Was there any actual warming to begin with?

posted at 12:20 pm on February 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The Times of London delivers a separate blow to the AGW movement today in a report on scientific review of the data used to claim man-made warming of the planet over the last few decades.  Several researchers have found that the measurements of temperatures in the AGW record that showed temperature increases mainly came from land development and urbanization, not from actual temperature increases.  They have made their findings public through peer-reviewed studies that come at a very bad time for the IPCC and AGW advocates:

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

Watts’ study has not yet been peer reviewed, but it shows the questionable conditions of temperature measurements in many of the IPCC-cited weather stations.  One weather station is located next to an incinerator, while others have air-conditioning units in close proximity to the instruments.  Apparently more than one is adjacent to waste-treatment plants, which generate significant heat.

These revelations come on top of a series of embarrassing disclosures about the IPCC report.  Another research team at Loughborough University may expose even more.  Terry Wills will publish a paper in Climatic Change that will argue that the IPCC misread its data, and that the temperature fluctuations it saw are just as likely to be random weather than any systemic trend, whether caused by greenhouse gases or not.

The struts have begun to collapse under AGW hysteria.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

The satellites in question only went into service after the PDO switched from it’s cool phase to it’s warm phase. No temperature data is worth anything until we have at least a 100 year record. Even that is probably to short.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 8:22 AM

There’s a 32-year solar cycle, right? Because of that, I’d want a trend to show up over at least 64 years. If they pattern of temperatures shows an uptick from one solar cycle to the next, MAYBE there’s something to talk about.

But 4 warm years in the 1990-2000s does not a pattern make ;-) If it did, then the global warming in the 1930s would have already melted us!

On a related note, it’s sad that Google search tends to show outdated, retracted, or just plain false information when you search for “hottest years on record”.

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 2:20 PM

How long until real science starts to permiate the brains on the left? I mean the functioning brains. I’m still hearing the same old… flat earther talk.

petunia on February 15, 2010 at 2:43 PM

There’s a 32-year solar cycle, right?

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 2:20 PM

22 years.
Each solar max is on average 11 years apart. But the sun’s magnetic field reverses on each cycle, so it takes to solar max cycles to get back to your starting point.

Cycle 23 which probably just coming to an end (won’t know for certain for another 6 months or so) is 13 or 14 years long already. Which is why most prognosticators believe SC24 is going to be weak.

About 5 years ago, the solar conveyor (a current, under the surface of the sun that carries sun spots from the solar equator to the solar poles, pretty much came to a stop, lowest ever recorded) There is some evidence that the strength of the solar conveyor affects of the cycle after the next one. In this case SC25.

So it looks like SC’s 24 and 25 are going to be weak.
SC’s 22 and 23 on the other hand, were very strong cycles.

Even though it looks like SC24 is getting started, the sun’s magnetic field is still not picking up. It’s still at record low levels. As a result, cosmic rays are hitting the earth’s atmosphere at near record levels.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 3:12 PM

I mean the functioning brains.

petunia on February 15, 2010 at 2:43 PM

I believe such a thing amongst the left, is as rare as unicorn poop.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Here’s a graph of CO2 absorbtion spectra, along with the other major greenhouse gases.

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif

Not only does CO2 only have only two strong absorbtion bands, one of the bands completely overlaps one of water’s bands, and the other CO2 band partly overlaps another water band.

The result is that each new molecule of CO2 added to the atmospher has next to no impact on how much IR is escaping the planet.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 3:48 PM

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 3:49 PM

The struts have begun to collapse under AGW hysteria.

But still, the EPA wants to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant.

The Won will stop the seas from rising and save the planet, whether or not it needs to be saved.

Steve Z on February 15, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Here’s a graph of CO2 absorbtion spectra, along with the other major greenhouse gases.

Those spectra don’t show the interesting part. The strong-absorbing CO2 band near 15 microns is very narrow (about 14.5 to 15.5 microns), and CO2 is nearly transparent beyond 15.5 microns, while water vapor absorbs heavily.

Steve Z on February 15, 2010 at 4:01 PM

This is actually what I have been reading… that it isn’t just the Man caused thing that is in question now. It is the whole warming trend to begin with!

On the other hand… there must have been something to worry some scientists somewhere sometime to get the whole ball rolling.

This couldn’t have been a plot all a long. Although I guess when you consider the damage the environmental movement has made all over the country it is a bit more possible.

The endangered species act has certainly caused much more damage than anyone could have foreseen.

Has it all been a plot? To what end?

petunia on February 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM

I used to have a graph that combined the Earth’s IR emmissions spectra with the above graph, but I can’t find it anymore.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 4:25 PM

I used to have a graph that combined the Earth’s IR emmissions spectra with the above graph, but I can’t find it anymore.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Isn’t that the same excuse being used by the GW activists/scientists?
All we need to know is that these “scientists” are so disorganized that valuable information is lost…as if being organized isn’t part of being a scientist.
Yeah, I remember when Einstein actually developed the theory of relativity…but lost his notes…

right2bright on February 15, 2010 at 4:37 PM

I believe such a thing amongst the left, is as rare as unicorn poop.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 3:13 PM

I believe intelligent liberals exist. But there’s no data to support my theory.

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 4:38 PM

As a result, cosmic rays are hitting the earth’s atmosphere at near record levels.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 3:12 PM

Which affects cloud cover, which affects retained heat, right?

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Which affects cloud cover, which affects retained heat, right?

