I find this really amusing for a number of reasons. I refer to an article in this week’s Nature entitled ‘A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature’ by Thompson, Kennedy, Wallace and Phil Jones.
The abstract states:
“Data sets used to monitor the Earth’s climate indicate that the surface of the Earth warmed from approx 1910 to 1940, cooled slightly from approx 1940 to 1970, and then warmed markedly from approx 1970 onward. The weak cooling apparent in the middle part of the century has been interpreted in the context of a variety of physical factors, such as atmosphere–ocean interactions and anthropogenic emissions of sulphate aerosols. Here we call attention to a previously overlooked discontinuity in the record at 1945, which is a prominent feature of the cooling trend in the mid-twentieth century. The discontinuity is evident in published versions of the global-mean temperature time series, but stands out more clearly after the data are filtered for the effects of internal climate variability. We argue that the abrupt temperature drop of approx 0.3 °C in 1945 is the apparent result of uncorrected instrumental biases in the sea surface temperature record. Corrections for the discontinuity are expected to alter the character of mid-twentieth century temperature variability but not estimates of the century-long trend in global-mean temperatures.”
Amusement number one is the fact that AGW supporters have tried to explain the 1940s to 1970s ‘cooling’ using emissions of sulphate aerosols as an excuse – an explanation that I have previously challenged
Amusement number two is the unverifiable data used by Phil Jones et al 1990, which was relied upon by the IPCC to diminish the effect of urbanisation on the surface temperature record.
Amusement number three is that Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit first noted the discontinuity in the sea surface temperature record in June 2005.
Zip over to Climate Audit and read Nature “Discovers” Another Climate Audit Finding
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Amusement number four that all the preceding are examples of pseudoscience.
To put a blunter head on the hammer, modern day science is the latest incarnation of Lysenkoism.
(Science, once properly defined, reduces to an engineering issue. Science in which continued disputation occurs, remains unproven and decidely hypothetical until someone discovers a solution, from which that science too becomes an engineering solution).
McIntyre confuses blogging with publishing. Ho hum. Publish or perish.
To put a blunter head on the hammer – Louis you’re an idiot.
Very interesting. Note how the revised temperature graph shows a much milder increase over a longer period to the current plateau. And as the CA thread observed, this means some major revisions for the climate muddlers, especially in respect of CO2 sensitivity.
Equally intriguing are the implications for aerosol cooling. I have posted numerous times on the need for adjustments due to volcanic aerosols but it seems that most of the “science” behind this was based on the assumed presence of aerosol cooling in the 1940s.
So did the aerosol emissions simply not take place in the 1940s or is the impact of aerosols over stated in the GCMs?
Just can’t wait to hear Ender and Creepo’s apology to Steve McIntyre.
This is insidious work. Placing doubt on the historical ocean temperature record diminishes the impact that cooling Argos data will have.
=============
I don’t think so Kim. The ARGO data suggests non-warming over the past 4 or 5 years and is a method that is different from ‘buckets and engines.’
Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo weighs on the revisionist history below:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/global_warmists_in_frantic_effort_to_save_their_failing_theory/
This morning, CNN and CNBC had long interviews with global warming enthusiasts whose organizations make money from the scare. Both reported, exactly like Al Gore, that the “scientific debate is over.” So, with the debate over, why is “Nature” still covering this and why is “Real Climate” still posting instead of closing up shop and saying that they won?
Insidious, nonetheless, as science and politics are now wed; historical, now scientific, revisionism run amok.
The coming ‘Dark Age’ has, in fact, begun.
Creepy, this might be the stake poised over the heart. I don’t think it has pierced the skin, yet, but it is certainly one of those little anomalies that needs a whole lot of splainin. I know, I know it can’t be, but how many times do we need to have IPCC revise estimat…. Errh, umhh projections downwards?
Have you folks seen the R Pielke Jr analysis with Lucia’s comments? Here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001445does_the_ipccs_main.html#comments
Um….Steve is retired. He doesn’t have to publish and he won’t perish. What about you? Who do you think the real idiot might be?
