“CRICKET legend Sir Donald Bradman is a useful metaphor for the escalating global row over claims the world’s leading climate agencies have been messing with the weather.
Imagine, for instance, if some bureau of sport were to revise the Don’s batting average in test cricket down from 99.94 to 75 after adjusting for anomalies and deleting innings of 200 runs or more.
What if the bureau then claimed another batsman had exceeded the Don’s revamped record of 75 to become the greatest ever?”
So begins a long article in today’s The Weekend Australian on page 20.
Journalist Graham Lloyd was in fact building on an analogy in a submission to the new panel, by David Stockwell; the Panel ostensibly established to review the Bureau of Meteorology’s homogenization of Australia’s official temperature record.
In his submission David Stockwell, an adjunct research fellow at Central Queensland University explains:
“Every portrayal of historical data should be historically accurate, else it becomes revisionism, and strays out of the domain of science and into the domain of ideology and politics. While step-wise adjustments are intended to compensate for real changes in the baseline temperature that result from, often undocumented, changes in instrumentation or relocation of stations, the cumulative effect of back-propagating step adjustments is to corrupt the official record.”
Neither Christine Milne nor Tony Jones are likely to follow up on this. So, we need you to get your letter into The Editor and/or make comment under the article…
And also contact your local MP and/or news outlet and explain why they need to report this.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer it was pleasing to see your concerns about BOM climate data methodologies included in Graham Lloyd’s article in the Australian today. Reading your intro you use the word “ostensibly” when describing the purpose of the review. I hope that this doesn’t convey any lack of confidence in this group fulfilling its role in anything other than a professional and independent way? I must admit I would have greater confidence if you and Ken Stewart were included or at least able to monitor its processes. Please keep up the good fight. There are many people out here who admire you greatly for your work.
Cheers
mem
This is a good article by Graham Lloyd. It doesn’t matter how good the “gatekeepers” may be, with the huge amounts of taxpayer dollars at stake here they have to be audited.
The fact that the warmist side of the political spectrum don’t either understand or wish to know about this logical procedure, speaks volumes about their religious, unquestioning attitude.
It also tells us why any errors, adjustments, “human forcings” etc only travel in one particular direction.
Making it all the more necessary.
Impartiality of the chairman of the review panel Ron Sandland might be a potential concern simply because the regular ‘State of the Climate’ reports are declared to be of joint CSIRO and BoM authorship.
Also, following claims of FOI revelations, there is alarming stuff kicked-off in a long piece in Australasian Science entitled: How a Tobacco Lobbyist Won over CSIRO:
http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-may-2013/how-tobacco-lobbyist-won-over-csiro.html
Briefly, (reportedly from FOI info), Sandland appointed Donna Staunton to better communicate the CSIRO’s aura to the world.
A storm of protests followed which Sandland defended including a claim that she had publically renounced her previous beliefs that tobacco was not harmful to health. However, it seems that investigators have yet to find any evidence of that.
The comparison with Bradman is quite ridiculous. Every run in a test match is recorded in a record. It either occurred or it did not occur. It is not influenced by external factors.
Climate measurements on the other hand are influenced by a range of factors including the quality of the technology used, the environment where the measurement is taken some of these are short term and some long term. A growing tree is sufficient to alter the microclimate around a measurement station. A faulty or failing piece of technology may not be identified for years if it returns what are considered reasonable results.
I have no doubt that the review panel will find some flaws in the BOM reanalysis and the measurements will improve because of it. However there is no likelihood whatsoever that they will find a pattern of variation that implies the rate of warming is significantly different than that already shown by the BOM or the global climate analyses.
The fact that four of the six major global studies showed 2014 as hottest on record reduces the margins of error significantly and increases the probability that it was in fact the hottest on record.
In the past reviews like this, instigated by contrarians have demonstrated that any errors caused by statistical techniques are miniscule compared to the overall trend.
LLoyd’s article doesn’t appear to quote a single Australian climate scientist in support of the inference made that the BOM might actually bewrong.
DavidR,
I disagree wholeheartedly with you.
There is an inevitable outcome that the will demonstrate that the rate of warming is significantly less than that currently being reported. In addition, the raw data will show extensive periods of heat ()NOT cold) which have been “wiped”.
