The allegations by British mathematician Douglas J Keenan concern the following 2 papers co-authored by Wei-Chyung Wang, a professor at the University at Albany, State University of New York:
Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. (1990), “Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land”, Nature, 347: 169-172.
Wang W.-C., Zeng Z., Karl T.R. (1990), “Urban heat islands in China”, Geophysical Research Letters, 17: 2377-2380.
The pdf of Keenan’s report is here and an appraisal is here.
The report concludes:
First, there has been a marked lack of integrity in some important work on global warming that is relied upon by the IPCC. Second, the insignificance of urbanization effects on temperature measurements has not been established as reliably as the IPCC assessment report assumes.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Far from convinced – his critique is far from a scientific rebuttal. It’s rambling and anecdotal.
He hasn’t alerted the reader that the Jones paper is only one piece of UHI evidence in the 4AR. Look yourselves ! No comment on Li paper for example or other papers.
His 2007 dates are confusing in his own text. They seem out of order.
He has implied Wang has used certain data sets but hasn’t quoted so exactly nor proved it precisely. He’s trying at great distance to work out who has done what and when in the various analyses. This is the critical part of the whole argument.
The bit at the end about the cultural revolution is drivel. How come anything of value in China survived the revolution? Jeez.
So yep the issue does look a bit odd – but I’d want to see more before you formally drop a charge of fraud on a bloke.
Keenan better be right. If he’s not Wang should sue him into the Stone Age. I wouldn’t like to take Keenan’s phone calls either – seems a tad creepy to me.
Actually it’s straight forward. Wang claimed that he only used observation stations that had long records without disruption (84 I think) in his study which dismissed urban heat islands but Keenan points that more than one-third of these sites had in fact been relocated.
In some cases the stations were moved from the side of the town in the direction of the prevailing wind to the opposite side (and in other cases vice versa).
In other words Wang’s claims are either knowingly or unknowingly dishonest and the whole question of urban heat islands is open to question. (Actually there’s no question at all – it has been shown to exist!)
Add to that the effect of the Russians closing about 7,000 observation stations after the collapse of the soviet uniion. Most of these were in the coldest parts of the country, thereby shifting the mean global temperature upwards.
And of course more observing stations being established in warmer areas which were of little interest in the past, or relatively inaccessible.
Some years ago, I carried out a research project which involved collating and processing data from a world wide network of observing stations.
Almost all of the work involved sorting out data shifts which occurred when observing stations were moved. To the observer manning the station, this did not make much difference years ago, but to me, it caused enormous difficulties. So since then I have been very sceptical of any number which is claimed to represent a global average, and in particular when time series are involved.
John
Luke has already mentioned this effect, and, IIRC, it is pretty well counterbalanced by the law of means. On average, as many would have been moved upwind or vice versa, meaning a net effect of 0.
On average, as many would have been moved upwind or vice versa, meaning a net effect of 0.
Over time there are more and larger UHIs thus on average there is a greater likeyhood of UHIs influencing stations.
Over time there are more monitoring stations thus on average there is a greater likeyhood of UHI effects influencing stations.
It amuses me greatly to see all this ongoing crap about UHI’s and global averages.
Anyone could resolve the issue of global warming by referring to only a small set of numbers such was we get from baseline stations like Cape Grim. Let’s say again we need just a handful of records from BoM.
I refer to this station in particular because of its dedicated LOCATION re air pollution and CO2 monitoring. Recent air stream patterns at this latitude are proof of its importance in climate science above the major oceans.
http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/cgbaps/met_data.shtml
Note: 1) there are plenty of other Tasmanian weather stations such as sea ports and costal airports with long term records with out significant UHI interference to compare with this later station.
Note: 2) from personal experience in remote sensing, Rosemount RTD transducers and sensors were robust and accurate from their earliest importation to Australia.
However there was another view from a well known AGW sceptic and business writer
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/exchange.pdf
howz that hey?
If we were that bothered why depend on our hospitals and their clinical thermometers for measuring progress of a nasty fever. What system gives us the ‘normal’ and is it universal?
We don’t calibrate a clinical thermometer by testing some one on their good day inbetween.
If you read Keenan’s clearly-written report, it is obvious that Wang committed fraud. What that means for Urban Heat Islands is much less certain. I think that the real issue here is lack of scientific integrity.
