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Watts’ study has not yet been peer reviewed, but it shows the questionable conditions of temperature measurements in many of the IPCC-cited weather stations.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 2 3 4 5

I can’t think of one piece of solid evidence that the enviro-communists have which proves anthropogenic warming.

All the temperature records have been tampered with, the satellite data appears to be skewed, their baseline for Arctic ice is from the end of a three decade cooling period when the ice was thick and temperatures were low, and no one has shown that a tiny increase in CO2 can force the retention of such an enormous amount of heat.

They should have been laughed out of town the moment it was shown that Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” was a complete fabrication and Al Gore should be in jail.

darwin on February 15, 2010 at 8:24 AM

I think human activity has contributed to it. It’s not all natural.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Please present your evidence.
Since the current warming is well inside historical norms, why do you assume that man played a role in it?

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 8:25 AM

Of all of the arguments by the anti-AGW side this one is the most unconvincing to me.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM

I’m still waiting for the alarmists to come up with their first argument. Much less a valid one.
They keep pointing to cycles that are well within historical norms, and claiming that these are somehow evidence.

Then they trot out their disproven models, and claim these as proof.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 8:28 AM

That doesn’t mean it is, either.

darwin on February 15, 2010 at 8:16 AM

Let’s dedicate today, Presidents Day, as a day we do not attempt to confuse the trolls with facts.

Let them have a day. We can bombard them with some of their own type of misinformation and confuse the s**t out of them. This could be make-it-up-as you-go day.

Yoop on February 15, 2010 at 8:35 AM

In my view, the science is sound. The question is how much of the warming is natural, how much is human caused, and how much may be caused by something else.

But warming is taking place.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Despite the fact that problem after problem is found with how the data is gathered and analyzed. Steve declares that as far as he is concerned, the science is sound.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 8:42 AM

Truly paranoid

oakland on February 14, 2010 at 8:44 PM

No, just conversant in recent history.
Something you seem to be unacquainted with.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 8:56 AM

No wonder the CRU people are suddenly disparaging tree ring data — after basing their tree ring analysis on exactly 12 special trees from the Yamal survey!
unclesmrgol on February 15, 2010 at 12:42 AM

Does anybody else see contradictory standards for the AGW enthusiasts (I really like the term) with respect to data they chose to use vs. Data they chose to ignore? They willfully selected a limited subset of the Yamal tree ring data that supported their bias toward warming. The Yamal area in which the trees were located is an extremely small portion of the Northern Hemisphere. In the next breath they stated that using the Medieval Warming Period’s data wasn’t warranted or ought to be given less weight. It was “suspect” because the evidence for the warming came mostly from large portions of the Northern Hemisphere, but the extent to which it represented worldwide temperatures hadn’t yet been adequately proven.

ya2daup on February 15, 2010 at 8:57 AM

That the earth had warmer periods when man wasn’t around doesn’t mean that a warmer period now isn’t caused, in part, by human activity.

SteveMG

It does however provide the foundation for demanding that people actually prove that this warming is caused by man, and is not just yet another warming cycle.

I must add that the warmists have provided nothing that even vaguely resembles evidence. And no, computer models, especially one with known and signifigant flaws, are not evidence.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 9:02 AM

If they are concerned about the warming of the SH during the MWP and whether it occurred or not, maybe they should act like a scientist and find out first before making the global population pay through the nose for their second rate scientific process. They would be laughed out of a high school science class.