David R,
Rewriting records is rewriting records. Cricket, elections, temperature- there is no excuse for fiddling with the historical data. The climate obsessed are destroying validly compiled historical records and replacing them with revised data and claiming the revisions are the only valid record.
If a crisis only exists in revised data then it is fair to ask if the crisis exists in reality at all. The so-called hottest on record is meaningless if those who profit from the claim have the ability to rewrite the record, which is what they have done.
And the claim of “hottest”- where were the promised catastrophes?
Storms- nothing much going on.
Droughts- ditto
sea level rise- not increasing
One tell of extremist/con-artist controlled narratives is their inability to leave history alone. Who is messing with history when it comes to climate?
Thanks for your on-going efforts here – nice to see some progress being made.
DavidR,
“…LLoyd’s article doesn’t appear to quote a single Australian climate scientist in support of the inference made that the BOM might actually bewrong.”
Well actually, the topic of Graham Lloyd’s feature concerns the growing reports of serious problems with the data handling at the BoM and at similar authorities around the world, so your supposition would hardly be surprising. However, you are wrong, and you should read the article again perhaps starting at:
“…Australia’s BoM has issued two statements ahead of the Sandland review panel. In one it says temperature records are influenced by a range of factors such as changes to site surrounds, measurement methods and the relocation of stations…”
Then read on for about 500 words in which the views of NOAA and Berkeley etcetera are discussed.
There was this article by Mr Lloyd of 16/Feb/2015 with which you may feel more comfortable with?
‘New way needed on climate’: Brian Schmidt
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/new-way-needed-on-climate-brian-schmidt/story-e6frg6xf-1227220631542
The global temp record since 1975 can be divided into two parts, 1975 to 1998 ( warm PDO) where more el ninos influenced the record and 1998 to the present where la ninas dominated.( cool PDO)
This is fairly simply stuff and just points to NATURAL climate variability and little impact from increased co2 emissions over that 35 year period. Roy Spencer has a post on this and the very poor outcome from the climate models.
Don’t forget the extremists now agree that natural variability ruled the roost from 1998 to the present, so if nat ver caused the pause why didn’t nat ver cause the warming from 1975 to 1998? Fairly easy to understand isn’t it? Just simple logic and reason. Easy that is you also have common sense and a grip on reality.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/02/on-natural-climate-variability-and-climate-models/
Many of you will remember the famous hockey stick fiasco where contrarians took exactly the opposite approach and berated Michael Mann for not using the best statistical techniques.
When the ‘best statistical approach’ as defined by the critics was used the result was another hockey stick almost identical to the first, and even when another dozen studies repeated the same results contrarians were still bleating that it was wrong.
Or consider the Berkeley climate study that was trumpeted by contrariansfor two years as the study that was going to prove the alarmists wrong. Then the results came out and the study acknowledged that warming was going on just like the scientific community said it was. Did the contrarians accept the evidence then, of course not they just went of hunting for new excuses to justify their position.
As for Roy Spencer the RSS data set shows exactly the same pattern of warming as all the other data sets, although the rate is about 100th of a degree less per decade. You see the same fluctuations every year throughout the thirty five years of the satellite record in all the records including HADCrut 3 & 4, GISS, NOAA, UAH. It is only the fact that RSS massively overstates the warming in 1997-98 compared to the other datasets that has caused the anomalously low trend in that data set over the last decade and a half. Perhaps its time Dr Spencer reviewed his statistical techniques.
DavidR: You confound errors and faults with station moves as others have done at the Conversation. Past temperatures are being changed due to moves of stations in the present, and this would happen even if all of the instruments and surroundings were perfect.
That is, even if there were no errors, the stated temperatures in ACORN-SAT are severed from the real temperatures measured at the time by the back-propagation to force present temperatues to match the present day instrument as it moves around.
You need to distinguish errors and faults from the compensation for moves, which is really a way of consolidating discontinuous series. These adjustments are typically large around 0.5 deg and there are a number in each ACORN series, so it is the main post-hoc manipulation. Errors tend to be transitory, trees grow and are removed, housing deteriorate and are replaced. But station moves affect the series back to the first measurement.
The only purpose of the methodology is to attempt to maintain the relative difference in temperature of individual stations between the past and present. The product name misrepresents this – Australian Climate Observation Reference Network – as it does not record observations, and cannot be used as a reference.