We visited evidence of IPCC WG1 bias previously:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002153.html
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/06/20/documentation-of-ipcc-wg1-bias-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-and-dallas-staley-part-i/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/06/25/additional-evidence-on-the-bias-in-the-ipcc-wg1-report-on-the-assessment-of-near-surface-air-temperature-trends/
John – “In other words Wang’s claims are either knowingly or unknowingly dishonest and the whole question of urban heat islands is open to question. (Actually there’s no question at all – it has been shown to exist!)”
Absolute rubbish. This is not a court of law where reasonable doubt is sufficient. In case you have not been listening there is no doubt in any of the literature that that urban heat island effects exists. What has shown to be true in many different studies much later than Wang’s that the UHI does not affect the surface temperature record to any large degree.
It only strengthens the case that McIntyre and his crew are only interested in doubt and spreading this doubt far and wide with slanderous and unproven claims of fraud.
Scientific fraud is a VERY serious charge not to be taken lightly. This person better be very sure of his facts. Mind you Jennifer, as a scientist yourself, you should be really careful what is posted like this. There could be legal ramifications from being involved with a false charge of fraud.
Well we probably have to discuss what’s fraud and what’s simply an error too. Surely errors occur in science that are simply mistakes not fraudulent activity. Not saying what has occurred here with Wang etc.
Luke – “Well we probably have to discuss what’s fraud and what’s simply an error too”
Absolutely which makes jumping to claims of fraud a bit premature and may be completely wrong.
We have to be so careful about proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that AGW exists, but accusations of fraud are a dime a dozen, with no requirement that the accused gets a chance to defend themselves.
“Four coalition backbenchers have questioned the link between human activity and global warming, saying Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Neptune are also warming up.”
Talk about cherry picking at it’s finest? What about the other planets in the solar system? Why are they warming?
John Howard agrees with me, they’re wrong.
“We have to be so careful about proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that AGW exists…”.
SJT, I am not a scientist, but in my humble opinion, I think you may have the process a..e about (assuming you are a scientist).
In fact, that statement neatly sums up the reason for my disquiet about AGW ‘science’.
Luke, SJT and Ender are doing their standard vaudeville shuffle to avoid the issue.
Fraud goes to issues of fact, not of opinion. And if Wang has made statements of fact that have since been found to be false then they are misstatements of fact.
The test of fraud is;
1 There must be a misstatement
2 The misstatement must be one of fact, not opinon
3 The statement must be made with the intention that others might act upon it
4 The statement must be made with a knowledge of its untruth (or a lack of belief in its truth) and
5 Others must act upon the misstatement to their detriment.
As the Chinese data sets make up the third portion of the historical records used to justify the claims of global warming over the past century then it is clear that Wang’s misstatements have been acted upon by others.
Frankly, Ender’s prattle “..that McIntyre and his crew are only interested in doubt and spreading this doubt far and wide with slanderous and unproven claims of fraud” is more than just a bit rich given that “McIntyre and his crew” have recently succeeded in getting the entire USA record revised to such an extent that we now know that current high temperatures are ENTIRELY within the historical range of variation.
“unproven claims of fraud” indeed, you sleazy propagandista.
After 70 years of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere(cue pictures of steam rising from power stations) and concentrations rising by 80ppm, the temperature in the USA has not risen!
Oh goody numb nuts is back from tree strangling. Looks like he’s off the medication again too.
As my barrister likes to say – let’s turn the meter off for a quick chat.
Looks like Motty’s been having a few cafe lattes too – gone up market with “propagandista”. oooo what devastating repartee. What invective. I reckon putting the sleazy in was a good move actually. But I have been hanging out for a bit alliteration myself. You know a bit of the old dapple dawn drawn falcon but with a dogs returning to their vomit theme. Or a triumphant trio of rhetorical abuse. Tell ya the truth though I’ve missed ya. It’s been pretty boring here – too much sciencey stuff – and we were all starting to heal over – as we haven’t had a full ream out from you in days.
Anyway – all gossip aside and back to it – ya got nothing. Put up your evidence in detail. It’s all hearsay I say.
chrisl – well it wouldn’t have gone up would it – they’ve got air-conditioning haven’t they. I mean “duh”.
