are serious issues to consider when dealing with fogs of any description. Look at clouds for long enough and you may see the Virgin Mary giving birth to the Baby Jesus, if that is what you are inclined to do.
I have just given you a small demonstration with Giambelluca et al. The 4 sites chosen for their increased trend at elevated sites claim all show different trends. Why did they not notice the anomalously high trend at Mauna Loa Slopes Observatory and at least make enquiries as to why it is like that? Instead, they probably said to themselves “Goody goody, weve got a nice high trend here which supports our claim for an elevated trend at Hawaii which matches (supposedly) elevated trends elsewhere. Hint hint, it has something to do with global warming. At least however Giambelluca do not gratuitously insert ‘anthropogenic’ into the title like the other paper you brought up.
I saw a posting on RC of one poor soul wishing it warm up because he “can’t stand another 10 years of denialism.” Ahahahahaha.
‘
“Areas of warming aren’t ENSO-ish”; that’s weak luke, especially since, despite what sod says, there has been no warming since 1998;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010
Sad to see the thread topic is not at issue here – though to be honest I have not yet scrolled up to see if any counter posts to mine need attention.
SOD writes: “that would be good, but it isn t true. Louis for example thinks:
What you confuse is the fact that CO2’s specific heat which is higher then that for O2 for example.
will you explain to him, that you are not confused and that the infrared absorption of CO2 has indeed been verified by experiment?!?”
Sod is a product of the modern post modernist education system?
If I posted my comments in Swahili, would that improve communication?
Sod, that is a pretty good set of water-wings you are wearing – impervious to any scientific based punctures. Send some to Luke, SJT, Grendel, Patrick B and the other chatterers so they too can stop sinking in their self inflicted stupidities.
Would like some fresh insults then Louis?
Dribbles – sigh – would you like the paper – if you’re going to insult it at least read it !
Getting back to topic – so why have some scientists sunk to such depths of unprofessionalism?
Paltridge might disagree but the present situation seems restricted to the sciences that are innately unable to conduct in-situ experiments.
Put forward a novel hypothesis that contradicts the ruling paradigm, say electronics, and it’s scientific state is quickly determined by others replicating it.
This rosy view is marred with the medical situation when stomach ulcers were thought to have been caused by bacteria and two West Australian Scientists had to perform the experiments on themselves to make the point. Hence the recognition of the phenomena of the herd instinct which, through means we don’t understand, compel individuals to refute obvious facts.
Then we have the sciences that are dominated by the deductive method, where fundamental assumptions from consensus, are deemed true. The science is then built on that initial assumption. This system of science is rhetorically based, with data seen as an inconvenient fact.
It is pseudoscience.
But pseudoscience, being a product of the human imagination, is not easily refuted with empirical facts.
And that is the ground zero for AGW and its opposition.
Lukey: “Dribbles – sigh – would you like the paper – if you’re going to insult it at least read it !”
You are becoming very boring Lukey. I have stated on the correct thread that I have already purchased the paper and have begun a preliminary analysis.
Luke,
Insult as much as you wish, but what surprises me is the lack of “aye” you banana benders seem to be so afflicted with.
Well Dribs – I ignore most of what you write so I missed it. Gee – so you can read after all.
Louis – maaattteee – we’re most civilised up here on the range. OK – so global warming is pretty interesting – aye? There you go.
We love you – if you didn’t exist we’d have to invent you as an ideotype. But pulling your chain is fun.
SJT, your rant about ‘conspiracy theories’ again demonstrates your meagre, juvenile, underdeveloped intellect. By your logic, any coalition of interests cooperating in what might be called a ‘movement’ would be a figment of the paranoid imagination. So when one of your own kind describes himself as an ‘activist’ or an ‘organizer’ you must believe that he is lying or fantasizing? What would he be agitating for; who would he be organising? There is no agenda here, folks. Puh-lease!
Luke
Thanks, we now know where you are, aye, but pulling my chain?
You haven’t the brains.
“Areas of warming aren’t ENSO-ish”; that’s weak luke, especially since, despite what sod says, there has been no warming since 1998;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010
cohenite, you need to be more careful with your choice of words. there is a big difference between the two claims “there has been no warming since 1998” and “the trend starting in 1998 is flat”
the second is sort of right. (if you ignore GISS), the former is obviously false, as a look at a trend starting in 1999 shows:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/to:2010
the globe has been warming since 1998. it just doesn t show in a trendline starting in 1998.
typically that is a sign of a choice of a useless base year. one day you will understand basic statistics and this.
SOD
“The globe has been warming since 1998…”
What globe? The one in your kitchen light made by Osram? Gee, you are lucky owning a globe that good – why my Woolworth’s globe only lasted a couple of weeks!
Signed,
James Bluebottle,
Two O’s and a budgeridgar
sod: what is your source for your claim that “the globe” is hotter now than it was in 1998? I would like your complete listing of all Gistemp, and Hadley stations showing this to be true on average AND aggregate (for comparison with UAH).
sod; if you’d stop impersonating an ATM for a minute you’d realise that 1997-1998 is not an arbitary and unjustified selection of a base year; read p8 of this to find out why;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf
Louis – I’m actually really grateful to you for education in matters right – we were sitting in the Big Circle at the commune the other day, having some herbal tea, and I said to the coven “Oi – have you ever thought of having any right wing fascists for friends ” a great frowning silence descended and the coven were silent for a good 20 minutes. I said “I refuse to accept your logic” Then another great silence ensued.
The head warlock then said “Luke we will never speak of this again”.
sod: what is your source for your claim that “the globe” is hotter now than it was in 1998? I would like your complete listing of all Gistemp, and Hadley stations showing this to be true on average AND aggregate (for comparison with UAH).
i did NOT say, that the globe is warmer now, than 1998. i said there has been warming in between. that is something different.
example: it is 7 pm. saying the temperature trend since 7 am is flat, might be true. the claim that there was no warming between the morning and the evening, is most likely false.
and another example: the claim that there was no warming since 9 this morning, when there actually was some pretty stronmg warming since 10 this morning, is simply false.
we expect such a claim to be robust enough, to not depend on the choice of starting year/hour.
on a side note, GISS does show warming. and if we plot half years, we see that now” actually is pretty close to the second halve of 1998.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/compress:6/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend
sod; if you’d stop impersonating an ATM for a minute you’d realise that 1997-1998 is not an arbitary and unjustified selection of a base year; read p8 of this to find out why;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf
you keep linking this all over. i ve read it multiple times, and i remain unimpressed. my comment on it remains the same:
that some statistical tool finds a break point does NOT excuse all sorts of cherry pick with that date. for example, it does not change the fact, that climate is measured in 30 year periods.
neither does it excuse, that your “trends” starting in 1998 fail to show the basic robustness, that i described above.
as final word, the paper actually seems to place the break in 1997(or even 1996?), not 1998.
and those already show a minimal upwards trend. (that is, why you chose to ignore that part of the paper.)