Kissmygrits on February 15, 2010 at 9:32 AM

I think “human activity” has evened out the climate…I think we have helped average out, so we don’t have those wild swings of climate in the past.
Everything we have put into the air is actually benefiting mankind, and nature.
The industrial age has saved the planet, and made our life (climate wise) better and more productive.
No where has man ever been more productive, then the the past 75 years…no time have we grown more crops, and fed more people.
I say the “pollution” has actually saved our planet and all that live on it.
Pollution’s definition should be changed.
Pollution (noun):
A way of making the earth a better place. A system whereby plants grow vigorously, and food is plentiful.

right2bright on February 15, 2010 at 9:53 AM

The ARGO array is one of the most amazing sensor systems that has been deployed in the oceans, globally. It is useful because the oceans have approx. 1,000 times the thermal heat capacity of the atmosphere and is the major source of our climate. Air rapidly takes in and re-radiates energy giving us wide variations on land surface readings, while oceanic temperatures tend to be steady over time because of the amount of energy they can store. To get to the balmy days of the late Cretaceous, some 13 degrees centigrade above our current global temps, requires vast inland oceans over the continents which reduces quickly transmissive land areas (in the energy venue) with nice absorbing water. You can’t get a ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ without rising ocean temps. Thus the 5 full years of ARGO data plus the lead-up 5 years of fewer buoys, gives an actual set of observed readings to put against the AGW models. That is a failure for the models as there has been a slight cooling trend over the 5 full years of the bouy array and the partial years before that. Remember if AGW is based on ‘fact’ then it must account for cooling of the top 700m of the ocean.

NOAA had to retrace its steps when its researchers pointed out that there was net oceanic cooling, not warming as NOAA had previously asserted, and demonstrated that with extensive datasets going back to the 1950′s. That is a separate system of reading stations from the ARGO array.

Such things as Arctic Sea Ice Extent show no major changes in ice coverage since 2002 and we are well within the range of coverage known for that period with last year’s coverage being a near average between high and low extent. And you can track arctic temps against their historical mean at the DMI Center for Ocean and Ice with a nice clickable menu to get you prior year graphs to put up to the mean.

There is also the problem of the disappearing land stations for reading temperature. Approximately 1/3 of the stations are being removed from their measuring sites… not replaced but removed. You know if you want good, historical datasets from a site (even given urban heat island effects which can be accounted for and that is helped by surfacestations.org for the US) then you really do want to have those stations in place. Some places in war torn countries… say just how many places are war torn these days… I can see: an RPG to a weather station might not see a station come back. But in Dallas? Strasbourg?

Given the problems of data from CRU, what there is of it, the GISS processing problem of the 1990′s and the unexplained ‘adjustments’ to readings found after that, and the NOAA data problems… since most of AGW is based on those then it is very hard to find good data in support of AGW.

And if you keep on quoting problems with Greenland ice, when on the ground measurements show it to be expanding to contradict satellite gravimentric readings, then that means something is happening with the satellite data and we may not be interpreting it correctly. Similarly the ‘about to go away arctic’: it isn’t and its back from its 2007 lows and even going to places in the Bering Sea where it hasn’t been in living memory. Land glaciers are a net deposit of snow at a given elevation… that takes low temps and precipitation, and the lack of measuring the latter means that you cannot assume it is getting warmer… and Kilimanjaro had no ice at its summit during the last ice age which does go to demonstrate that point as it wasn’t warmer there. Time to update those AGW datasets, flush out the tinkered with stuff and go back to the raw data and SHOW what you are doing to it and explain WHY you are doing it.

ajacksonian on February 15, 2010 at 9:58 AM

This is kind of “old news” … at least here in the U.S.

For several years now … surfacestations.org has been enlisting volunteer Americans to go out and survey the temperature sensing sites located in their local communities.

The results are astounding. Temperature sensors positioned under A/C exhausts, over hot asphalt … it’s crazy. It’s happening all over the place and it appears that NOAA is too lazy to locate and install these sensors in the places where they’d collect the most accurate data.

HondaV65 on February 15, 2010 at 10:20 AM

From surfacestations.org …

During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically document more than 860 of these temperature stations.

We were shocked by what we found.

We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat.

We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating / reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.

HondaV65 on February 15, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Folks want proof (and so do I). However, what constitutes proof?

How would one recognize “proof” when he/she sees it?

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 10:27 AM

…it appears that NOAA is too lazy to locate and install these sensors in the places where they’d collect the most accurate data.

HondaV65 on February 15, 2010 at 10:20 AM

That requires the assumption that they were interested in accuracy.