Ian Mott – “given that “McIntyre and his crew” have recently succeeded in getting the entire USA record revised to such an extent that we now know that current high temperatures are ENTIRELY within the historical range of variation.”
Oh yes Ian they have changed it 0.01° – wow what an achievement. However they have achieved their objective of injecting doubt as you are demonstrating with your wild claims that “succeeded in getting the entire USA record revised to such an extent that we now know that current high temperatures are ENTIRELY within the historical range of variation”
There have been NO temperatures in the record like the ones for the last decade – unfortunately McIntyre could not find enough errors to make this so. I guess he will have to keep digging.
BTW I look forward to McIntyre’s audit of Spencer, Roy W.; Braswell, William D.; Christy, John R.; Hnilo, Justin (2007) Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 34, No. 15, L15707. I am sure there are some juicy statistics just waiting to be audited here. No wait – just got a message from Climate Audit – this paper is supportive of the case against AGW so automatically it must contain correct statistics – no audit needed.
Ender – it’s quite fascinating the Macca only audits one side. Given all these solar hypotheses – they can’t all be correct – wonder if the cosmic dudes have shipped off all their data to Steve for a quick audit. And given Christy and Spencer can’t calibrate their own sateliite measurements maybe we need a congressional inquiry or two. Maybe there’s an organised campaign of dishonesty that needs outing. There seems to be a closed club of checking involved here – might need to map their social network. I mean – McIntyre surely is even handed isn’t he?
Nice try fellas, but 1934 was the warmest year on record in the USA, was it not? And five of the top 10 years in the US record were in the period from 1921 to 1939, were they not? And was this revealed after the revisions by McIntyre? Yes.
So we have recent studies that indicate that the USA and Greenland have had warmer periods last century than at present and that records from the USSR and China are far too suss to rely on.
Add to that the variances that Arnost has highlighted between NASA/GISS and BoM records and who knows what sort of creative fiction Hansen has conjured up for Africa, Southern Asia and parts of Latin America and that makes all the room for doubt that reasonable men and women will ever need.
But what do we get from our little band of blog bandidos? We get the “Law of Means”, the sanitised version of “she’ll be right, mate”, “near enough is good enough” and “don’t you worry about a thing”.
I suggest each of you, Luke, Ender and SJT, spend the rest of the day writing out a thousand times, in long hand, “I must get my tiny brain around the concept of data integrity”.
Without it, there can be nothing BUT doubt.
So my hand is cramped from writing “Mottsa has no science integrity”.
I can see Ian is now a peakist !
Shape of US temperature curve for last 100 years – mmmmm – about the same as before. Wow!
So we still have a sudden warming in the late 20th century the trend of which is explained only by greenhouse gases.
“Warmer periods” than at present – yea so – a poompteenth – maybe even nothing. So here we will have the theme of “unexplained natural variation” introduced with no science appended. That’s scientific.
Discounts the great Australian climate record, discounts the SSTs, discounts the satellites, slushy bogs, melting tundra, and all the other independent evidence.
The only doubt is inability of accountants to concentrate on the main themes and become excited about trivia and rounding errors.
Ian Mott – “Nice try fellas, but 1934 was the warmest year on record in the USA, was it not? And five of the top 10 years in the US record were in the period from 1921 to 1939, were they not? And was this revealed after the revisions by McIntyre? Yes.”
Only if you look at the yearly average figures. Also you notice that you have to go to 1921 to 1939 to get 5 which is nearly 20 years
1934 1.25 0.44
1998 1.23 0.51
1921 1.15 0.15
2006 1.13 *
1931 1.08 0.27
1999 0.93 0.69
1953 0.90 0.32
1990 0.87 0.40
1938 0.86 0.36
1939 0.85 0.45
Where as to get 3 of the top 10 years 1998, 2006, 1999 you need less than 10 years with 2 in one less than completed decade. This is completely outside the natural temperature record.
Also it was not revealed by McIntyre as this was already there and really not changed much.
As a person that loves longer term data the 5 year means tell a very different story:
2000 0.52 0.79
1999 0.93 0.69
2004 0.44 0.66
2001 0.76 0.65
1932 0.00 0.63
1933 0.68 0.61
2003 0.50 0.58
2002 0.53 0.55
1998 1.23 0.51
1988 0.32 0.51
There are 2 in there that are not in the last 3 decades.
“with 2 in one less than completed decade.”