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2010
Sod wrote:
Yes – that means that if you insist on suggesting that it has “warmed” in that period, it is equally true to say it’s “cooled” in that period.
While there is some merit in what you suggest, you need to be careful – just because your measurements start at some point in time does not mean you can or should ignore what happens before then. Is it warming because we started at 7am and it’s now 1pm? Is it warming because we started in winter and it’s now summer? Is it warming because we started in the LIA and it’s now the PWP (present warm period)? Can we reasonably extrapolate from any of these? While we can easily discover day/night and summer/winter, what of cycles that are longer than a human life? What of cycles that last 100K years? We have NO thermometers from more than about 150 years ago – and while we can guess what temperatures might have been, while we have what seem to be temperature proxies, we do not yet know how well such proxies represent actual temperature rather than, say, rainfall, wind patterns, cloud coverage etc. And we have the “divergence problem” – where “proxies” disagree with actual measurements during the latter decades of the 20thC. In many cases, such proxies have been truncated at the “divergence” with little other than handwaving and no explaination of why such “issues” do not effect the proxy in the pre-instrumentation period. Or even worse, where such proxies are “selected”, not based on a priori criteria, but based on their correlation with temperature – and then the suggestion that such correlation is evidence they “work” as proxies with none of the caveats that should apply to such data mining exercises.
People in glass houses….
sod, you say you have read the paper many times; try and read it again with your eyes open; the point the paper makes is this [p8];
“Contrary to claims in Easterling and Wehner (2009) that the 10 year trend since 1998 is arbitary, structural change methods indicate that 1997 was a statistically defensible beginning of a new, and apparently stable regime.”
Easterling, of course was given great currency by your side of this debate; I have referred to 1998 to be consistent with Easterling and to account for the lag equivalent to the 1976-1977 phase change but as your WFT’s graph shows the temperature since 1997 is stable; this is after the period from 1977 to 1997 when the decadal temp increase was .15C; note also that when starting at 1997 you INCLUDE the uber El Nino year of 1998. How does your beloved AGW theory account for that and try to say something other than that the 12 years since 1997 is not long enough?
sod; if you’d stop impersonating an ATM for a minute you’d realise that 1997-1998 is not an arbitary and unjustified selection of a base year; read p8 of this to find out why;
An excellent example of how to lie with statistics. They offer no explanation at all as to how a once off and massive equivalent of tsunami occured.
“Contrary to claims in Easterling and Wehner (2009) that the 10 year trend since 1998 is arbitary, structural change methods indicate that 1997 was a statistically defensible beginning of a new, and apparently stable regime.”
LOL.
SJT, your rant about ‘conspiracy theories’ again demonstrates your meagre, juvenile, underdeveloped intellect. By your logic, any coalition of interests cooperating in what might be called a ‘movement’ would be a figment of the paranoid imagination. So when one of your own kind describes himself as an ‘activist’ or an ‘organizer’ you must believe that he is lying or fantasizing? What would he be agitating for; who would he be organising? There is no agenda here, folks. Puh-lease!
It’s not my rant, it’s Paltridge going off on a rant. I’m just observing how lunatic it is. He’s not talking about a few ‘activists’, he’s talking about a conspiracy throughout the CSIRO and Universities to bring down captalism. A conspiracy on such a scale is going to have to have real evidence out there, not unsubstantiated claims.
Well, getting back to the topic, I think Garth Paltridge has written a useful and thought provoking book, which should be compulsory reading for all politicians, journalists, druids, Lukes, Sods et al. Anybody who disagrees with his views is free to write their own book, which I will read also.
Stupidity needs no conspiracy.
Sod, SJT and Luke prove that daily.
SJT wrote:
When Hansen, Steig, Mann, Schmidt et al actually take notice of people with expertise in stats, I may take notice. However, to date, they continue to ignore the advise and reasoning of statisticians, prefering instead to invent their own methods on the spot to suit the data they have and the answer they want. Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander; people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones etc.
Tu quoque. If you want to debate Steig, Mann et all, please do.
However, I am referring to Stockwell’s fatally flawed paper. He has to present evidence of a climatic spike that’s the equivalent of a Tsunami to make it work, and he can’t.
Read it again Hunter.
In the last chapter, Paltridge lists some hidden agendas. “There are those who, like president (Jacques) Chirac of France, look with favour on the possibility of an international de-carbonisation regime because it would be the first step towards global government. There are those who, like the socialists before them, see international action as a means to force a redistribution of wealth both within and between individual nations. There are those who, like the powerbrokers of the European Union, look upon such action as a basis for legitimacy. There are those who, like bureaucrats the world over, regard the whole business mainly as a path to the sort of power which, until now, has been wielded only by the major religions. More generally, there are those who, like the politically correct everywhere, are driven by a need for public expression of their own virtue.”
The scientists are willingly going along with this, are they?
Little will, you are being more twitish than usual; “He has to present evidence of a climatic spike that’s the equivalent of a Tsunami to make it work, and he can’t”; all the references for the “Tsunami” equivalent [you really are nuts] are on page 8 of the paper; these undisputed oceanographic events were what caught David’s eye in the first place; the statistical fitting of the temperature response came second; in addition to the work by Guilderson and Schrag [1998], McPhaden and Zhang [2004] and Wainright et al [2008] dealing with these empirical events who are quoted in the paper, McPhaden and Zhang [2002], Myers et al [2008], Wijffels and Myers [2004] and Cai [ 2005, 2007] all deal with the same phenomena and the dates of 1976 and 1998. So you are not arguing with Stockwell, you are arguing with them.
Today’s so called scientist, graduates with a scratchy degree in cant to promote the lefts social and educational agendas.
Following Davey’s lead, I’d like to steer back towards the main topic of this thread. There’s another reason why some scientists hold their tongues about the massive fraud on the part of the Climate Alarmist economic suicide cult.
Most scientists are supportive of the fossil oil paradigm. Interestingly, there’s some overlap between the position of the folks who are concerned about running out of oil by the end of the century and that of the Climate Alarmists. Energy efficiency is one part of that overlap.
Here’s the unspoken logic. If climate hysteria prevails, then we’ll finally get serious about energy conservation. In terms of energy conservation, doing the right thing for the wrong reason is better than too little, too late.
From an ethical perspective, outright scientific prostitution is far worse than not knowing, because one hasn’t looked, because one is afraid of what might exhume. Moral cowardice has a fairly low venality rating, in the overall scheme of things. And speaking out can be quite risky–even in putatively free societies.