Yoop on February 15, 2010 at 10:27 AM

That requires the assumption that they were interested in accuracy.

Yoop on February 15, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Good point.

HondaV65 on February 15, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Folks want proof (and so do I). However, what constitutes proof?

How would one recognize “proof” when he/she sees it?

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 10:27 AM

You’ve been accepting the AGW fanatics proof without question. When commenters here provided you with evidence that at the very least should have given you doubt as to the veracity of the AGW “scientists” and their claims you poo-pooed them.

darwin on February 15, 2010 at 10:34 AM

quite the walk-back oakland.

daesleeper on February 15, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Here’s a pic of the NOAA sensor in Tahoe City, CA.

And here’s what kind of temperature graph it produces.

LOL!

What did they say about “Garbage ‘IN’ equals Garbage ‘OUT’”??

I mean – these are the folks who taught us the scientific method in school – and they think we don’t remember how they’re supposed to do things?

HondaV65 on February 15, 2010 at 10:36 AM

Folks want proof (and so do I). However, what constitutes proof?

How would one recognize “proof” when he/she sees it?

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Proof, at least for me, is data that cannot be argued with. In the case of global warming I would agree with you if you stuck to one theory and tried to defend it instead of constantly changing the parameters. If the world was warming, and all of the temperature gauges were installed correctly, and at least 90% of them showed a steady amount of warming from the 1970′s onward I would be more inclined to believe you.

The problem though is that the warming has not been constant. There have been NO climate studies that have ever even come close to actual temperatures. Every single sensational claim made by global warming advocates has never come true.

In science, the person making the assertion must supply the evidence which proves his/her hypothesis. Can you point to one example of this happening? I can point to multitudes of these claims being debunked or not coming to pass. I have never seen a scientific journal present a study from start to finish that showed global warming. Until that happens, I will still think this is a load of bull.

txaggie on February 15, 2010 at 10:40 AM

IPCC = Obama = STUPID

J_Crater on February 15, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Honda, that is an interesting article you cite. I have scanned it, and feel that there are some valid issues raised. One of the pictures is of a station in my hometown, and I would like to investigate it further.

I think that the best part of the article is in comparing the three different surfaces and how temperature varies with each. This should have been a study in and of itself (subjected to peer review, of course). It raises some serious issues in my mind concerning the efficacy of the data sets collected. There needs to be independent refereeing of the article (peer review) to make it more significant as scientific work.

I feel that the issue should be presented to the federal agencies in charge of data processing, and a thorough response expected in return.

However, one caution. This is not a completely scientific study, despite the claim of “650″ participants. It should be subjected to a customary peer review process.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Solar Activity has entered a minimum and it looks to be similar to the Dalton Minimum that took place between 1790 and 1830. The Year without Summer aka Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death, happened during this time when Tambora erupted with a VEI of 7.

Holger on February 15, 2010 at 10:51 AM

You’ve been accepting the AGW fanatics proof without question

Please quote chapter and verse where I have said any such thing.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 10:51 AM

txaggie, There is plenty of evidence out there; I don’t know if you have made any effort to read any of it, though. Granted the models are far from perfect (i.e., not extremely predictive), but there is continuous refining of these models. I am convinced that their predictive values are becoming better (though not in great leaps).

We have to go with the best science that we have, however imperfect is is.

As far as “proof”, you’re never going to get it from me, nor probably from anyone else, so you may be waiting a very long time for your “proof”.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM

However, one caution. This is not a completely scientific study, despite the claim of “650″ participants. It should be subjected to a customary peer review process.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Is that your Mantra? Peer Review? Do you even know what that means?

It means that before publishing, they send the article to a few “scientists” in the same field… who look it over.

By picking and choosing who those scientists are, you can easily make the entire peer review “status” meaningless… AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE CLIMATEGATE EMAILS!