Sorry should read:
with 2 in the last 10 years
It seems as if those who are discounting the errors in US data as being trivial do not have a sound understanding of the basic principles of statistics.
The process of calculating average (actually “mean”) temperstures is a statistical process.
Every measurement contains errors. Basically, errors fall into two types. One is “random” error, where the error may be positive or negative, large or small.
The other is “systematic” errors, where the error acts in the same direction for every measure.
Where the chosen statistical processing method depends on a random distribution of errors, any systematic error in the data negates the validity of the results. This is why it is critical that all systematic errors are detected and either the data is removed, or systematic errors are corrected before the data is reprocessed.
This is why the systematic errors found in the US temperature data are not trivial. Far from it. They threaten the entire integrity of the statistical process.
Because all measurements contain errors, the end result of statistical processing is no more than an estimate of the true answer. The calculated result will include a degree of uncertainty. This is often expressed in the form of a “standard deviation”, or of numerical bounds within which the true answer could actually lie.
So when we see published an estimate that the earth’s temperature has increased by 0.6 degrees over the past century, it must be accompanied by the associated estimate of the uncertainty attached to the estimate. If there is no figure published for the uncertainty, then the measure must be viewed with great suspicion. For example, if the estimate of temperature increase of 0.6 degrees has an associated uncertainty of 0.4 degrees, then the figure of 0.6 would be classed as being statistically insignificant.
So it is critical to this discussion of temperature that systematic errors are detected and corrected. Any scientist who is aware of the possibility of systematic error and does not fix the problem is negligent.
There is so much scope for error in the data used to calculate global temperature change over the past 100 years that I am very sceptical of any published numbers, particularly at the levels of a few tenths of a degree, when the numbers are not accompanied by the level of uncertainty of the estimate.
For example, when temperatures were read by observers, there are many opportunities for parallax errors in the measurements, particularly when the observer sees the thermometer with the sunlight in the same direction every time.
Similarly, as the average height of people has increased over the past century, there is increased likelihood of systematic errors of parallax because of changes in the position of the observer’s eye.
The UHI effect is clearly a syatematic error, so the inclusion of any measurement site where UHI may exist is clearly negligent on the part of the scientist.
Alternatively, the scientist is ignorant of the basics of statistical data processing, which is worse. This was the case with Mann et al when they calculated the hockey stick graph. It fell to the US congress to have a rigorous review of the veracity of the statistical process. This resulted in a thorough discrediting of the entire process used by Mann et al, and forcing the IPCC to begin to include estimates of uncertainty in the FAR and subsequent reports in the future.
So, the tenths of a degree are critical to the scientific process which depends on statistical processes.
Pirate Pete – Perhaps you should read this before ranting:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_qc.pdf
“All geophysical data bases need some form of quality assurance. Otherwise, erroneous data points may produce faulty analyses. However, simplistic quality control procedures have been known to contribute to erroneous conclusions by
removing valid data points that were more extreme than the data set compilers expected. In producing version 2 of the global historical climatology network’s (GHCN’s) temperature data sets, a variety of quality control tests were evaluated and a specialized suite of procedures was developed. Quality control traditionally relies primarily on checks for outliers from both a time series and spatial perspective, the latter accomplished by comparisons with neighbouring
stations. This traditional approach was used, and it was determined that there are many data problems that require additional tests to detect. In this paper a suite of quality control tests are justified and documented and applied to this global temperature data base, emphasizing the logic and limitations of each test. © 1998 Royal Meteorological
Society.”
“So, the tenths of a degree are critical to the scientific process which depends on statistical processes.”
Absolute rubbish – the careful processing that is done is done solely to eliminate the inevitable errors that creep in. Again if you are so good at stats then write the paper, get it peer reviewed so it becomes the new standard of processing data.
What a classic bit of one-eyed bollocks, Ender. Yes the interval between 1921 and 1939 is 18 years, not “nearly 20 years” as you said. But the period from 1990 to 2006 is still 16 years and that period had only FOUR of the top ten readings.
So let me get this straight, my 18 years with five events, (at 1 in 3.6 years) is supposed to be a more extended and less intense period than your recent 16 years with only four events (at 1 in 4 years)?
This must be the new “eco-maths” that can show anything you want it to show. What a shonk.