Sorry…that last was for Alarmist Creep
I think the real consideration, or Amusement #5, that needs to be mined, is that with this, and what should lead to other more reasonable data treatment, is that it may be easy to ascertain and measure sun cycles. Consider the cycle and cooling at present,and the divergence in the past wrt sun cycles. Perhaps the most important part of this will be to show that sun cycles and TSI definitely are the cause of some amount of warming, thus cooling the amount that can be laid to CO2. With all the cry about the CO2 warming accellerating, this could be the start of showing: 1. That sun cycles are a significant fraction of the observed anomolies, and 2. That the second derivative disappears, and shows that all these models, that have accellerated forcing, due to CO2 are just plain wrong. The Nature article has some intersting possiblities if one considers just how often the models are used to deny the data rather than the reverse, that actually should occur. One would assume, that with the potential for error, corrections should be both, and not one sided. This indicates that one should expect more changes to the adhoc adjustments to the data should be forthcoming. With the possibility that Amusement #5 will be most amusing.
This was noted much long before McIntyre here:
Barnett, TP 1984, Long-term trends in surface temperature over the oceans, Mon. Wea. Rev. 112, 303-312.
Ujustdontgetit – urrr nuh – Macca has been banging on about professional science and playing scientist. So he either wants to play or not. Not publishing is just trying to have it both ways. He’s been told before.
And CoRev – needs some head scratchin’ – you might work out that CO2 was even more of an influence. Drac ain’t dead yet.
And I don’t mind if Mott apologises to the blog for ball abuse, Macpaint graphs, PIG, whales as cows and species non-declines. Or Amazon regrowth. What’s that uncertain wafting odour.
So I guess the denialists were right – sulphate aerosols weren’t that powerful compared to CO2.
Good point guys. Flannery will be unhappy. Can’t paint the sky pink. Armageddon is assured.
I would say we need more scientists like McIntyre and fewer like the ones that disdain his kind of science. There is nothing wrong with the pattern of question, experiment, observe. McIntyre has it right. It’s the snobs in the climate clique whose theories cannot be inconvenienced by the real data, and cannot deign to entertain the thoughtfulness of an outsider that need to lose their grants and tenures.
By the way, I think the odor is the sweaty nervousness of an elitist confronting irrelevance.
Let me get this right. I’m a little confused.
Barnett pointed this out in a peer-reviewed publication in 1983:
“A limited comparison over the Northern Hemisphere oceans has been made between sea surface temperatures obtained from “Marine lkcks,” air temperatures over the ocean obtained from the same decks, and the historical file of hydrographic data. The intercomparison of these data suggest the following conclusions.
1) The SST observations have been contaminated by a systematic conversion from bucket to injection measurements. The bias so introduced may constitute as much as 30 to 50% of the observed change in sea surface temperature since the turn of the century.
2) The same bias effects are apparent in data sets that are alleged to contain bucket measurements of sea surface temperature only.
3) The behavior of the temperature field over the ocean appears to have significant and substantial differences from the behavior of estimated temperature changes over the Northern Hemisphere land masses. It seems clear that a reliable estimate of hemispheric or global temperature cannot be made without including adequate coverage of the ocean regions.
4) Many of the data suggest a shift in mean state of the sea surface temperature field of certain regions. It appears that this change is partially real and partially due to the merging of rather different types of data.
5) All estimates of pentad average temperature since 1900 are attended by relatively large standard deviations. This fact makes definitive discussion of pentad-to-pentad or decade-to-decade changes in hemispheric and global temperature difficult, if not impossible. Different methods of calculating the uncertainty in pentad averages could effect this conclusion.”
Steve M wrote a blog post or two 24 years later but couldn’t be arsed publishing.
Thompson et al. published a peer-reviewed work showing that the period of static temps in mid century should be adjusted, but haven’t done the adjustment. They, however, state that this was one part of the time series that the models could never replicate.
So, the ability of models to hindcast is likely more accurate. CO2 is shown to be a more significant driver of past climate than previously thought. As usual, excellent science has been done by those that could be bothered to do the work and publish, even if that means going against the prevailing orthodoxy.
And denialists are crowing.
What a funny world we live in.