It renders the network useless for statements about record highs and lows for the reported temperatures are not real and can change at any revision of the ACORN network. It is possible that a contemporary move in a station, would lead to revision of that ACORN series’ temperatures back to 1910, which could alter the rankings of record highs and lows. One could think of any number of absurdities this creates.
Far better I think is Jennifers suggestion, that a long tem network consist only of the written record of those stations with long unbroken recordings. This would require digitization of a number of stations but would extend back to 1880 at least. Not difficult or expensive but the BoM has not done it.
Bob Fernley Jones,
My statement was that Lloyds’ article did not quote a single Australian Climate scientist in support of the inference that the BOM might be wrong”
The BOM reference is explaining why the re-analysis of data is necessary to improve the quality of the dataset. It is not suggesting that the BOM is wrong.
No other Australian Climate Scientist is quoted.The rest of the article spends a lot of time giving the views of ecologists, retired accountants and self proclaimed amateur scientists. There is no global debate on the quality of the records just the usual bunch of contrarians trying to muddy the waters. Rather like the period when contrarians started legal challenges against climate scientists and then described them as under investigation.
David Stockwell,
the BOM does not consider that the quality of the equipment and measurements prior to 1910 was sufficient to warrant developing a data set beyond that point.
As a taxpayer funded organisation it has to decide whether the value of a dataset using untrustworthy instruments and poor measurement techniques is worth the effort compared to developing a more accurate record over the past 115 years.
None of the claims made by contrarians over the past 15 years have been shown to have any merit. It is highly unlikely that the current review will find that they have any significant merit either.
If the review does show a need I am sure it will be done. However I am quite sure that the review will find that the suggestion that the BOM figures are significantly skewed or inaccurate is wrong.
All temperature records are approximations using a sample of data from relatively few locations, unlike the exacting and detailed records of the ACB. All records are estimates but that doesn’t take away from the trend towards consistently higher estimates. The records already indicate we are regularly surpassing the 1998 estimate, and no estimate since 1985 has put the year out of the 10 hottest on record at the time. Thats the reality of warming.
The BOM (and CSIRO) will not be open places of scientific exploration during this enquiry. They will be close-minded and haughty. Nothing will come of it, unless the enquiry can force them to release all of their technical specifications for the homogenisation process, the program code, and the systems testing plans. Given the HARRYREADME.TXT revelations from ClimateGate, we can likely expect the whole system to be an unholy mess which can never be allowed to see the light of day.
Is there an IT Systems expert on the panel? After all, these adjustments are driven by computer programming. If you don’t delve into the detail, a thousand deceptions can be hidden. They will hide behind reasonable stories of “station moves”.
Here is my request of the enquiry – force the BOM to create a computer-generated audit trail of EVERY INDIVIDUAL temperature adjustment, the reason for the adjustment, and the variables used to perform the adjustment.
A further thought:
If, on average, the adjustment to old temperatures is DOWN by such a significant amount, how many of these station moves were made to cause such a significant change, and what types of moves must have been in the majority to cause the adjustment to be DOWNWARDS?
OK, if they move the station to a higher altitude, then a downward adjustment would be relevant. If they moved a station to a higher latitude, then a downward adjustment would be relevant. What else?
I’m left to wonder if the old-timers had a “thing” for moving the stations to cooler climes (by altitude and latitude)?
What does BOM allege happened, historically, in large numbers, to cause such a significant downwards adjustment to old temperatures? How come the moves didn’t roughly even out?
DavidR, are you saying that if the BoM were free to attach treemometer data to thermometer data as per the Mann made hockey stick they could also “hide the decline” with similar skill?
You also conveniently ignore that the gatekeepers regularly revisit and readjust.
Yes its interesting how those records at the BOM are so reliable, and can be trusted. Take the recent wind speed measurements on Middle Percy Island during the 2 days that cyclone Marcia passed by. The records were there – then all of a sudden they mysteriously disappeared! Vanished and gone! This was just after questions were being asked about the true level of the category that can be assigned to the cyclone.
Either Mr Bradman scored a run or he did not. OK, either the wind speed measurements at Middle Percy Island were recorded or – they are being hidden.