Peer review is NOT somthing like the Electronics industry has with the IEEE standards, where an idea is published, and then RFC’s (request for comments) are generated and the entire industry then comments on it…

To be “Peer Reviewed” only means a couple of people looked at it… even if said people have NO idea about what the idea is all about.

Question… do you consider the IPCC reports, with all the myriad errors we are finding in it, Peer Reviewed?

Romeo13 on February 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM

HondaV65 on February 15, 2010 at 10:26 AM

And the US surface station network has been regarded as one of the best networks in the world.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:10 AM

I think human activity has contributed to it. It’s not all natural.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Well, that’s scientific enough for me. Now, let’s go toss a woman in the water and see if she floats. If so, she’s a witch!

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Folks want proof (and so do I). However, what constitutes proof?

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 10:27 AM

We could start with solid evidence that the current warming is beyond historical norms. So far the evidence is that it is not.

We could also use some actual evidence that water vapor is a net positive feedback, as all the models assume. The real world data collected to date shows that water vapor is a strong negative feedback.

We could also use some evidence, gathered from the real world, not models, not lab experiments, that shows that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the atmosphere to trap more heat.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:13 AM

quite the walk-back oakland.

daesleeper on February 15, 2010 at 10:35 AM

That limb must be getting real shakey.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:14 AM

It means that before publishing, they send the article to a few “scientists” in the same field… who look it over

So, who else should look it over? Folks who know nothing about the subject?

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:14 AM

If the world was warming, and all of the temperature gauges were installed correctly, and at least 90% of them showed a steady amount of warming from the 1970’s onward I would be more inclined to believe you.

Make that 1940 onward. The 1970′s were the end of the last cool phase of the PDO. Need at least one full cycle of the PDO before you can claim even a glimmering of accuracy.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:15 AM

So, who else should look it over? Folks who know nothing about the subject?

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Are you still trying to claim that there actually is something called a “climate scientist”?

For those portions of the study that involve statistics, send it to a statistician. FOr those portions that involve things like tree rings, have a botanist check them out. Etc.

It’s not hard to do if you are interested in science.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:17 AM

I am convinced that their predictive values are becoming better (though not in great leaps).

We have to go with the best science that we have, however imperfect is is.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM

Thanks for clearing up your definition of science. As long as you’re “convinced”, the data doesn’t have to support your conclusions. Got it.

My defnition of science is a little more rigourous. I don’t care if you’re convinced that a model is becoming more accurate. Show me the proof, ie, weather that corresponds to the weather predicted by the model.

“the best science we have, however imperfect that is”. I’ve got a report that says the earth is flat. It’s not perfect, but it’s the only report on the shape of the world I’ve got. That’s enough, right?

Oh. It’s different in your case. YOUR science is correct, even though it’s not reproducible, and seems to contradict observed events in the real world.

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Make that 1940 onward. The 1970’s were the end of the last cool phase of the PDO. Need at least one full cycle of the PDO before you can claim even a glimmering of accuracy.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Well said. It’s also interesting that a lot of weather stations fall off the chart over time. It’s tough to make an accurate comparison when the number of stations, the location of those stations, and the environment in which the locations are located all change.

But, that’s what you deal with when trying to prove that climate isn’t constant.

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 11:19 AM

However, one caution. This is not a completely scientific study, despite the claim of “650″ participants. It should be subjected to a customary peer review process.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Nobody ever claimed that having 650 volunteers made the study scientific. Watts is merely letting people know that he is not taking credit for all the work himself. He readily acknowledges that few of the sites were visited by more than one person.

As for peer review, that’s been pretty well shown to be a worthless process. What Watts has done is present all of his data, and clearly explain how he arrived at his results. Anyone who wants to, including you, can review the paper and try to poke holes in it.
That’s how science is done. Science is not restricting peer reviews to the people who peer review your papers and who have a financial interest in not finding problems with your work.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Solar Activity has entered a minimum and it looks to be similar to the Dalton Minimum that took place between 1790 and 1830. The Year without Summer aka Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death, happened during this time when Tambora erupted with a VEI of 7.