OK, so the cooling of the 40’s wasn’t humanity’s fault; certainly the warming of the 80’s wasn’t either:
http://climatepatrol.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/hadcrut3-global-land-ocean-temperature-index-1850-2008/
The thing I don’t get is if you say humanity is causing changes, why do you then assume that those changes are apocalyptic? And apocalyptic to who or what? Would a reclamation of Lake Pedder or the Murray-Darling be so bad? In that respect creep has been quite disingenuous about the current condition of the Murray-Darling:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rain®ion=mdb&season=0112
But if the perspective through which one views humanity’s interaction with nature is the AGW prism then it is inevitable that people like creep should look and sound like malthus. It doesn’t matter that historical climate was little different from today’s climate; the fact is, today’s climate has a bigger, badder humanity beating it up so it just must be worse.
Nexus 6 – could not have said it better myself. One trick pony couldn’t write a peer reviewable paper so a ‘discovery’ that could have actually benefited science has to be rediscovered by competent people.
Apology to McIntryre? – yeah right.
sorry, that ist link should be:
http://climatepatrol.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/hatcrut3-global-land-ocean-temperature-index-1850-2008/
So a peer reviewed scientist showed the dataset was bad in 1984. Peer reviewed scientists used the bad dataset for 24 years until peer reviewed scientists ‘discovered’ that the dataset was bad. Impressive.
Yeah right yourself Ender; is that ironic or what? Nexus going on about data contamination in an anti-AGW paper. Perhaps Nexus should get a job with Anthony Watts as AW does a Diogenes with GISS.
“This was noted much long before McIntyre here:
Barnett, TP 1984”
Well, the Nature authors themselves state, “Here we call attention to a previously overlooked discontinuity in the record at 1945…,” so if they can claim they discovered the “overlooked discontinuity,” then I guess it’s fair for people to point out that McIntyre beat them to it.
In any case, the 1984 Barnett paper is completely different from what McIntyre pointed out. It was Folland et al in 1984 (and later Folland et al 1995 and Folland and Parker 1995, among others) that suggested the way to deal with the types of problems Barnett 1984 dicussed was to add 0.3 deg C of warming to the pre-April 1940 record and add 0.25 deg C of warming to the April 1940-Dec 1941 record. McIntyre merely suggested and then showed how incorrect this adjustment was based on Kent 2007 and the IPCC AR4.
Just read McIntyre’s posts and it will become clear why McIntyre didn’t address the issue until 2007 (after Kent 2007 and IPCC AR4). The question is why nobody addressed the issue previously.
“Dear all,
during the Joint Air-Sea Interaction experiment JASIN ’78, I measured SST aboard the German research vessel Meteor using a radiation thermometer. We always found slight differences between the bucket temperature values and those provided by the radiation thermometer, but a difference of 0.3 K, on average, seems to be large in retrospect, even though the bucket contained water from a layer beneath the surface of a few inches thickness; whereas the radiation thermometers measured the true signal emitted by the sea surface itself. All these possible procedural errors discussed in these Nature article of Thomson et al. (2008) were well known during that time and I discussed them with Dr. Augstein of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, who served as chief scientist during that mission phase. A cooling of the bucket water by evaporation is hardly a notably procedural error when the bucket measurements follow the common standards. Note that the globally averaged near-surface temperature is based on both (a) air temperature measurements performed over land at a height of 1.5 m to 2 m above ground, and (b) the SST that results from different observation techniques used at or close to the sea surface. It is well known that over land the near-surface temperature usually differs from the true surface temperature by more than 0.3 K. It seems to me that this is not a problem for all these climate statisticians. One of the advantages of satellite observations is that the signals considered for estimating the surface temperature have equivalent origins.