The review committee must have members who are openly skeptical about the integrity of the temperature records, and it should be chaired by someone who does not have any prior connection with the BOM or CSIRO. If they have nothing to hide, then what’s the problem?
The complete list of panel members is shown here.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/upping-the-heat-on-climate-number-crunchers/story-e6frg6z6-1227242096753
It consists of independent mathematicians, statisticians and scientists none of who work for BOM.
Lets all agree to accept their findings as unbiased and independent.
@ DavidR
Thank you for your continuing demonstrations of your ‘confirmation bias’, see link next if you no understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Within your great knowledge of worldly truth, are you able to advise:
1) The terms of reference of the forum…. (My own enquiries have been fruitless)
2) Are the terms of reference unimportant?
3) Whether Dr Ron Sandlands the forum chair is no longer tainted with well documented incorrigible partisanship when he was a bignob at CSIRO (e.g. in employing a totally unqualified director of communications, a former infamous tobacco lobbyist, who denied tobacco harm; Ms Staunton)
4) Can you confirm that such partisanship does not sentimentally extend like-in-family within the BoM with whom CSIRO jointly writes reports on “The State of the Climate”?
5) You comment that the other forum members are “independent”, but can you confirm that they do not hold fixed PC views like as demonstrated by you?
6) Can you confirm in who/how the forum membership was selected and if it was subjected to review by truly impartial moderators and by sceptics, the latter being behind the raising of some serious issues that you seem to dismiss on the basis of your assumed authority?
7) Do you consider that the forum members, (prominently statisticians and mathematicians), are qualified to handle various sceptic’s submissions such as on records of Stevensons Screens in use way before 1910, or pre 1910 newspaper records of disastrous heat and human/animal deaths therefrom etcetera?
8) Have you heard of the “Confederation Drought” a period of great heat?
9) Are you aware of any correct submission procedures to the forum? For instance I’ve seen submissions to the responsible Honorable Bob Baldwin MP, but will they get from him to the forum? What is the tracking process?
10) The scandal surrounding Dr Ron Sandlands in 2) reminds me of one of the “independent enquiries” in the UK “Climategate” imbroglio, the one led by scandal ridden Sir Muir Russell. Perhaps firstly you could study this quick character brief: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/holyrood-fiasco-peer-s-40k-for-chairing-climategate-review-1.1052947 and give us your wise analysis for assumption of a fair enquiry. Then perhaps of the many other reports you could digest the following: http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/28/the-muir-russell-contract/ and think……
Oh, I’ll stop at ten.
Thank you for your anticipated advice, Bob_FJ
JENNIFER,
I see that you currently list twelve submissions, ten of which are positively addressed to Bob Baldwin per: http://jennifermarohasy.com/temperatures/submissions-to-the-panel/
In the case of Anthony Cox’s it addressed as follows: “Submission to Bob Baldwin for Panel established to audit ACORN-SAT”
However, a reply was received from the CEO of the BoM on 25/Feb, before the start time scheduled for the Forum!
Your submission of 18/Jan appears to be the earliest. Have you had any reaction to it, and are you confident that it will be referred to the forum, (now into its fourth day?).
Also, do you know if it will have a file ID allocated so that tracking and outcome can be verified?
DavidR, do you seriously think Mann and his hockeystick have any validity? As much as playing the man is a poor rebuttal, only the ignorant could use him as a defense for anything associated with CAGW!?…..have you bothered to read any of the “otherside” of the debate?
Toby,
Mann and the hockey stick are both well founded and respected in the scientific community. His research has been replicated numerous times and never refuted. That is. there is no scientific study suggesting he was wrong.
Furthermore, even Wegman, who conducted the statistical analysis of the hockey stick paper confirmed that global warming was happening repeatedly throughout his report. As I said above when Mann’s paper was rewritten to take into account Wegman’s statistical criticisms, there was no significant change in the outcome.
Even the worst of the contrarians , now preface there comments by acknowledging AGW is occurring, before trying to present a case that it really doesn’t matter.
I can assure you I have every otherside of the debate that’s out there and they amounts to nothing but diversionary tactics thought up by people who don’t want to acknowledge the consequences of our actions.
Not something that I personally consider a particularly Libertarian approach, where accepting personal responsibility is a key commitment.