Holger on February 15, 2010 at 10:51 AM

There’s a pretty good chance that we are finally, after three years, exiting this minimum. However it looks like the next maxima will be an extremely weak one. There’s evidence that SC 25, which follows this one, could be even weaker.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:22 AM

You’ve been accepting the AGW fanatics proof without question
Please quote chapter and verse where I have said any such thing.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Check your post below your 10:51 post, where you say:

We have to go with the best science that we have, however imperfect is is.

That sounds a LOT like accepting without question.

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 11:23 AM

We have to go with the best science that we have, however imperfect is is.

As far as “proof”, you’re never going to get it from me, nor probably from anyone else, so you may be waiting a very long time for your “proof”.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM

So we should completely restructure the entire world’s economy, putting millions of lives at risk, even though we have no proof and never will?

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:23 AM

The real world data collected to date shows that water vapor is a strong negative feedback.

Everything I have read suggests that it is. Do you have a reference?

We could start with solid evidence that the current warming is beyond historical norms. So far the evidence is that it is not.

You will need to be more specific about “historical norms”. One needs to be relevant. The recent warming is certainly quite significant (except, maybe, for my region this year).
And, even if the warming presently is not unusual for this period, how, specifically, does that preclude a human influence (given that forcing mechanisms other than carbon dioxide concentration seem to be inadequate to account for the warming)?

We could also use some evidence, gathered from the real world, not models, not lab experiments, that shows that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the atmosphere to trap more heat

I suppose you would have to designate a planet for such an experiment, and none exist for us to take advantage of. What one needs to do is to look for correlations between the suspected forcing agent and the effect. Therein lies the “devil”. This is precisely what a great deal of AGW-related research involves, and it is extremely statistics-based (and therefore beyond my comprehension, for the most part). What skeptics need to do is to get hold of the data (or get some of their own) and put it through rigorous statistical analysis and publish their own works (some are doing this).

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM

To be “Peer Reviewed” only means a couple of people looked at it… even if said people have NO idea about what the idea is all about.

Romeo13 on February 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Peer reviewers almost never re-run the experiment, nor do they examine closely your data and methods. Peer review, in reality, is little more than a sanity check. It’s designed to find the obvious problems. No study is ever accepted until others re-run the data and come to the same conclusion. Of course that can’t be done with AGW, since the backers have, for decades, refused to release enough of their data, or explained enough of their methods, so that others can replicate their work.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Are you still trying to claim that there actually is something called a “climate scientist”?

This is your answer to my question?

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Show me the proof, ie, weather that corresponds to the weather predicted by the model.

As I said earlier, I have no “proof” and never will

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM

What skeptics need to do is to get hold of the data (or get some of their own) and put it through rigorous statistical analysis and publish their own works (some are doing this).

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM

But the data (which is cobbled together from numerous sources, picked to show trends that researchers are hoping to find) isn’t provided. It’s difficult to duplicate results when you’d don’t have the data at hand.

Of course, the data we DO have access to contains major errors, like the NASA temperature data. They were showing the 1990s as having the warmest years ever. But after fixing an error pointed out by a skeptic, it turns out the 1930s were just as warm, maybe even a smidge warmer.

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Well said. It’s also interesting that a lot of weather stations fall off the chart over time. It’s tough to make an accurate comparison when the number of stations, the location of those stations, and the environment in which the locations are located all change.

But, that’s what you deal with when trying to prove that climate isn’t constant.

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 11:19 AM

The station network was never designed to gather the kind of data needed to do climate work. As a result, the data collected from it is not adequate to do climate work from.

Most of the network was designed for one purpose, and one purpose only. To measure the temperature and wind speed at the end of a runway, so that planes could safely take off and land. Planes don’t need to know the temperature to a hundredths of a degree of accuracy. Climate networks do.
Planes don’t care if the temperature at the end of the runway is representative of the area surrounding the airport, in fact such information is worth than useless to them.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM

txaggie, There is plenty of evidence out there; I don’t know if you have made any effort to read any of it, though. Granted the models are far from perfect (i.e., not extremely predictive), but there is continuous refining of these models. I am convinced that their predictive values are becoming better (though not in great leaps).