Ian Mott – “This must be the new “eco-maths” that can show anything you want it to show. What a shonk. ”
3 events since 1998. 1998 to 2006 is 8 years so in the last 8 years there has been 3 events one of which is only 0.01° below the highest 1 year mean temperature and 2006 which is only .12 behind 1998. The only comparable time was 1931 to 1939 however in that time 1939 and 1938 were considerably cooler than the high of 1934 indicating a spike. Now the high of 1998 is followed by another high in 2006 with 1999 in between. Does this sound like a trend to you?
BTW I note you have not commented on the 5 year means as obviously this information, that contains the trends, cannot be spun your way. The 5 year means support the 1 year mean trends that the last 2 decades are increasingly warm with no sign at the moment of cooling which is what was seen in the period 1931 to 1940.
Plus the fact that this is a regional temperature record that can cool and warm without affecting the GLOBAL average temperatures in any huge way. Obviously this must be new ‘libertarian maths’ than means the US = The World.
All the way with LBJ I guess.
So when the actual data shows up some inconvenient truths we switch to the 5 year mean and when the five year means don’t do the job you want then there is always an 11 year mean, or even a 30 year mean, to fall back on.
And all this to try and show that 1998 was not a spike. But of course, a five year mean will always distort the most recent data, especially if the trend to 1998 has now been broken (after almost a decade).
And there is that little comprehension deficit, again, where you suggest that I am using US data as a proxy for global mean temps. My posts above have made it very clear that I was implying no such thing. So one can only conclude that you are desperate for any sort of vaguely plausible response.
Lets just spell this out once more. The USA data makes it very clear that recent mean temperatures are ENTIRELY WITHIN THE HISTORICAL RANGE OF VARIATION.
The moving finger writes and, having writ, moves on. And no amount of cheap sophistry on your part will alter that fact.
Ender, it appears from your comment that you have little or no understanding of applied statistics.
Your reference to Peterson et al is valid, but I am not sure that you understand what it means.
The QA tests that were applied in assembling the data sets are sound, and valid. But despite these, systematic errors are clearly in the data set. See the discussion about the Detroit Lakes weather station at http://www.surfacestations.org as an example. Despite the applications of the QA processes, Detroit Lakes was included in the data set. And there are many more in the US data set.
McIntyre et al have done the climate change discussion a great service. Once the systematic error problems were identified, the GISS data for the US were corrected immediately. This is a clear endorsement of the veracity of the findings of McIntyre, and the surface stations people.
Once all of the systematic errors are removed from the global data set, there will be greater confidence in the computational result.
SJT, you need to think a bit more before commenting. Your statement about half teh stations moving upwind and half moving downwind, thereby giving a net effect of zero is incorrect.
Whwt it means is that the upwind stations will be recording correct temperatures, that is, zero errors, and the downwind stations will record positive errors. Hence the net effect is a positive bias.
However, the UHI problems are a bit more complex, for example, in that the UHI also introduces errors through radiative effects, air flow turbulence etc.
Mott
as has been pointed out many times. What is the trajectory of the temperature? When a rocket takes off with you in it, for the first few seconds, you are still travelling at speeds WELL WITHIN HISTORICAL RANGE.
Ian Mott – “Lets just spell this out once more. The USA data makes it very clear that recent mean temperatures are ENTIRELY WITHIN THE HISTORICAL RANGE OF VARIATION.”
Well as long as you are shouting it it must be true then. So the recent mean temperatures are within the historical range however there is no precedent anywhere in the climate record for recent temperatures.
Shouting does not change this Ian. The 5 year means contain more of the trend rather than the year to year variations that is why they do them.
Pirate Pete – “The QA tests that were applied in assembling the data sets are sound, and valid. But despite these, systematic errors are clearly in the data set. See the discussion about the Detroit Lakes weather station at http://www.surfacestations.org as an example. Despite the applications of the QA processes, Detroit Lakes was included in the data set. And there are many more in the US data set.”
Yes you are probably right about my lack of statistical knowledge however are you going to claim better knowledge than Peterson et al? If you are I would like to see a link to your qualifications and peer reviewed papers that would justify such a claim.
“McIntyre et al have done the climate change discussion a great service. Once the systematic error problems were identified, the GISS data for the US were corrected immediately. This is a clear endorsement of the veracity of the findings of McIntyre, and the surface stations people.”