It seems to me that the authors of this Nature article are either not familiar with requirements of SST measurements or try to remove this decrease in the global temperature records for the period 1940 to 1970. There is, indeed, a problem with this temperature decrease. As illustrated in Figure 1 attached, none of the climate models considered in the 4th IPCC report was able to simulate this temperature decrease. Also illustrated in that figure are the global temperature record taken from the IPCC report and the temperature record of the Arctic derived from observation stations around the Arctic Ocean by Polyakov et al. (2003). As illustrated in Figure 2 also adopted from the IPCC – Summary for Policy Makers 2007, such a temperature decrease was also observed in other regions of the world, especially over North America and Europe. In my opinion there is an attempt to fit the observations to the climate model projections because the latter have hardly something to do with the reality, even though so-called multi model means are considered as done, for instance, by the IPCC (see chapter 8 of the 4th report of the WGI) and in an article recently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (see attachment). Figures 3 and 4 adopted from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report 2005 illustrate such multi model means. Figure 3 shows results of the projected solar radiation reaching the surface of the Arctic Ocean. These results were provided by four different global climate models. As you can see there is a large scatter in the results of up to 130 W/m^2 or so during summer, and the projected radiation values have nothing to do with the observations (Langley). This scatter is very large in comparison with the anthropogenic radiative forcing of, on average, 1.6 W/m^2, as suggested by the 4th IPCC report. The reasons for this disagreement are well known because none of these global climate models is able to project the observed cloud coverage correctly (see Figure 4). For most of the time the multi model mean of the projected solar radiation differs from the observations, too. Of course, the deviation is not so strong than that of any individual climate model projection, but usually appreciably larger than the anthropogenic radiative forcing mentioned before. A “good agreement” only exists during north winter (DJF) when no solar radiation is reaching the Arctic Ocean.
To me, the use of multi model means is congruent with the oath of manifestation in science. All these climate models are deterministic models and contain a lot of empirical information. There are long reports in which model bugs found by users are listed. We must assume that averaging over climate projections means in practice also averaging over programming errors and/or compiler errors. Has this something to do with scientific standards? Certainly not. Another aspect should also be discussed. Even though numerical weather forecast models are based on sophisticated scientific knowledge, the predictions for the next couple of days provided by such models cannot be assessed as scientific results.I wonder why climate model projections should have a higher scientific level than weather predictions.
Sincerely yours
Gerhard Kramm
—-
Dr. Gerhard Kramm
University of Alaska Fairbanks, Geophysical Institute and
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, College of Natural Science and Mathematics”
June6 I am with you on McIntyre. Those here who wish to criticize how about you leave here and challenge him on his own blog. They could also ask Mann what he thinks about McIntyre’s abilities.
Cohenite you don’t learn do you?
What a devastating time series (not). Trouble with our American friends is that they’re very uninformed of geography outside the US of A.
The Murray SLASH Darling is actually a large area. See the below map – paste it on your wall even ! This what we in Australia call “The Murray Darling Basin” big eh? It’s bigger than Texas mate.
http://environment.gov.au/water/publications/mdb/pubs/mdb-map.pdf
The Murray River has its headwaters in the Snowy Mountains near the NSW Victoria border and flows westwards as the NSW/Victoria border and then into the ocean in South Australia.
Notice where the confluence of the Murray and the Darling Rivers are – gee out west past some place called Mildura. So the Murray is a tad different to the Darling.
You might notice also where the irrigation areas are along the Murray.
http://www.bom.gov.au/silo/products/cli_chg/rain_timeseries.shtml shows the area of the time series you’re quoting.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=anomaly&area=aus&period=36month®ion=aus&time=latest
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/drought.shtml
The above maps give you an idea where the rainfall deficits have been.
Oh look the Murray headwaters have had ongoing droughts for many many years. If you talk to David Jones you may even find out some bits have broken records.
The above maps don’t even tell the full story. Water supply is about runoff more than rainfall – you know – rainfall minus evaporation and then there’s a thing called antecedent conditions i.e. wetting up catchments to get a thing called runoff. Runoff is the item.
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/subs/annual_reports/AR_2006-07/part2_1.htm
The above report shows that recent simulated inflows are less than the 1914 drought
The latest report shows this drought issue is ongoing and without precedent.
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/1366/Drought_Update_Issue_13_-_May_2008.pdf
http://www.naturalresources.nsw.gov.au/water/pdf/crit_water_murray_150507.pdf shows the total inflows – and this would be worse now.
Cohenite – I think you just flunked the most elementary analysis. Now will you read the climate change references I sent with your brain in first gear.