We have to go with the best science that we have, however imperfect is is.

As far as “proof”, you’re never going to get it from me, nor probably from anyone else, so you may be waiting a very long time for your “proof”.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM

Yes, there is plenty of evidence out there to be reviewed. The problem is that quite a bit of that is contradictory in nature. I have read articles on how the northern ice pack will be gone by 2010, I have also read articles on how the glaciers in Iceland are increasing. I have read how parts of Antarctica are melting while others are gaining ice. I have read reports on how chlorofluorocarbons insulate the planet and in another study were found to reflect sunlight back into space. That is my problem with global warming. There are no universal truths that can be stated with 100% certainty.

The whole point of the scientific process is to be able to replicate your hypothesis anywhere in the world. If a chemist is talking about what happens when potassium is mixed with water (awesome experiment btw) it makes absolutely no difference if he does it in Montana, Kosovo, or the moon. It can be repeated and the results will be almost identical! To the best of my knowledge there are no easily repeatable experiments for global warming that can be repeated elsewhere. Am I wrong in this?

txaggie on February 15, 2010 at 11:33 AM

The recent warming is certainly quite significant (except, maybe, for my region this year).

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM

What warming? Evidence please. Significant? How do you come to that conclusion? Facts please.

darwin on February 15, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Everything I have read suggests that it is. Do you have a reference?

Every study done on the subject, using real world data, not computer models.

You will need to be more specific about “historical norms”. One needs to be relevant.

The real world data gathered from all over the world regarding the MWP, the Roman Warming Period, the Minoan Warming Period, the Holocene Maximum, etc.

The recent warming is certainly quite significant (except, maybe, for my region this year).

Not compared to any of the warming periods I mentioned above.

And, even if the warming presently is not unusual for this period, how, specifically, does that preclude a human influence (given that forcing mechanisms other than carbon dioxide concentration seem to be inadequate to account for the warming)?

It doesn’t preclude the possibility that CO2 has played a role. But it does provide evidence that there are natural mechanisms that can cause warming. I must add that these natural forcings are also inadequate to explain any of the other well documented warmings. So your religious belief that only CO2 could possibly explain the current warming is nothing more than that. A religious belief, not one based on science.

I suppose you would have to designate a planet for such an experiment, and none exist for us to take advantage of.

We already have one. The earth. Go out and design an experiment that will show that the gradually increasing temperatures can only be caused by the gradually increasing CO2 concentrations.

What one needs to do is to look for correlations between the suspected forcing agent and the effect.

Funny, thing. When you track CO2 concentrations over the last 100 years. You find that there is no correlation.
When you track CO2 concentrations vs. temperature for the last 200 million years or so, once again, no correlation.

Therein lies the “devil”. This is precisely what a great deal of AGW-related research involves, and it is extremely statistics-based (and therefore beyond my comprehension, for the most part).

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Which makes it all the more puzzling why there isn’t a single person trained in statistics amongst the AGW crowd.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM

This is your answer to my question?

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM

I’m still waiting for you to provide the name of a school giving Phd’s in climate scientist. Since you are the one who keeps claiming that only “climate scientists” are qualified to have an opinion.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:38 AM

As I said earlier, I have no “proof” and never will

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM

I did not ask for you to generate this proof yourself.
If you are so utterly convinced that CO2 is causing these problems, you must have seen some kind of proof, somewhere.

Otherwise this belief of yours is nothing more than a religious conviction.

If you have seen the proof, then present it. Otherwise confess to your religious leanings.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:40 AM

We have to go with the best science that we have, however imperfect is is.

That sounds a LOT like accepting without question

Tell my why that’s wrong, hawks.

I take medicine; do you? I have no proof that it will be efficacious, but implicitly trust the scientists who develop the medicine that it has a good chance of being so. Does this say I don’t question?