We all know what happens to whistleblowers, at least in the US. Example: A string of nasty things happened to engineer Roger Boijoly after he had shed considerable light on the Challenger tragedy of 1986. According to a friend of Roger, that included Roger’s house mysteriously burning down. (I have not been able to verify that with scroogle searches.)
In my not-so humble opinion, Roger Boijoly has more cojones than all of the wannabe Torquemadas in the Luke Collective put together.
Sod: “it does not change the fact, that climate is measured in 30 year periods. ”
Tell that to Hansen. He was getting his knickers in a knot over CO2 after merely 5 years of warming from 1975 to 1980. Sigh, the hypocrisy and squirming of AGW believers over the current temperature plateau is merely tedious.
Lukey: “Well Dribs – I ignore most of what you write so I missed it.”
Thats a relief. Saves me having to write replies constantly correcting your elementary mistakes, non-sequiteurs and other forms of incompetence and stupidity. From now I’ll just assume you haven’t read anything and not worry about it.
“In my not-so humble opinion, Roger Boijoly has more cojones than all of the wannabe Torquemadas in the Luke Collective put together.”
The Luke collective has no cojones at all. They are just another lot of bandwagon jumpers throwing their weight around with the backing of the state. They are like coppers having a bit of fun beating up on a disadvantaged person because nobody is going to stop them.
Splendid supporting data for the Paltridge thesis is in the exchange back in 2000 (but still very topical) between Ray Evans et al on one side, and the ineffable Graeme Pearman on the other (Google “Ray Evans + Cape Grim”); the flat trends in the temp series of the former for Capes Grim & Otway amply confirm that rising atmospheric CO2 has no impact on temperature, so that by implication where there is recorded warming that is wholly due to energy usage, which means that the sources of that energy are immaterial, whether renewable or not. That is not what Ross Garnaut will admit this evening at his ANU prayer meeting and wake (for the failure of his Review to be implemented). Had he carried out the sort of due diligence that Paltridge bemoans the lack of in all climate change “scientists”, like checking temperatures at Mauna Loa or Cape Grim, he would never have undertaken his Review. He might even have realised that his magic wand of CCS by requiring 30% more energy than a normal power station will actually heat the environment pro rata – but then our pigs would be flying!
Little will, you are being more twitish than usual; “He has to present evidence of a climatic spike that’s the equivalent of a Tsunami to make it work, and he can’t”; all the references for the “Tsunami” equivalent [you really are nuts] are on page 8 of the paper; these undisputed oceanographic events were what caught David’s eye in the first place; the statistical fitting of the temperature response came second; in addition to the work by Guilderson and Schrag [1998], McPhaden and Zhang [2004] and Wainright et al [2008] dealing with these empirical events who are quoted in the paper, McPhaden and Zhang [2002], Myers et al [2008], Wijffels and Myers [2004] and Cai [ 2005, 2007] all deal with the same phenomena and the dates of 1976 and 1998. So you are not arguing with Stockwell, you are arguing with them.
LOL. Now I know where you get your inspiration from when you create your own fantastic stories. It’s an exercise in technobabble.
Dribble,
Notice Lukey is now also into witchcraft? While he seems to ignore your posts, I can’t say the same for mine – they tend to send him off his perch with predictable regularity.
I fear their reactions have yet to hit the stridency red-line, but I notice that the American’s are starting to stir over Obama’s not so subtle agenda – though Australians seem reluctant to challenge the state – strange given the national character.
Dribble,
Dead right about the lack of cojones of the Luke crowd. They haven’t the guts to unshackle themselves of the comforting AGW religion. Unlike us sceptics they are too afraid to admit that the planet can look after itself, that planting trees is probably meaningless from a global perspective with relationship to the earths climate.
Sceptics are not foolhardy. Most, like myself, care about the environment, don’t like waste,and don’t like pollution .
But the motivation for this is purely self-interest. We don’t like living in shit in our own nest.
We do not derive comfort from believing that our “care” is doing the world “good “.
Step outside your comfort zone Luke. Get some cojones.
For any greenies who might be listening in ,
Quit huggin trees with the shielas , get a life and harden the f up.
There is little point in Australia adopting an ETS when China is the biggest emitter of methane and CO2.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/13/some-results-from-gosat-co2-hot-spots-in-interesting-places/#more-10787
If Kevin is all that fired up about reducing CO2 then he should speak to them in a language they understand, and I don’t mean Mandarin.
Hi Mack.
Tim: “the flat trends in the temp series of the former for Capes Grim & Otway amply confirm that rising atmospheric CO2 has no impact on temperature,”
This made me curious to look up the trends at Cape Grim at the BOM website. Although the data is patchy and only goes from 1985, the maximum temps show an upward trend but the minimums do not. I looked at a couple of sites local to my area, both airports, which show much the same thing. Both airports show that average maximum temps have increased 2C since 1995, however the minimums show an almost flat trend.
According to the Hawaii paper, the situation in Hawaii is reversed, to quote: “The bulk of the increase in mean temperature is related to a much larger increase in minimum temperatures compared to the maximums, a net warming trend about 3 times as large.”
If I were BOM I would be running a large number of UHI experiments, with temperature monitoring setups at different distances from the runway area to see what might be discovered. I know that BOM have done UHI stuff related to the Melbourne city area, but to what extent their total commitment to UHI research is I do not know.
Dribble: the BoM summary data you seem to use are rather misleading. If you use Google, do “Ray Evans + Cape Grim” and there you will find the actual year by year data for Cape Grim and a nearby similar location (Marrawah) from 1985 to 1999, with a visible if not stat.sig. downward trend. On the other side of Bass Strait, at Cape Otway, also remote from economic activity, there is a flat trend in the ANNUAL data from 1969 to 1999. I have asked BoM for updated records to 2008, so far no response. Perhaps I am blacklisted there as elsewhere!
I rest my case, where there is not much use of Energy, as at these locations, [CO2] has no discernible impact. But do send me your airport data, I would love it, as they evidently also support my thesis.
The idea that BoM would do disinterested research like you suggest is I fear laughable, it used not to be the case, but Rudd-Wong would chop their funding they did.
Listen to Mack wank on. Gawd. Back from his daily encounter with a sheep.
Well done Dribbsy – looking up something for yourself. But why do BoM need to do UHI research when you can pick areas that are not UHIs? Too easy?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/rcs.shtml
The RCS network, the BoM preferred sites for accuracy, on the main show no temperature correlation with AGW; we have done this exercise before.
The great thing about the internet, is that, so far, there are ways to actually look at history.