Regardsless of previous droughts (like the howlers documentded in Brian Fagan’s – “The Great Warming”) the observations, synoptic meteorology review, ocean and atmospheric changes tie up well with local CSIRO modelling saying anthropogenic influence has a part – GHG + zone. So all we need now is more anthropogenic whammy on some natural MWP whammy.
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Warming-Climate-Change-Civilizations/dp/1596913924
DHMO – “Those here who wish to criticize how about you leave here and challenge him on his own blog”
Blogs don’t count – peer review does.
Perhaps Mr McIntyre can challenge real scientists in the peer reviewed literature.
If peer reviewed journals always produced the mess that AGW is and blogs always produced the clarity that McIntyre does, then blogs would inevitably replace peer reviewed journals. Good information drives out bad.
It’s not as if Steve doesn’t get peer reviewed in his own comment section.
=======================
If you think about it, ClimateAudit is the epitome of a peer reviewed publication. The transparency and openness to direct criticism of both questions and conclusions is unparalleled in any scientific publication. Few or no climate “scientists” have the confidence and fortitude to expose their questions, methods, data and conclusions so openly.
How ironic that the elitism and secrecy of this particular field, once the curtain has been drawn back, has resulted in such plummeting credibility for climate “science.”
If blogs don’t count then why does Lord Creepo and his cohorts spend so much time running red herrings and muddying waters whenever we take a close look at the climate prayer wheel?
The warm-mongers only seek sufficient facts to justify their ideological position. They have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they are quite willing to allow a falsehood to occupy the space that rightfully belongs to a fact for as long as that falsehood remains undetected.
It is the standard MO of the shonk.
BBC News website: Ships rewrite temperature record
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7423527.stm
“It perhaps suggests that the role of sulphate aerosols, that cooling effect, was less powerful than we thought,” said Mike Hulme from the University of East Anglia (UEA), who was not involved in the study.
“And perhaps the solar effects that had been dominant in the 1920s and 1930s weakened; so the downturn in solar forcing is part of the story.”
“I suspect there will be people who want to say it discredits the whole dataset, and that’s not the appropriate response,” he said.
“The appropriate response is that it’s a sign that climate science is in a healthy state. Science is never closed, it’s always open for re-examination and scrutiny and testing, and this is a very good example at what science is good at doing and what it must be allowed to do.”
Plotting a new temperature graph over at Prometheus:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001445does_the_ipccs_main.html
In the figure above, the trend in the unadjusted data (1950-present) is 0.11 Deg C per decade (slightly lower than reported by IPCC AR4, due to the recent downturn), and after the adjustments are applied the trend drops by just about half, to 0.06 Deg C per decade.
Mottsa doesn’t appreciate that blogs don’t count coz he’s obviously big on pers comm imagination and Macpaint graphics. And obviously a supporter of ongoing Aussie land degradation introducing alien species like red herrings and causing muddy waterways.
McIntyre’s blog posts were based on peer reviewed papers. Next up is the fact that the post 1970s data is also suspect – Kent et al 2007.
As the good Dr. Kramm said, if we can not predict weather out further than a few days, then why rely on GCMs that are based on even more questionable data as foundations for predictions decades out?
Answer: We can not and never should have! But, when science merges with politics, then it takes on the trappings of the political, and we get into these kinds of useless discussions.
More really bad data that highlights even more weaknesses in the models just proves we should not have trusted the models. To trust the average of these models is the epitome of shtoopid, but not if we are talking politics and not science.
So get over it. The IPCC will again lower the ranges of its projections, while increasing the likelihood of their truthiness. More politics! Less science!
“if we can not predict weather out further than a few days” – nuh – an old ruse argument.
I predict summer will be warmer than winter for the next 100 years. You can’t predict the next wave on the beach but you can predict the tides.
Climate is a boundary condition problem where weather is an initial condition problem.
If you’re interpreting any of these climate projections as an “exact” estimate of what the weather will be on June 1, 2030 you’ve missed the ENTIRE point. It’s got nothing to do with politics and everything to do with basic science understanding.