There are many new technologies in which we trust for which we don’t have proof. Does that mean we don’t consider taking advantage of them when we think they may help? There’s no “proof” that coronary bypass surgeries significantly extend the life of patients, but millions of them are done each year. Would I decline a coronary bypass if I thought it might extend my life? Not on a bet.

So, I trust scientists to give good scientific product related to AGW to the extent that I feel that they are producing something that is significantly predictive. I have noticed that the climate in my region is showing greater anomalies (particularly in yearly rainfall, but also in temperature), and so I have put more faith in their work.

Reducing the uncertainty in the coming climate reduces the uncertainty in the production of food crops. And, therein lies my greatest concern. If adding billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes climate more unpredictable, then that is of great concern in terms of my future welfare and that of my family. I will seek out the best science available on the issue and hope that those individuals performing the science are competent.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:40 AM

The recent warming is certainly quite significant (except, maybe, for my region this year).

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Even head guru Jones has recently admitted that there has been no warming for the last 15 years.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:41 AM

20 years ago, “Dr.” Hansen declared that the affects of CO2 were so strong, that they had completely swamped out all other climatic factors.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:42 AM

If you have seen the proof, then present it. Otherwise confess to your religious leanings

Do you have “proof” for your view?

So, I guess, Mark, we each will have our own “religions”.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Cargo Cult Science.

Holger on February 15, 2010 at 11:43 AM

As I said earlier, I have no “proof” and never will

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM

So you admit then, that this is more a religious Belief, than a scientific belief…

Gentlemen, the Defense rests.

Romeo13 on February 15, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Question for oakland (or anyone else that wants to take a shot at it).

Why does it matter if a particular climate change is caused by humans?

We all agree that the climate does change, right? Sometimes those changes are caused by volcanos, and other times by sunspots, and other times by other things. Those changes cause woe to some, and weal to others. Life on earth adapts, and we move on.

Why, when our planet has constantly changing climate, is 1 possible source of that change considered a global catastrophe?

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Do you take medicine when there are boatloads of world class scientists going around telling people that the tests of the first group of scientists are worthless?

If you can find anyone who is willing to declare that the methods used by the FDA to test the safety and usefullness of drugs is utterly bogus, please list them. If you can’t then this example, like every other example you have attempted to come up with, is useless.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Do you have “proof” for your view?

So, I guess, Mark, we each will have our own “religions”.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Absolutely pathetic.

You are the one who wants to revamp the world’s economy. It is up to you to generate the proof. My only task is to blow holes in your theories. Which I (and many, many, others) have done. Over and over again.

I don’t have to prove anything.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Do you have “proof” for your view?

So, I guess, Mark, we each will have our own “religions”.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Wow! oakland, I’m impressed!

Your contortions are absolutely magnificent. You’ve gone from stating that the scientists have peer reviewed data that definitively shows global warming is here, and it’s man made to our views are simply religions.

WOW!

darwin on February 15, 2010 at 11:46 AM

If I can come up with a flaw with Einsteins equations, then I have disproven the theory of relativity.
It’s not incumbant upon me to come up with a new theory and prove it, before I publish my findings.

(Before oaky gets all bent out of shape, that’s an example, I’m not claiming that I have such a proof.)

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Why, when our planet has constantly changing climate, is 1 possible source of that change considered a global catastrophe?

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Because man is evil, and anything caused by man is evil.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:48 AM

What warming? Evidence please. Significant? How do you come to that conclusion? Facts please.