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Actually, clouds have more affect on reflected energy.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Isn’t that the same excuse being used by the GW activists/scientists?

right2bright on February 15, 2010 at 4:37 PM

In my own defense, I have posted the link to that graph several times here.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Has it all been a plot? To what end?

petunia on February 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Control and money. You can control virtually anything using the environment as a reason. You can control what people eat, how much they eat, energy, industry, what you drive, how much you drive, your leisure activities, and most of all they can control populations. Of course “favored” people, organizations and industries that help the government will get exemptions and breaks.

Environmentalism is a communist’s dream come true.

darwin on February 15, 2010 at 4:49 PM

I believe intelligent liberals exist. But there’s no data to support my theory.

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 4:38 PM

Oh, puht-t-t-t-t-t-t! Use your brains, Hawk. If you need some data, just make it up. Massage it a bit. Add a fancy name to it. Have your dog peer review it. Apply for a grant. You will then be able to assess the liberal mind from the inside. ;-)

Yoop on February 15, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Does HA have a way to search through posts? All I can find is an article search.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Have your dog peer review it.

Yoop on February 15, 2010 at 4:49 PM

FIFY

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Environmentalism is a communist’s dream come true.

darwin on February 15, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Reminds me of an old joke.
What’s the difference between an environmentalist and a developer?

The environmentalist already owns a house in the woods.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Has it all been a plot? To what end?

petunia on February 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Two things, the proverbial “follow the money” and the second, take down the U.S.
First the money…Hansen received tens of millions of dollars to exploit this information…the guy who wrote the IPPC report was paid one million dollars…universities were living off this gold mine of mis-information.
And second, the industrial nation of the U.S. has to be taken down, freedom is not embraced by all of the “ists” in the world, we are the biggest threat for power.
Remember, the founders of this movement are the exact same people who, in the 60′s gave us global cooling, global famine, global war, global riots, all beginning here in the U.S…and of course none of them will die a poor man…

right2bright on February 15, 2010 at 4:57 PM

In my own defense, I have posted the link to that graph several times here.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 4:42 PM

No defense needed…these guys business is keeping track of information to back up their theories, that is their lifeblood.
You can’t go far as a scientist to say “It’s true, and if I ever find the information I will send it to you”.
Your info is truly misplaced…theirs never existed…

right2bright on February 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 3:12 PM

. . . which probably goes a long way toward explaining why NASA has just launched the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) satellite — to help us get a much better handle on how solar irradiance here on earth is affected by sun surface activity.

Here were a few grafs from that story.

January 31, 2010

Nasa mission to unravel sun’s threat to Earth
A new probe could help scientists predict the solar storms that cause chaos for us

[by] Chris Hastings and Jonathan Leake

NASA is to embark on one of its most ambitious missions in an attempt to unlock the secrets of the sun.

Following its launch in nine days’ time, the US space agency’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) will spend five years in orbit trying to discover the causes of extreme solar activity, such as sun spots and solar winds and flares.

. . .

Barbara Thompson, project scientist, said: “It is Nasa’s first weather mission and it aims to characterise everything on the sun that can impact on the Earth and near Earth.

“We know things happen on the sun which affect spacecraft, communications and radio signals. If we can understand the underlying causes of what is happening then we can turn this information into forecasts.

“The key thing about the mission is that it is not just pure science for its own sake. There is likely to be a direct and immediate benefit for people.”

. . . .

The Times story downplayed any connection of sun surface activity (or lack thereof) to global warming.

But as was inadvertently revealed in the hacked/leaked e-mails, even the warmists — while quietly discussing the significant lack of warming over the past decade, at least one of the warmists alluded to the significant role he presumed that the notable lack of sunspot activity over the past several years had played as an influence on our climate.

For example, check out the comment of Stanford University’s Stephen Schneider just this past fall on October 12, 2009, where he said in pertinent part, in the course of his contribution to the e-mail exchange:

“Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to this new “IPCC Lead Author” from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary–presumed–vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000.

. . .

Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
. . . .”

But, if SC’s 24 and 25 are weak, well there could be a chill in the air.

Trochilus on February 15, 2010 at 5:11 PM

At Watts Up with that?

“Dalton Minimum Repeat Goes Mainstream” . . .

Trochilus on February 15, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Conservatives should start using the ‘warmer’ label like some are using the ‘truther’ and ‘birther’ labels.

If a candidate doesn’t absolutely irrefutably claim that global warming is a scam – then they should be labelled as a conspiracy kook who believes the earth is out to get them.

Mr Purple on February 16, 2010 at 12:42 AM

Like Grandma, when she got run over by the reindeer on her way to our house Christmas Eve,
Obama and his crew of slavish AGW pimps and hucksters still believe.

The sooner these suckers are out of power the safer the world will be.

profitsbeard on February 16, 2010 at 12:55 AM

Conservatives should start using the ‘warmer’ label like some are using the ‘truther’ and ‘birther’ labels.

actually I was thinking ‘Chicken Little’s’

RonK on February 16, 2010 at 7:57 AM

Here’s another paper that oakland claimed didn’t exist.
From Dr. Pielke. A work that demonstrates a negative correlation between ocean temperatures and stratospheric water content. IE, a negative feedback.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/comments-on-contributions-of-stratospheric-water-vapor-to-decadal-changes-in-the-rate-of-global-warming-by-solomon-et-al-2010/

MarkTheGreat on February 16, 2010 at 9:17 AM

Many, perhaps even most meteorologist don’t believe in AGW.

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1746746.html

MarkTheGreat on February 16, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5