“Perhaps Mr McIntyre can challenge real scientists in the peer reviewed literature.”
I augur all the spleen and bile spilled herein the bitter, effete blows of misanthropes in defense of their secret art, the omen of a death blow extended at their necks.
McIntyre has no interest in science, merely the just and reliable application of statistics therein. Your misdirection is as lame and artless as are your ‘peers’ and ‘real science’.
Well Ramrod it’s basic – not published. The end.
#Paul Biggs: BBC News website: Ships rewrite temperature record; #
It may be reasonable to question most of SST series, but regard as particularly insufficient those taken from 1939 to 1945 as discussed by http://www.oceanclimate.de/English/Pacific_SST_1997.pdf and http://www.oceanclimate.de/English/Atlantic_SST_1998.pdf , as not only during that time period the conditions differed from ship to ship extremely, and with the increasing size and speed of the ships since the 1950s, the comparability of SST data remained presumably quite low.
Yes Mike K, and there are still problems from 1970 to 2006 according to Kent et al, 2007.
Regarding McIntyre and publication – I doubt that Nature would have published the paper had it been written by McIntyre – they refused to publish M&M 2003/2005, which ended up in E&E/GRL.
P Biggs, your said: “Regarding McIntyre and publication – I doubt that Nature would have published the paper had it been written by McIntyre – they refused to publish M&M 2003/2005, which ended up in E&E/GRL.”
It’s just more evidence of the elitist self preservation going on in the CC ?Science? community?
Lord Creepy, said: “If you’re interpreting any of these climate projections as an “exact” estimate of what the weather will be on June 1, 2030 you’ve missed the ENTIRE point. It’s got nothing to do with politics and everything to do with basic science understanding.”
There we go again, changing the subject and attacking on a non-issue. When the models can do decent ‘Hindcasts” then we can assume some precision in their forecasts. Until then, assuming the averaged results from these flawed models has any meaning is desperation in itself. It is probably better to ignore their results instead of claiming they prove anything. Above all, it is absolute desperation to found a proof on these results.
Well the alarmists are just digging themselves deeper with this one. If you look at the subsequent adjusted temperature record from this:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/globaladjnoadj.jpg
it becomes even more apparent that there has been little or no warming for the last 25 years once volcanic impacts are accounted for.
Also, RC’s Rasmus on Scafetta and West – he attacked their hypothesized solar correlation which did not account for the 1940-1970 dip in temperatures:
“S&W maintain that the climate response is greater for longer time scales (which is reasonable) as illustrated in their figure 4 (reproduced below), and assisted by the simple model illustrated in this figure, they argue that the present warming is a delayed response to past solar changes (presumably before the 1950s). But it is unclear why the temperature then flattened out and even dropped a little between 1940-1970 at the time when it really should have increased fastest. One could argue that something else also happened then, but for an unknown reason, this forcing then seemed to have a shorter relaxation time. Why such an interference would give a quicker response than a solar signal is unexplained (the response to volcanoes is fairly prompt, however).”
CoRev – here we go again as well. YOU bring up the bogus weather/climate ruse and when corrected you change tack to hindcasts. Different issue mate. Don’t lay smoke and change tack when you’re caught out.
And Mark – you can stay on your one dimensional, one evidence view of the world. But when you stack up the Nature paper on biological impacts, world glacier impacts (OK let’s have the ruse about the few that aren’t retreating), sea level rise, global changes in drought frequency, Arctic ice melt, weakening Southern Oscillation and on and on and on.
Ever heard of a BODY of evidence guys. MULTIPLE lines of evidence.
But I’m sure you’ve all got a skunk explanation for all of them. But but but but but but ….
And how did the high quality Australian temperature analysis get that funny little dip in it… http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=tmean®ion=aus&season=0112 Buckets on land ?
Creepy, I did not bring up the weather. Dr Kramm did, via Jen’s submission. I did bring up the linkage of science (weak and growing weaker monthly) and politics.
I also brought up the change the subject and then attack on the new subject approach to debating, for which you have provided an excellent example.
BTW the issue in this thread is the final manually collected data set has been found seriously flawed. Garbage IN/Garbage Out on your multiple lines of evidence. Is that enough skunk?