Here is what climate scientists were saying before they got that AGW religion:
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=DeEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA109&dq=arctic+ice+popular+mechanics+1957&lr=&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Our AGW mental midgets and true believers look rather shabby, by comparison.
Well Coho – if you have done the RCS network – put up the numbers ! Let’s see ’em. I’m sure Jen will guest post ya.
luke; just did Scone SCS, which only goes back to 1950; no change to 2000; Scone Phillip st goes back to 1910; drops 1C to 2000; also drops over 20thC for Jerrys Plains and Nobbys signal station which is the entire Hunter Valley; but since you dropped the RCS into the mix how about you picking a couple of stations which are consistent with AGW; ie 0.12-15C per decade increase in temp since 1950.
Tim, I have compiled the annual average data for the 21 Hawaiian stations (not the minimum and maximum temp data, I will do this later) There seems to be an issue with getting data from the NCDC/WRCC sites before the 1940s. There either must have been a mass weather station rollout on 1/10/49 as most stations have this as their start date, or this is some sort of cutoff date for some reason. 3 stations have earlier dates. These are Hilo Airport 1/1/41, Honolulu Airport 1/7/47 and Kailua 1/9/47. I am assuming that there must be earlier data for some stations but must figure out what to do to get it. I will send you the data shortly.
Dribble – why email the Hawaii locals. It’s called networking not speculating.
Coho – so you did Scone eh … Scone …. WOW – now how about the nation’s full RCS set.
Any self-respecting Sceptics party would have this on tap and on toast. Where’s Stockwell when you need him. He should do this before brekky.
That way we dispense with UHI arguments by ignoring major centres.
Tim: “Cape Grim and a nearby similar location (Marrawah) from 1985 to 1999, with a visible if not stat.sig. downward trend”
Yes the trend is less than I implied for Cape Grim. The two airports are Avalon Airport 87113 and Geelong Airport 87163. Avalon Airport is major passenger jet type airport in rural situation, Geelong Airport is small Cessna airport in large paddock in now suburbanised area.
I got the BOM data by doing the following:
google ‘BOM climate’
Select the site BOM climate
Select Recent & Historical
Select Climate Data Online
Select Historical Observations
Lukey: “Dribble – why email the Hawaii locals. It’s called networking not speculating.
Taking gratuitous advice from you is the last thing I would do, silly boy. If you want gratuitous advice I suggest you try working instead of wanking. Why not try it, not wanking I mean. You may learn something instead of the usual AGW trots.
Tim, I see what you mean about the remote stations on the Victorian coast. My eyeball says that Cape Otway Lighthouse 90015 and nearby Weeaproinah 90083 have very little trend. Nearby Gellibrand River Forestry 90134 has a trend on the maximums but not on the minimums at least for the last 30 years.
On the Tasmanian coast, Cape Grim BAPS 91245 has very little trend along with Marrawah 91123
On the other hand, according to the eyeball, the two airports show massive trends. Doesn’t look good for AGW.
Quick Dribble dikc – rush to publish – your “global” discovery after examining point o o piddles-worth of the Earth’s surface.
Dribble why eye-ball when you can use the BoM’s new data exploration tool and overlay trends?
Here is the Cape Otway data which shows a warming of 1C over the last century.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=meanT&area=vic&station=090015&dtype=raw&period=annual&ave_yr=T
BTW as Garth’s piece hit the press the southeast experienced it most extreme early spring heatwave on record.
Very handy tool david; I’ll match your Cape Otway and call;
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=meanT&area=nsw&station=061055&dtype=raw&period=annual&ave_yr=T
you’ll be pleased to hear that 55 global personalities (Bishop Tutu and all the regulars) are about to re record Midnight Oil’s “Beds are Burning” to promote climate change ahead of the Copenhagen Summit.
sheeesh – How to ruin a perfectly good song.
Bishop Tutu and Peter Garrett would make a lovely couple. Both are in show business.
Very handy tool david; I’ll match your Cape Otway and call;
Why don’t you go through them all, and tell me what the overall trend is? I think I can guess what the answer will be.
Very handy tool david; I’ll match your Cape Otway and call;
david was responding to a typical denialist error: “eyeballing” a graph, coming to a wrong conclusion. (the one, that fits into your believes. real sceptics..)
you reply to him, by making another typical denialist error: cherry picking a random station, that (again) fits into your believes. (real sceptic)
“Very handy tool david; I’ll match your Cape Otway and call”. It is fun to play when you have a stacked deck. Give up Co ers, the odds are not with you, you are out of aces and picture cards. And by the way, your little example ( n=1) only works for mean temps – mins have gone up about a degree since you were a boy. Your next card will be Jerrys Plains up the catchment – same story. Give up – stick to your usual befuddled obfuscations.
“…..Here is the Cape Otway data which shows a warming of 1C over the last century…….” david September 15th, 2009 at 8:34 am.
Very handy — but a bit puzzling.
Here we have the Annual Mean Temperature series for Cape Otway:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=meanT&area=vic&station=090015&dtype=raw&period=annual&ave_yr=2
But here also we have the Annual Mean Temperature series for Cape Otway:
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/37.shtml
Both carry the imprimatur of the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology, but have little else in common, particularly the divergence at the end of the series.
Adjustments were made to ‘correct’ the data before about 1910 — what other ‘corrections’ have been made to this and other series?
Also, how can they produce a T time series for Hamilton Airport (for instance) dating back to 1910, when according to their ‘Climate Statistics for Australian locations’ the location commenced in 1983?
According to http://www.warwickhughes.com/ cru86/, this is the ‘Average of 25 Regional and Remote Stations’:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/tasdig91b.jpg
P.S.
Apparently the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology endorse this artifice:
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/50.shtml
I would say cohenite runs rings around all of you tossers.
You’re still arguing with him whether or not there’s any warming.!!!!
When are you going to get around to proving CO2 causes warming.
Proving ACO2 causes warming.
Iv’e been waiting for years.
As Luke would say “You got nuttin.”
Using David’s very interesting site ( thx David), it certainly does appear, from a quick look at a dozen sites, that the temp trend is very much as stated….up. I notice interestingly that the site also allows us to look at cloud cover, in each instance cloud cover has been declining, whilst temp increases. Since one would assume less cloud = more sun= more heat…what is driving the reduction in cloud cover? Cosmic rays? co2?
bazza, you would be Moe in the little tripod of yourself, will and sod so I’ll answer you since you are the most dangerous; there has indeed been some increases in minimum temperature since I was a boy; Jerrys Plains is a case in point; In the 30 year period from 1891-1920 the average maximum temperature was 26.3C and the average minimum, 9.8C; in the 30 year period from 1971-2000 the average maximum temperature was 24.8C and the average minimum 10.9C. So, in that ~ 100 year period maximum temperatures decreased by 1.5C and minimum temperatures increased by 1.1C. Isn’t that amazing, it just has to be AGW. But we don’t know whether there has been a change in TOM or what; one thing is certain and that is AGW predicts an increase in maximum temperature as well as minimum, so chalk up another dud prediction from AGW; as for minimum increases I believe it was little sod who lectured me on the UHI effect being more pronounced at night when the minimum is likely to occur so that UHI effect will have to be factored in since Jerrys Plains is now a thriving metropolis; or maybe its all those rich hobby farmers at Jerrys causing the increase in temperature during the night since we now know that agriculture has an UHI effect;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/impacts-of-land-use-land-cover-change-on-climate/
Some stacked deck you boys have; more like not the full quid.