Bob F-J,
you are getting a long way ahead of the panel there, As I understand it they are just sorting out there procedures at this stage.
And I don’t know what the terms of reference are. I consider it highly unlikely that the study will find any serious issues with the BOM approach, although I am sure they will find something to make recommendations about.
I am sure the panel will have the skills to assess the claims of the BOM, the contrarians and the climate scientists.
@ DavidR,
Thank you for your great wisdom delivered at gone 10 pm last night.
Will you be able to find time to advise on the other nine points that I raised?
Panting in anticipation,
Bob_FJ
DavidR, not even your mate Richard Muller believes in the Hockey Stick:
Can I ask what is going on?
In 40 years in the aviation industry, I always thought the BOM gave good professional service to the industry. and no doubt to the farming community and the community at large.
The CSIRO invented and developed a huge range of items which put Australia on the map. Now it appears these professional organisations/people are supposed to be part of a world-wide conspiracy to fudge the figures on met. observations.
Terribly hard to believe that these dedicated people can all be so wrong in their assessment of what is really happening to our climate.;
Get the views of a scientist involved in the issue!
https://theconversation.com/global-warming-trend-unaffected-by-fiddling-with-temperature-data-37700
Improving the quality of the data doesn’t change the trend
Bob F, I don’t chase rabbits down holes.
Drongo, Good one Mate! That video was filmed in 2010 before the Berkeley study, run by er, Richard Muller, acknowledged that AGW was in fact occurring just as Mann and countless others said it was.
DavidR,
Using GIGO to justify replications of the hockeystick does not make a good defense of the hockeystick.
And your…..denial…..of the pause and tenacious clingling to of the apocalypse is duly noted.
DavidR,
The trick you fanatics use of confusing the issue is tedious. The question is not if humans impact the climate. We have for millenia. The issue is if we doing anything that is dangerous to the climate.
“Drongo, Good one Mate! That video was filmed in 2010 before the Berkeley study, run by er, Richard Muller, acknowledged that AGW was in fact occurring just as Mann and countless others said it was.”
You don’t even get that is exactly the point I am making!
Yet he still doesn’t believe in Mann’s version of our climate history.
Or should that be PERversion?
Here’s a quick response to David’s fantasies because McKitrick and McIntyre explain it much better than I can.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
Here are a lot of HS studies from Climate Audit.
http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
Here’s Phil Jones 2010 interview with the BBC and this is point A. This just proves that the warming rates since 1860 have been the same. Or within 0.01c per decade. The two rates before 1950 ( IPCC’s impact for co2 warming ) are the same as 1975 to 1998.
A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
Here’s Jones’s answer to question G about the MedWP and the lack of SH proxies for that period. Yet we have since had the PAGES 2K study that showed a warmer Antarctica ( than today) from 141 AD to 1250 AD or 1109 years. And 1250 fits exactly for the Med WP.
There is also a 30 year warming spike for 1671 to 1700 in the study. All NATURAL warming of course.
http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~sjphipps/publications/pages_2k_consortium2013.pdf
And just to add to the above, Co2 Science has many PR studies that show a SH Med WP. Here’s a number for South America.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/s/southamericamwp.php So we can say that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented at all about the NATURAL warming from 1950.
Here’s question G and his answer.
G – There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few paleoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
DavidR @ 12:18 am today
“Bob F, I don’t chase rabbits down holes.”
After deep contemplation, I truly comprehend that you have infinite wisdom. After all, you wouldn’t want to get your head stuck?
But tell me, out of great curiosity, if you can’t answer my other nine questions, how big are the rabbits around your way? (er what nominal diameter are their burrows?)
Eager to learn,
Bob_FJ
@ Martin Boas
The CSIRO still does some good stuff other than climate alarmism.
As I recall, it the head of the CSIRO Board Mr Simon McKeon has been particularly strident about Armageddon.
Also, I read somewhere that the entire Board will be replaced when their term expires in June, I think it is. Perhaps reminiscent of the dismissed what was it called; The Climate Commission? …. You know that great authority headed by that famous mammalian fossil expert Tim Flannery.
Aw, don’t trust me. Do your own research.