And yes he has albeit for the wrong motives and he is hardly humble about it. Also the right wing sycophants that have used this minor data correction as justification for a new series of ranting about how bad science is is frankly sickening.
Hello Ender, I am interested that you ask for my qualifications and peer reviewed papers, as if these are necessary for my statements to be credible.
I guess my question relates to what are your qualifications and how many peer reviewed papers have you published?
Your comment about a minor data correction misses the point.
The UHI has effects of introducing up to whole degrees of systematic error. This introduces levels of uncertainty which have the effect of potentially rendering the IPCC claims of 0.6 degrees warming over the past century to being statistically insignificant. This would then completely undermine any claims by the IPCC of measurable global warming, let alone claims of measurable effects of anthropogenic global warming.
Note also that the people at Surface Stations have only checked less than one quarter of the US stations. They are doing the entire scientific discussion a great service because they are improving the validity of teh data set.
Once they have checked every station in the US, and then in the rest of europe, the data set will be far more reliable, with far higher levels of confidence, and commensurate lower levels of uncertainty. It doesn’t matter which way the final result falls, this is a significant contribution to the science of climate change.
From a statistical point of view, systematic errors are very serious.
And by the way, my masters is in applied statistics in geophysics. And I have presented a published paper at the International Union of geodesy and Geophysics.
Pirate Pete – “Hello Ender, I am interested that you ask for my qualifications and peer reviewed papers, as if these are necessary for my statements to be credible.”
No they are not unless you are going to challenge the work of another scientist then they come into play. Also why challenge them here? As a scientist why have you not written a paper on it?
“Note also that the people at Surface Stations have only checked less than one quarter of the US stations.”
As a master in applied stats in your considered opinion do you think that a happy snap of the station is checking it?
“Once they have checked every station in the US, and then in the rest of europe, the data set will be far more reliable, with far higher levels of confidence, and commensurate lower levels of uncertainty.”
So the US and Europe is the world now is it? What about the SSTs and the rest of the globe. Is McIntyre going to trek across Siberia or Mongolia in this quest? Also it won’t because they are not actually checking it. A far more useful task for these people would be to volunteer to man and maintain the stations and provide more reliable data if you consider it is necessary. Additionally their efforts could also be better spent campaigning for more money for the network instead of tearing down other’s work.
Finally the authorities are have in place a reference climate network:
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2004/nov04/noaa04-108.html
which sure beats taking happy snaps and bleating on blogs. This is what can compensate for systemic errors that exist in any data set. I am sure that in your own field your instruments are not perfect and you apply many corrections to the data obtained from them based on their known operating parameters. Expecting other’s data to be perfect is a bit hypocritical isn’t it?
It is interesting to note that Ender’s emotional bonds to his particular view of climate flux is so strong that he is actually “sickened” by views to the contrary. Hardly the response of a dispassionate observer.
It is also curious that he has attempted to get us to believe that the concept of an “anomalous spike” could be stretched so far as to apply to a continental mean temperature like that of 1934.
This concept is quite acceptable for a sub-regional area like the UK series but the larger and larger the area, and the greater the number of station records, the less valid the notion becomes. At the continental scale it is hurtling headlong into pure bollocks.
The historical range of variation is defined by actual changes in the annual mean, not by changes in the five year mean or whatever other synthetic product the ploddoscenti might prefer to use.
And as the particular continent we are dealing with accounts for more than 25% of total global CO2 emissions but less than 4.8% of the global surface area (the USA itself is only 1.8%) then reasonable men and women are compelled to ask why this temperature series has NOT exceeded historical norms long ago.
If there was any continental temperature series on earth where a CO2 forcing effect should be readily apparent, if it exists at anywhere near the claimed significance, it is the USA series.
But the best the climate crazies can come up with is a temperature plateau that is in line with past temperature plateaus.
Well that’s why you’re a coprolalical accountant not a rootin’ tootin’ scientist.
Coz you see but you don’t observe or infer.
You might ask what causes the temperature regime in both instances. Too sophistacmuckated perhaps.
And I notice that you’re now able to confine the CO2 to the continental USA. Winds don’t blow? But I guess if you can’t build a fence to keep metro-scum-odactyls in SEQ what hope have you got.
Ian Mott – “But the best the climate crazies can come up with is a temperature plateau that is in line with past temperature plateaus.”