Lukey: “Quick Dribble dikc – rush to publish – your “global” discovery after examining point o o piddles-worth of the Earth’s surface.”
After you Lukey, ladies first. I’m still waiting for your promised peer-reviewed expose destroying Steve McIntyre to appear in Nature The Magazine. Whats it been now, three weeks and no sign of publication? Could we at least have some hints of what its all about, a few teasers for us to munch on?
Cohors, its the rainfall, stupid. Temp trends are more likely to be down in those parts of Australia ( approx including your patch as I recall) where the rainfall trend was a bit up. I new you would play the UHI. You are so predictable. So what is left up your sleeve.?
Or maybe move on from playing silly point games and check the whole deck ie the maps.
Thanks David for pointing out the ‘trend tool’. There does appear to be a trend at Cape Otway Lighthouse which my easily fooled eyeball dismally failed to notice. However the tool only works for the allegedly High Quality Climate Sites, of which there are few. In order to check out what the possible urban heat/land use effect might be I think you need to look at all of the rural/semi-rural stations that have some data in them.
For example, I wanted to compare Cape Otway Lighthouse with a nearby site, Aireys Inlet but could not. Aireys Inlet 90180 is a coastal site to the east of Cape Otway. It has undergone large scale buildup of houses over the last 20-30 years due to ‘sea change’ types moving to the coast. Unfortunately this site is not in the High Quality Climate Site Data. Although the data for this site only starts at 1992, it has a pronounced trend in the maximum temps. I will not guess how much but it is clearly greater than Cape Otway. If you look at the minimums for the same site, the trend is much flatter.
I am not sure how ‘high quality’ these ‘high quality’ sites actually are. The entry for Geelong Airport 87163 in the high quality trend tool shows data running from 1910 approx to 2008. This appears to be a fit-up, since the weather station at Geelong Airport only dates from 1992. Before that weather stations were at different sites around Geelong. To find them lumped together in the trend graph I find highly disconcerting. The real data trend for Geelong Airport only runs from 1992 to the present and appears much steeper to me. I will have to look at this issue in more detail.
I have checked a number of sites around Victoria and found that as a general rule the maximum trend is greater than the minimum. In most cases the minimum trend is reasonably flat, or for example around Horsham, actually reducing. The stations I looked at were:
Western Victoria:
Kerang 80023
Longerenong 79028
Horsham Polkemmet Rd 79023
Warracknabeal Museum 78077
Eastern Victoria:
Latrobe Valley Airport 85280
East Sale Airport 85072
Bairnsdale Airport 85279
I also looked some Queensland sites
Low Isles Lighthouse 31037
Sth Johnson 32037
Townsville Aero 32040
Ingham Composite 32078
Cardwell Marine Pde 32004
The last site Cardwell Marine Pde has a strange history in which the maximum temps are going down and the minimums are going up. Why don’t ask me. The Qld sites generally seem to show a greater trend in the minimums. Cairns and Townsville Aero both show minimum trend similar to the maximum trend.
The AGW consensus appears to be that land use/urban effects are negligible. However the general impression I get from looking at the graphs is that it is in fact large and ubiquitous. It could be argued for example in the lower latitudes it cools down enough at night to obviate the land use effect, thus the actual AGW warming trend is represented by the minimum trend. At higher latitudes, it does not cool down enough to completely eliminate the land use/urban effect, thus some of it still shows up in the minimum trend.
These speculations might be completely erroneous of course, but it is quite interesting given that land use/urban issues appear to rank amongst the more shoddier items in the AGW grab bag of shonk.
Yeah sure bazza; there are so many wacky things happening in the Australian temperature history that AGW certainty is quaint; Lowe has a look at some of them;
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/
The comments in the 4th section are interesting in respect of Tmin.
Cohors, spare me from Lowe. A statistician proffering their star sign – I rest my case.
There’s another data diddle by the BOM with the King Island Airport 98017 trend graph in the ‘high quality annual temperature network’ page. This shows a trend going for the full century as well. Look up King Island Airport 98017 in the online data pages and you find that this site has data only from 1996. The trend graph is another composite fitup, and thus is worthless. Is it too early to pronounce fraud at this stage?
dribble dabbles “The trend graph is another composite fitup, and thus is worthless. ” Dribble is in the not unusual situation of making judgements about stuff that he knows naught, let alone being able to value it. He could at least have the basic decency to understand the rigorous procedures used to produce composites and to keep the legacy data going. The only fraudsters are those who know the answer before they ask the question.
“Dribble is in the not unusual situation of making judgements about stuff that he knows naught,”
and
“rigorous procedures”
“legacy data”;
well done bazza, some of the more florid hyperbolic AGW clap-trap; makes a change from the robotic binary of sod and will; with luke adopting the crazed banshee routine you lot will be able to do the entertainment at Jimmy Hansen’s xmas party.
I hope Jen won’t mind for very cross posting but here is my response to Harry Clarke’s fatuous PPt at his Blog, which hardly anybody reads, unlike Jen’s.
“hc: brilliant ppt – except you fail to explain why there is no evident “warming” at Mauna Loa, Cape Grim, and Pt Barrow (Alaska) where the [CO2] is actually measured. ALL your warming trends derive from airports or peri/urban locations where there has been growing use of Energy (allowing Work and producing Heat).
Like Ross Garnaut last night, you rabbit on about ‘mainstream science’, would that be the same ‘mainstream’ (including the Royal Society) that for 40 years denied John Harrison’s claim to have produced a chronometer that could be used to determine longitude? Claimed rising vapours from the Thames caused London’s cholera? Was that the same mainstream including dear David Livingstone and of course the Royal Soc. that thought malaria was also caused by rising “vapours” until Ronald Ross noticed how getting rid of mosquito larvae from a bucket outside at his rooms in Bangalore reduced his mossy bites and chances of malaria? Or the mainstream of Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Soc., after whom absolute temperature is named, who opined c 1896 that “heavier than air” flight would NEVER be possible.