Dr Richard Lindzen hits back at the extremists over their persecution of decent, honest sceptical scientists. At least in this case the extremists have had to back off to some degree, but who would doubt that these pig ignorant fools will promote their pseudo scientific nonsense again and again?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/dr-richard-lindzen-in-wsj-political.html#comment-form
“Drongo, Good one Mate! That video was filmed in 2010 before the Berkeley study, run by er, Richard Muller, acknowledged that AGW was in fact occurring just as Mann and countless others said it was.”
You don’t even get that is exactly the point I am making!
Yet he still doesn’t believe in Mann’s version of our climate history.”
Drongo, Yes he does now, because he has checked the evidence. When he was ignorant he didn’t believe it. When he ran the study he accepted that Mann was right. That’s the difference between a sceptic and a contrarian. A sceptic admits when they a wrong, a contrarian just looks for a new bunch of contrarian rubbish.
Neville,
re Here’s a quick response to David’s fantasies because McKitrick and McIntyre explain it much better than I can.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
Its very amusing that McKittrick relies on a simple diagram produced in an IPCC document and ignores all the evidence that came after it.
If you look at McKitrticks data in figure 7 it looks nothing like the hockey stick. On the other hand, tte blade on the hockey stick was not measured using proxy data it was measured using direct scientific machinery.
As I said earlier there have been numerous scientific studies confirming Mann’s analysis since 1998. All the scientific measurements show 1998 as much hotter (0.17 deg C) than every year in the well recorded history. And since then many years have been hotter than that.
Here’s a quick quiz
1. What was the hottest year before 1998.
2. What was the hottest year before that.
3. How many years since 1998 have been rated hotter than 1998.
4 How many years since 1998 have been rated cooler than the previous hottest year before that.
1998 was exceptionally hot but it hasn’t changed the warming trend one bit. Even RSS shows exactly the same rate of warming from 1979 – 1998 as it shows from 1979 -12014 ( abt 0.14 / decade)
@ DavidR and Spangled Drongo
Actually, Muller’s belief in CAGW dates back to at least 2003 as exampled in my following email to various group-think parties in ABC:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012 To: David Fisher; Jonathan Holmes; Lin Buckfield; Robyn Williams Cc: Tony Hill (News Mgmt)
Subject: Proposal for an interesting story for Media Watch and/or The Science Show.
Hi all,
There has been a lot of global interest concerning Prof Richard Muller’s PR launch of his unpublished BEST project work on global temperatures. One local example is here in the SMH website.
Prof Muller claims that the results of the work by his team (BEST) have now converted him from being a long-term sceptic of AGW to being a new believer. However, here are some snippets worthy of journalistic investigation:
1) In contradiction, back in 2003, he [Muller] stated in his own article: ‘Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate’
2) And, as another example, in 2008 he [Muller] admitted in an interview at Grist that as an environmentalist, back in the early 80’s, he resigned from The Sierra Club, because their antinuclear policies would result in burning of more fossil fuels….. very likely to lead to global warming.
3) Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis. Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.
4) Prof Ross McKitrick was one of the referees at GRL, the target journal which has not published the BEST papers. He has a scathing commentary here in response to Muller’s latest publicity launch.
5) A visit to the Muller-BEST website reveals some simplistic errors, for instance as demonstrated in the following image: BEST t plus co2.png (image and other links available upon email request)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh and his daughter who ran the show had vested interests BTW
Read this again David. You’ll note that Phil Jones agrees the rates of warming per decade from 1860 to now are the same or within one hundredth of one degree C. Close enough for Jones it seems ,so where is the impact from co2 after 1950? So Jones admits to no SS difference at all before 1950- and after 1950.
Neville March 7, 2015 at 9:23 am #
Here’s Phil Jones 2010 interview with the BBC and this is point A. This just proves that the warming rates since 1860 have been the same. Or within 0.01c per decade. The two rates before 1950 ( IPCC’s impact for co2 warming ) are the same as 1975 to 1998.
A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
Mann liked to use the Tiljander and other data upside down to get his hockey stick shape. And the NAS panel also advised that Bristlecone pine proxies shouldn’t be used for temp reconstruction. A definite no no . But David still believes his upside down hero no matter how many contortions he pulls.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/14/upside-side-down-mann-and-the-peerreviewedliterature/
You’ll also note that the Maths and stats expert Jean S called on by Steve in the above post to help expose the Tiljander con also forced the withdrawal of the SH hockey stick nonsense by Gergis and Karoly.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/ What a joke .