Paul Biggs. My concern is that by making explicit how muddy the waters are, that is how flawed past data is, that it will be easier for the warmista to apply any meaning necessary to present data. I understand that Argos and the tropospheric satellite thermometers will come to dominate the current record. The problem is that if the past is made fuzzy, then interpretation of the present becomes more problematical, and susceptible to corruption.
========================
CoRev – do go on – you were in clear support “As the good Dr. Kramm said, if we can not predict weather out further than a few days” etc is quite unambiguous
Strangely the AR4 models actually track better now this tweak is added. http://www.greenfacts.org/en/climate-change-ar4/figtableboxes/figure-4.htm
So net improvement.
You will notice that this modification far from linearises that period.
Who was that tweak I saw you with last week?
That was no tweak, that was an epicycle.
===========================
The original point of this post is that yet again Climate Audit has caught out another systemic failure of methodology in the “completed” science of mainstream AGW theory.
And worse, the “scientists” caught out have claimed that they detected and are correcting the error on their own! This same group have been actively hiding and even destroying their code and data lest it fall into the hands of third party reviewers.
Worst of all, this is NOT an isolated case of fraudulent activity within the climatological community. In fact, it’s quite the norm, from the inveigled data behind Mann’s hockey stick, to FOI requests subversion, to the routine comedy of IPCC team leaders judging the quality of their own work. Climatology as it is practiced is more like a Monty Python skit than a rational basis upon which to base global socio-economic policy.
The True Believers here would have us avert our eyes from these dissolute scenes to engage in irrelevant OT chit-chat. The topic remains—from the ground up academic AGW climatology, one paper at a time, is being exposed as a culture of intellectual corruption and personal hypocrisy and ultimately of hidden political agenda.
What we are witnessing is kind of a Piltdown Man syndrome orders of magnitude greater in scale and implication. The culture of deceit and illusion has become so convincing that few in the climate change industry are even consciously aware of the fraud they each individual participate in perpetuating, data point by data point.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3119#comments
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. ”
–Phil Jones, Climatologist and AGW true believer.
C’mon Wes; did you make that lot up all by yourself? Trying to divert attention from the main job in hand is akin to sullying the records. This sudden intensity over ongoing climate R & D smacks of vested interests, an industry or two buying time with grubby politics rising behind the scene.
Mate: Who are you protecting?
If by “sudden intensity” you mean passive observation and thoughtful questioning, you should be asking yourself why that makes you so uncomfortable and paranoid when other scientists and average citizens dare to read past an abstract or ask you to open your books.
The only politics we are facing are the asinine taxes and arbitary restrictions under consideration due to the ridiculous “Summary for Policy Makers.” If any author or contributor to that document possessed a microgram of ethics, they would contact the U.S. Senate today to tell them the summary is biased and known to be wrong, and should not be used for any policymaking decisions.
Gavin,
I’m an agent of my own rational self-interest—if that’s a thought crime to your collectivist troglodyte tribunal. I’m guilty as charged.
I support Enlightenment values of reason, the sanctity of empirical evidence, transparency in research, free access to data and code, third party review, the right to reply and everything else academic, rigorous scientific methodology demands of hard science. Let the evidence fall where it may.
All we are saying is give fair dinkum scientific method a chance…Like the John Lennon song… Come on Gavin, sing along with us…
All we are saaaaaying is give Scientific Method a chance!
Now it’s my turn, Gavin…..Who or what are you protecting, Phil Jones? The right to sequester data from review? Opacity in Science? Star Chamber methodologies? Science as decided by ecumenical council of grand climate poobahs?
I remain willing to shift my opinions as the evidence presents itself. Why do I have this sinking feeling that you don’t share this same capacity for rational evolution?
Who am I protecting? Why the large number of people living on the margin who will starve and freeze if we encumber carbon just as we enter a period of cooling. Get with the program, son; the ethics have shifted 180 degrees.
==============
Sorry, in the light of recent events not prepared to believe ANYTHING coming out of Hadley.
http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails
would not be surprised if in the coming days most of these people are sacked