However the climate skeptic crazies have failed to come up with a similar one in the record so all your waffling is a desperate attempt to conceal the stark fact that the current temperature pattern is unprecendented. Or you can point me to the point in recorded history where temperatures have behaved like the present.
“And as the particular continent we are dealing with accounts for more than 25% of total global CO2 emissions but less than 4.8% of the global surface area (the USA itself is only 1.8%) then reasonable men and women are compelled to ask why this temperature series has NOT exceeded historical norms long ago.”
Because reasonable men and woman realise that greenhouse gases are well mixed in the atmosphere and aside from small regions where local conditions concentrate emissions the level of CO2 over the whole globe is more or less the same.
“The historical range of variation is defined by actual changes in the annual mean, not by changes in the five year mean or whatever other synthetic product the ploddoscenti might prefer to use.”
Except if you want to see the trend – that is what the 5 year mean is for. This is not the only place where longer means are used to smooth spikes out of a noisy record.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the climate change hypothesis on only that. A hypothesis. Bob Carter has it right. It has not progressed to the stage of being a theory, it is not proven, it is not repeatable. Something like 50 billion dollars have been spent worldwide to validate the climate change hypothesis. It has not been validated yet. As more research is carried out, the hypothesis seems to be moving further away from validation.
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained, the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.
A theory is accepted, not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable.
People like McIntyre are doing the science a service by testing repeatability. His attempt to repeat the experiment of Mann et al led to the complete discrediting of Mann’s work, the hockey stick, the peer review process applied by the IPCC, and the statistical process used to obtain the results. This can be seen by some as an attack by McIntyre, but in terms of the science, he has done a great service to the science, because it has been improved.
Pirate Pete – Completely agree with you on the scientific method thing so lets have a look at some of the key AGW pillars.
Hypothesis – burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide.
Prediction – burning a quantity of coal will release CO2
Observation – When burnt coal is observed to release CO2 which is measured
Repeat for oil gas etc
Conclusion – burning fossil fuels release CO2
Hypothesis – CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Prediction – CO2 will absorb longwave radiation of a specific wavelength.
Observation – Experiments show that CO2 does indeed absorb longwave radiation.
Conclusion – CO2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas.
Hypothesis – CO2 from burning fossil fuels will build up in the atmosphere.
Prediction – CO2 levels should be elevated and should have the fossil isotopic ratio.
Observation – Co2 levels are 380ppm up from a historical record of 270ppm and the isotopic ratio of the CO2 is consistent with fossil carbon.
Conclusion – CO2 from human activity is building up in the atmosphere.
Care to refute any of these? This is basically how the enhanced greenhouse effect was discovered by scientists using the scientific method. So what is wrong?
If you want the detailed list with references I suggest that you look at Spencer’s excellent history.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
BTW McIntyre did not replicate MBH98 that was left to the 6 other studies that followed that got the same results.
BTW2 the IPCC does not peer review anything as it is a UN body that uses peer reviewed work to produce reports.
BTW3 – McIntyre has not changed anything at all because in the whole huge massive field of science his ‘auditing’ is but the tiniest bacteria. It is really akin to chucking a sugar cube into the ocean and saying it is sweeter.
Simplistic crap, Ender, and you know it.
Clouds are also a greenhouse agent but they are also a radiative element. They heat AND they cool and they float around in the CO2 in ways that can either render the CO2 redundant or reduce the efficiency of CO2 as a forcing agent.
And of course winds blow. But for most winds, bar the jetstream, the speed is low and, on a continental scale, they merely shift concentrations of CO2 to other parts of the continent. So my statement holds. A continent that produces 25+% of global emissions with 2% of the surface area is likely to be the first candidate to show a warming outside the historical range.
No sign of it yet though.
Ian Mott – “Simplistic crap, Ender, and you know it. ”
And that would be different from your simplistic crap – how? At least my simplistic crap is supported by the science.
“And of course winds blow. But for most winds, bar the jetstream, the speed is low and, on a continental scale, they merely shift concentrations of CO2 to other parts of the continent.”
So you would not expect dust from the Sahara to seed the Amazon would you? But it does – hmmm perhaps a bit of CO2 goes along with the dust.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/09/saharan-dust-savior-of-the-amazon-rainforests/
You can hear the crickets chirping from here ….