Just to dispute the nonsense about Greenland and so called CAGW causing higher temps and record melting of the ice sheet.
The Phil Jones, Briffa et al study found that Greenland was warmer in the 1930s and forties than at any time up to 2005. Observe this is well before the 1950 date chosen by the IPCC for co2 impact.
1941 was also the warmest year up to 2005 and the rate of warming was much faster in the 30s and 40s as well. Here’s a summary of the study from the report by Pat Michaels.
Also Greenland actually cooled up to the 1990s.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/17/cooling-the-debate-a-longer-record-of-greenland-air-temperature/
Just to prove that even the IPCC doesn’t believe there will be dangerous SLR for the next 300 years at least.
This is a graph of all the models for SLR until 2300. You’ll note that Antarctica is negative and Greenland is positive, But Ant ice sheet is about 9 times the size of GL sheet, so where are we to get the dangerous SLR caused by so called CAGW?
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/364/1844/1709/F4.large.jpg
Hey David, Mann needs your support. All the science organisations and individual scientists have left him looking like a shag on a rock. And he’s still telling porkies about whether his HS graph is genuine or not. Fair dinkum you couldn’t make this stuff up, but don’t worry our Davy boy still believes in his totalitarian religious cult. Just a pity about the lack of evidence though.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/10/the-drawn-out-mann-lawsuit-science-is-not-taking-a-stand-for-michael-mann/
Neville,
This court case is not about whether Mann is right. It is about whether Steyne is allowed to claim he is wrong in the way he did. IE. its about libel or slander not science.
DavidR,
Yet the plaintiff case is based on Mann’s assertion that he is correct and above criticism. The reference to the simile was actually a quote of someone else, by the way.
And a normal reading of reference will show it was not calling Mann pedophile. Everything I have read on the sorry case is that it is all about the science and Mann’s seeking a carve out to exempt “real scientists” from public scrutiny.
David I see you’re still clutching at straws, but here’s heaps more ( recent) PR studies showing a Med WP and a LIA. Mann even tricked Prof Weaver into believing his silly nonsense. Wakey, Wakey Davy boy.
http://climateaudit.org/2015/03/11/how-mann-tricked-weaver/
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Hockey
Here is a list of large scale scientific studies supporting the rapid rise in temperatures occurring in the 20th Century.
Eight of these were written before Mann’s paper the rest afterwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years.
The results produced by Mann have been repeatedly confirmed by scientists and are accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. But there is no doubt that the denial industry will continue to produce papers attempting to refute them, usuallu it doesn’t take much to discredit the denial papers.Usually they focus on a single stream of data rather than a synthesis of all the data. Statistically a small percentage of studies will go against the trend.. Focusing on just those studies simply distorts your views.
David have a read of this study by Craig Loehle and you may understand why so many of your studies are incestuous nonsense.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N4/EDIT.php As McIntyre has pointed out many times many of those studies just piggy back from one to the other and even use the same data in the wrong way again and again.
This study by Loehle doesn’t use proxies that are unfit at all and yet these studies show the modern warming directly from the proxies as well. Oh yes and he doesn’t use spurious data upside down either to try and trick the public.
A new study finds that the deep oceans cooled from 1992 to 2011.
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/bad-news-for-trenberths-missing-heat-new-study-finds-the-deep-oceans-cooled-from-1992-to-2011-and/
These people have reduced peer review/mate’s review to an art form. Some would call it corrupt but others just love this way of doing science.
http://climateaudit.org/2015/03/15/weaver-suggests-buddy-review-for-mann-et-al-2005/
Neville,
The paper Bob Tisdale refers to states that temperature fluctuations at the depths they are talking about are influenced by weather over the past 1000 years not 10 so its completely irrelevant to the warming of the last century.
Craig Loehle published a later paper (2007) suggesting that the hottest 30 years in the MWP might have been marginally hotter than the previous 30 years
Discussed here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kung-fu-Climate.html
Within three years his own data made the claim irrelevant and with the temperatures since then such a claim would be patently ridiculous.
The third blogspot you refer to isn’t worth commenting on.