The trouble with Harry is that you have a totally conventional mind, have never read Galbraith or much of anybody else for that matter, and swallow any old garbage from carpetbaggers of the IPCC like Will Steffen and Ian Enting.
I have challenged you repeatedly to explain why there is NO evidence of global warming at Mauna Loa, Cape Grim, or Pt Barrow, where the rising [CO2] is measured. Where rising Temperatures are evident they are ALWAY exclusively the result of rising energy usage. Clearly you are so pisspoor that you have yet to acquire Eric Beinhocker’s book the Origins of Wealth. As clearly you never will, you will never understand why I have you HC in my sights for criminal proceedings for dissemination of false and misleading information in your Power
Point presentation.’
I hope cohenite will agree to serve as my counsel.
Sure Tim; nothing gets a person’s attention like a Statement of Claim/Originating Process.
Just bear in mind Voltaire’s experience that he was ruined but twice; once when he lost a trial, the second when he won.
bazza: “Dribble is in the not unusual situation of making judgements about stuff that he knows naught, let alone being able to value it. He could at least have the basic decency to understand the rigorous procedures used to produce composites and to keep the legacy data going.”
Perhaps the BOM could have the basic decency to label their fake graphs as composites with data rigorously fitted up to sell the user the story that BOM wants to sell. This would enable the user to make his own judgment about how ‘high quality’ (chortle) these sites actually are. As it is set up now, a naive user coming in to the BOM ‘high quality temperature data’ website but having no local knowledge of the temperature station they are looking at, will automatically assume that ‘Geelong Airport’ has a continuous 100 year record.
Unless the BOM have the basic decency to do label their graphs accurately, it is clearly a fraud in anybody’s book except of course an AGW believer to whom all frauds in the name of AGW promotion are okay.
Please, if you may, direct me to a description of how this rigorous data diddling is done. According to the BOM list of stations in the Geelong area, the nearest station to Geelong Airport that has 1900-1950 data is Queenscliff, which is about 25km away from the airport and on the coast. So what are you saying? They match up a bit of overlap and presto, a continuous record is acheived? I must confess I have never heard of this before. Buts thats part of the fun of being a climate watcher. You get to see a new form of shonk from the AGW believers every week.
For the Geelong area the following weather stations are shown:
Geelong Salines 87023, 1951-1955
Geelong Airport 87163, 1992 – present
Point Wilson 87166, 1995 – 2007
Avalon Airport 87113, 1995 – present
Queenscliff 87054, 1900 – 1965
Looking at the 1900-1965 maximum temps data for Queenscliff, it clearly does not match the composite Geelong Airport max temp trend graph for that period. There is a pronounced downspike in the trend graph at approx 1924 that is not shown in the Queenscliff data. There is a similar downspike in approx 1955 that is not shown in the Queenscliff data.
What is the mystery weather station used to diddle the 1900-1960 Geelong Airport trend graph? Don’t ask me. Where did they get the 1965- 1992 data from? Don’t ask me. Can you help bazza?
Phew – just back from a date with a hot witch that I ran into at the collective coven meeting. And I come back to find Bazza bending a bit of pipe on the brothers. What can one say. Very messy. Not pretty. Certainly seems to have set off Coho’s hull breach alert.
Wonder how the temperature is going in – regional/western Queensland. God’s own country of course.
AGW Coho – it’s just like the Matrix. You are Neo
Morpheus: I imagine that right now, you’re feeling a bit like Alice. Hmm? Tumbling down the rabbit hole?
Neo: You could say that.
Morpheus: I see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up. Ironically, that’s not far from the truth. Do you believe in fate, Neo?
Neo: No.
Morpheus: Why not?
Neo: Because I don’t like the idea that I’m not in control of my life.
Morpheus: I know *exactly* what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is, but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I’m talking about?
Neo: The Matrix.
Morpheus: Do you want to know what it is?
Neo: Yes.
Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work… when you go to church… when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.
I have answered my own question re the mystery weather stations used in the ‘Geelong Airport’ trend graph composite. They appear to be Geelong SEC 87025 (SEC probably as in State Electricity Commission) which ran from 1900-1970 and Norlane 87117 which ran from 1971-1995. They do not appear in the Geelong area list but I knew they were about somewhere. They appear to have done the splice by the simple method of adjusting the temp series up or down to match the joinup points.
In any case the trend for the whole century for this site, bogus or otherwise, does not address the issue I raised concerning land use/urban heat. The time period to look at for this site in my opinion is really in the last 20-30 years or so during which most of the modern buildup near this site has occurred. This appears to be reflected in the rapid rise in temperature at this site from 1992 to the present. To look at this issue more closely I would need to document the suburban buildup near the site in more detail.
Re the composite trend graphs, Laverton RAAF is also a composite. The Laverton RAAF station only has data from about 1944 but the whole century trend is shown in the trend graph.
Lukey:” Morpheus: I imagine that right now, you’re feeling a bit like Alice. Hmm? Tumbling down the rabbit hole?
Neo: You could say that.”
Don’ t you know, grasshopper, that the World is the Matrix? Everything is programmed into being by the alien overlords. You too Lukey are a small version of Neo. One day, if you are not dead by then, you too will learn to fly.
And so Dribble dick took the blue pill and ended up in his bed believing whatever he wanted to …
Gee Dribblers – on your your UHI issue you could and Duh ! (a) use stations away from all this UHI stuff (b) not use the land series data
And gee if you do – the answer is about the same. About now you’ll be reading something in the paper about global cooling (but how do you know?)
Should have taken the red pill !
Luke wrote:
That’s true if, and only if, you use “homggenised” data – data that has been “adjusted” using the surrounding stations (up to 1200km away, remember). It’s hardly surprising that, for example, the average of 10 very similar things is hardly changed by dropping one and taking the average of 9 very similar things. This is similar to Mann et al claiming that the hockey stick was “robust” to removal of any proxy – when you have multiple copies of the same data and take an average of them, it’s not gonna change because you remove one copy! And when those proxies are data mined (eg only about 10% of varve thickness/density series “match” historical temperature data and are used as a proxy – the rest are not even archived, the data is just thrown away!) for correlation to temperature, it’s hardly surprising that the resultant average matches the instrumenal record quite well – that was the basis of their selection in the first place! Nor is it surprising that the series from pre-instrumental times is a flat line that goes against historical evidence that we have climate variability – if you care to check, you’ll notice that the individual proxies in such studies are all over the shop; some show a particular decade as warming, other show the same deade cooling, but they average to a flat line. Just as you’d expect from random noise.
As before: data mining without the caveats – IOW, post hoc selection of proxies based on correlation – is putting yourself on a very slender branch and wildly swinging the running chainsaw around and sooner or later, you will inadvertantly cut that branch from under yourself. Adding “real” temperature data that has been “homogenised” and averaged and then performing stats on the resultant mess without even bothering to try and correct for the false correlations you *must*, mathematically, get from such procedures is frankly well beyond disturbing when done by people who claim to be scientists. That they subsequently totally ignore the errors when they are pointed out to them shows their true colours – they are activists, pure and simple. There is no other explaination for such shoddy and sloppy practices.
My observation from davids BOM link regarding cloud cover decreasing at the same time as temp is rising, was follwoed by a question-” what is coausing cloud cover to decrease?”
Nobody has responded so i had a quick look around and found the following from Time
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912448,00.html
They state that- “Getting data on cloud cover isn’t easy. There is reliable information from satellites, but those only go back a few decades — not long enough to provide a reliable forecast for the future. Clement and her colleagues combined recent satellite data with human observations — literally, from sailors scanning the sky — that go back to 1952, and found the two sets were surprisingly in sync. “It’s pretty remarkable,” says Clement. “We were almost shocked by the degree of concordance.”
The data showed that as the Pacific Ocean has warmed over the past several decades — part of the gradual process of global warming — low-level cloud cover has lessened. That might be due to the fact that as the earth’s surface warms, the atmosphere becomes more unstable and draws up water vapor from low altitudes to form deep clouds high in the sky. (Those types of high-altitude clouds don’t have the same cooling effect.) The Science study also found that as the oceans warmed, the trade winds — the easterly surface winds that blow near the equator — weakened, which further dissipated the low clouds.”
Now i wonder which came first? Why do they leap at the diminished cloud cover being a result of rising temperatures, rather than rising temperatures being a result of diminished cloud cover? Is this their inherent bias or ?
Neil, stand easy. And Dribble too, if you want to know what the Bureau do, ask them. But I doubt they would bother with people who have been so immunised against disconfirming evidence agin their underlying beliefs, and are rude too boot.
bazza wrote:
To what end, bazza? When I see (after several people have pointed it out) that these people are building a house of cards, should I not ask for justification of their methods? For clear and concise descriptions of their assumptions? For the “raw” data? Isn’t it the standard practice in science to propose a theory, present supporting evidence and then let other try to “tear it apart”? Why would you defend those who: hide data and methods; issue press releases that distort their findings; denigrate those who try to replicate their work as “incompetent” and/or “shills”? How does any of this advance our understanding of an extremely complicated subject?
You may appeal to authority if you so desire, but fair warning: such logical falacies are anti-science.
OK Neil – OK throw all the land series data out – ocean tells you similar story. Yawn ! As do satellites – yawn !
Many scoff at the theory of cosmic rays influencing climate, but there is a lot of science around to support the theory.
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/09/low-cloud-cover-link-to-solar-modulated.html
discusses some papers that deny the link…and then throws water on them.
Watts has an interesting link as well, for those who have not looked at other threads in teh past on this topic
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/a-link-between-the-sun-cosmic-rays-aerosols-and-liquid-water-clouds-appears-to-exist-on-a-global-scale/.
Luke wrote:
No Luke, it is quite wrong to “throw out” such data – it needs to be kept, we just need to recognise the limitations of it. Same with ocean data – there is not a consistent method of data collection, the data is sparse except for recent measurements of very limited timespan (for global air temps, sat. data has issues too, but at least it’s not sparse. For sea temp data, argo has issues too, but at least it has reasonable coverage and consistent technique) and I repeat NO method (statistical or otherwise) can extract a signal from below the noise without BOTH a good a priori idea of the “signal” waveform and a good model of the noise – for climate, we have neither. We therefore have no reason to believe that this “signal” is real, rather than an artifact – perhaps a measurement artifact, or perhaps a processing artifact, or some combination thereof. If you have evidence it’s NOT an artifact, I’d like to see it.
The claim, which is often made, that the surface series and satellite series to all intents and purposes correspond, is false.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2010/trend/offset:-0.075/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2000/trend/offset:0.22/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2010/trend/offset:0.13
It will be interesting to see if the divergence continues.
Morpheus: “Should have taken the red pill !””
I cant remember which pill did which, it was so long ago. Whatever you do, don’t take the nutmeg pill, thats a really bad trip.
While on the subject of composite graphs, I looked up the location of the Geelong SEC weather station on Google Earth. The longitude value given by BOM places it in the sea in Corio Bay. So much for ‘high-quality temperature data’, they can’t even find their own weather station.
In the Geelong Airport splice-up, Geelong SEC (if not in the sea) and Norlane stations are long term urban stations being spliced onto Geelong Airport. This was a rural area prior to the time of its existence. This probably accounts for the strangely misshapen temperature graph.
This ‘high quality temperature data’ business by the BOM gives the impression of being some sort of PR and marketing exercise. Its purpose seems to be little more than to provide AGW dilettantes with the opportunity to play with trend tools. Three out of four sites I have checked so far are composites. I’m encouraged to investigate the ‘high quality temperature site’ business further to check out how many sites in the series are actually real and how many are fake.
This Google Earth thing is pretty groovy. While looking at Avalon Airport I have discovered how amazingly artistic the saltworks layout is next to the airport. You can drive past this site and never know it is there.
Well here’s link to one gentleman’s view on AGW:
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/Rutan.AGWdataAnalysis v11.pdf
He’s had a lot of experience at data analysis where it really counts and he’s even a bit of a greenie/alternative energy/energy efficiency fan.
I’m sending this to my local federal member.
Eyrie, I can t get the link to work?
Neil F – I’ll try again – if you don’t think the land series data are good enough. – Well – try 2 independent ocean temp data sets in a PC analysis which simply ordinates the major data trends – and what do we see – a spatially coherent global upward trend centennial signal, PC2 is IPO like , PC3 is AMO like – and golly gee willickers – how utterly surprising is all this (NOT !).
It’s compelling and as Folland himself said – about as simple an analysis as one could do.
A bloody big global centennial signal is PC1.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008411.shtml
And gee willickers – it basically also tells the long term land story. Well who would have thought that aye?
When do we move on (yawn yawn yawn)
To something much more concerning like Timbal and the STR strength
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/researchletters/CAWCR_Research_Letters2.pdf
Come on Toby – suck it up – bit of innovation – do a nibble job on the URL
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/
But as for the comments – barf – just more recycled doggy doo – slide 10 = we’re baaacckk in Beck and CO2 levels – I mean pull-lease – I’m not going to bother reading rat dirt like that.
You could spend all day rebutting this sort of crap. If you don’t know by now you never will.
And it drones on and on through the usual sludge and bunk.
So prior to Mauna Loa and the many other global networks that carefully monitor CO2 levels at remote locations we see a very slow and regular pattern. We’re led to believe that prior to that it was all over the shop and massive CO2 fluxes mysteriously appeared and disappeared.
Tell us who’s your member Eyrie – I think I’ll write tell him what utter horseshit all this is !
In the BOM HQ data set there are 134 temperature sites. Of these 53 are genuine century long site specific temperature sets. The rest are cut and paste jobs. Can any of the resident trolls explain to me precisely what use is this HQ set except for PR purposes?
The list of genuine sites is as follows:
04020 MARBLE BAR COMPARISON
04035 ROEBOURNE
09510 BRIDGETOWN COMPARISON
09518 CAPE LEEUWIN
09519 CAPE NATURALISTE
10073 KELLERBERRIN
10092 MERREDIN
10579 KATANNING COMPARISON
12074 SOUTHERN CROSS
26026 ROBE COMPARISON
28004 PALMERVILLE
30018 GEORGETOWN POST OFFICE
30045 RICHMOND POST OFFICE
32004 CARDWELL MARINE PDE
32025 INNISFAIL
36007 BARCALDINE POST OFFICE
37010 CAMOOWEAL TOWNSHIP
38003 BOULIA AIRPORT
39039 GAYNDAH POST OFFICE
39085 SANDY CAPE LIGHTHOUSE
40043 CAPE MORETON LIGHTHOUSE
40126 MARYBOROUGH
44010 BOLLON MARY ST
44026 CUNNAMULLA POST OFFICE
46037 TIBBOBURRA POST OFFICE
46043 WILCANNIA (REID SREET)
47007 BROKEN HILL (PATTON STREET)
55023 GUNNEDAH POOL
56032 TENTERFIELD (FEDERATION PARK)
58012 YAMBA PILOT STATION
58037 LISMORE (CENTRE STREET)
60026 PORT MACQUARIE (HILL STREET)
61055 NEWCASTLE NOBBYS SIGNAL STATION
61086 JERRYS PLAINS POST OFFICE
63005 BATHURST AGRICULTURAL STATION
66062 SYDNEY (OBSERVATORY HILL)
68034 JERVIS BAY (POINT PERPENDICULAR LIGHTHOUSE)
69018 MORUYA HEADS PILOT STATION
74128 DENILIQUIN (WILKINSON STREET)
75031 HAY (MILLER STREET)
78031 NHILL
80015 ECHUCA AERODROME
80023 KERANG POST OFFICE
82002 BENALLA (SHADFORTH STREET)
82039 RUTHERGLEN RESEARCH
83025 OMEO COMPARISON
84016 GABO ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE
85096 WILSONS PROMONTORY LIGHTHOUSE
86071 MELBOURNE REGIONAL OFFICE
88043 MARYBOROUGH
89002 BALLARAT AERODROME
90015 CAPE OTWAY LIGHTHOUSE
94029 HOBART (ELLERSLIE ROAD)
More errors in the BOM database:
If you go to the Weather Station Directory in the Climate pages, you can get a list of Victorian weather stations. Geelong SEC 87025 is shown as opening in Jan 1964 and closing in Jun 1970. According to the on-line database this station runs from 1870 to 1970.
The co-ordinates given for the Norlane site place it very near a large SEC transformer station. Is the Norlane 87117 site actually the Geelong SEC site supposedly located offshore in Corio Bay? The mystery continues.
Luke wrote:
Ah Luke, if only it were that simple! You will notice that they use sea surface temps.
If you look at this:
http://www.ogs.trieste.it/show/UploadFile/file.aspx?IdFile=60&IdUniversity=2
You will see that they compare (remote) SST vs (in situ) Argo buoy data, and you will notice that there is a warm bias in the SST data – the error differences are higher in summer than winter. This indicates to me that what the SSTs are seeing is a thin surface layer that is heating due to increased insolation (less cloud cover, perhaps?). If this carries over into long term trends and is valid globally as well (assumptions, but not unreasonable, I think), and Spencer is correct that cloud cover is a forcing rather than a feedback (ie, warming is caused by less clouds, rather than warming causing fewer clouds), then… well, it’s obvious, isn’t it?
In any case, it’s also apparent that even Argo data is insufficient ATM – even after “correction” (which is likely a valid correction, IMO) the negative trend (note: LOWER temps over time, although quite a short record to date), which is not statistically significant in any case, is pushing the limits of resolution and accuracy of the sensors. We are, once again, “in the noise” – and you will note that I point this out for data that seems to show AGW theory is incorrect.
While this:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/global-temperature-report-august-2009-from-the-university-of-alabama-at-huntsville/
shows how much “warming” we have seen recently – you will notice that there are areas that show (some) cooling, and areas that show (some) warming. If I just pick the cooling areas, would you not call me on it? Of course you would, and rightly so – I am simply returning the favour.
And this:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/temporal-trends-in-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-maximum-and-minimum-areal-extents/
shows how much the “ice is melting”. Interesting that one – it shows not only that the minimum ice extent is arriving earlier, but also the maximum ice extent is arriving earlier – something which is conveniently ignored by those who promote the alarmism. “Oooh, ice is melting earlier – it’s AGW!!!”, just take no notice of the man behind the curtain hiding the fact that maximum extents are *also* coming earlier, NOT later as AGW says it should. Check on ice extent, and you will notice that 2009 is ~500,000km3 over 2008, which is in turn ~500,000km3 over the record low of 2007 – such record low, according to NASA, being caused by WIND, not temperature changes (hardly surprising really – it rarely gets above 0C anyway!), and in any case the “lowest ever” ice extent is less than 30 years – so “weather” not “climate”, right?
You see Luke, the alarmists are cherry picking the bits that support their agenda – and why not, eh? After all, they know it’s the political arguement, not a scientific one, that they need to win. That’s why I’m a “denier” or a “delayer” or have a “vested interest” – in politics, trashing the reputation of your opponent is a valid and much used tactic. In science, it’s usually considered bad form – better to destroy them using replicable data and cold hard logic. At the moment, as I have said before, there is insufficient data to draw any robust conclusions from, and it’s not hard to find papers published by long term climate researchers that say the exact opposite of each other – which indicates to me that the “debate”, such as it is, is a hell of a long way from being over; it’s only just started. When (if) we have data that rises above the noise, I will start paying attention.
NOAA has just brought out their latest figures (after leaving out some valuable data) and Australia was hot.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/16/noaa-warmest-global-sea-surface-temperatures-for-august-and-summer/#more-10897
El Gordo
Well, Perth seems to have had the wettest september ever, according to Curtin FM news on Saturday. Din’t Tim Flannery prophesise we would be out of water and a ghost town within a year or so? And it’s pretty cool for spring as well.