With respect for your stated skepticism, I quote the following from NOAA:

Selected National Highlights for 2009
• U.S. Annual Highlights
• Based on data from January through November and considering the long-term mean for December, the average annual 2009 temperature for the contiguous U.S. is projected to be 0-1 degrees F above the 20th Century average. The average annual precipitation for the contiguous U.S. is projected to be 1-2 inches above the long-term average.
• Winter (December-February) 2008-09 was the 22nd driest of 114 such seasons on record for the contiguous United States. Texas had its driest winter on record, while North Dakota had its wettest. U.S. winter temperatures were near normal overall.
• Springtime (March-May) temperatures for the nation were above normal, with only four states (Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas) cooler than normal. Georgia experienced its second wettest spring and the Southeast region as a whole had its fifth wettest such period.
• The average summer (June-August) temperature in the contiguous U.S. was below the long-term average for the first time since 2004. Only the Northwest averaged above normal temperature readings during the period—their tenth consecutive summer with above-normal temperatures.
• Autumn (September-November) was a season of extremes for the nation. The West region, and both Nevada and California experienced record warmth in September. October was abnormally cool for the vast majority of the nation, while November brought substantially warmer-than-normal conditions. October was the wettest ever for the contiguous U.S., but November was dry, resulting in above-normal fall precipitation.

As for PhD programs, I know that my uncle was a atmospheric researcher at a Canadian University in Ontario, and I have a friend who finished at the technical university in this state with a PhD who went on to work for NCAR and then to start his own atmospheric studies program in a country in South America. Both were involved in some aspect of climate research. I still contend that the best researchers are the biologist, who are noticing the significant changes in the biosphere that are the result of climate change

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Tell my why that’s wrong, hawks.
oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Sorry, the rest of the scientific community is in the proof-providing business.

Drug manufacturers, much maligned for being greedy profit-mongers, do extensive trials on their medicines. Those results, and later independent studies, are published. Here’s an example.
There are also studies on coronary bypass surgery showing that it inreases life span.

You claim that you’ve seen greater variation in weather in your area, and so you believe the scientists more. Really? When did that variation start? What was the weather like in that same region in the 1930s, or the 1770s? If the weather was constant in the past, describe that baseline weather, even if that means describing baselines for each season.

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:49 AM

and all of your highlights in the above post, are based on recordings from a very few, sites, many of which have documented siting problems…

Ever hear of Garbage In? Garbge out?

Romeo13 on February 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM

the average annual 2009 temperature for the contiguous U.S. is projected to be 0-1 degrees F above the 20th Century average.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:49 AM

The average annual 2009 temperature is projected?

They don’t know? They project it to be anywhere from o to 1 degree above an average of temperatures NOAA manipulated to appear cooler? Well oakland I’d have to say 0 degrees above the manipulated average is pretty darn warm. Maybe you’re right about all this stuff.

That’s your evidence?

NOAA is useless.

darwin on February 15, 2010 at 11:56 AM

From your own highlights, intended to prove a warming trend:

Winter: U.S. winter temperatures were near normal overall.

Springtime (March-May) temperatures for the nation were above normal, with only four states (Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas) cooler than normal.

The average summer (June-August) temperature in the contiguous U.S. was below the long-term average for the first time since 2004.

Autumn (September-November) was a season of extremes for the nation. The West region, and both Nevada and California experienced record warmth in September. October was abnormally cool for the vast majority of the nation, while November brought substantially warmer-than-normal conditions.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:49 AM

So that’s near normal, cooler than normal, below average, and abnormally cool.

That’s your proof of a warming trend?

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Here’s an example.
There are also studies on coronary bypass surgery showing that it inreases life span.

Goes completely contrary to what I have read. I will not say that your reference is incorrect, but please notice who crafted the article – a party that is interested in selling bypass surgeries?

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:59 AM

That’s your proof of a warming trend?

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Apparently oakland reads “warming trend” regardless of what it actually says. I think there’s a name for that.

darwin on February 15, 2010 at 12:00 PM

The actual temperature data does not support AGW in any way, shape or form. It is only after they \”normalize\” the data it shows a little warming, and yet still there is nothing to support AGW. Besides, \”normalizing\”/manipulating data until it shows you what you want to see is not proof. When they say the \”coldest\” or \”warmest\” they are speaking about manipulated data that does not reflect actual instrument readings. Therefore, it may or more likely is not the actual \”coldest\” or \”warmest\”. Word games are easy to play when you doctor your data. AGW enthusiasts have nothing to support their beliefs except some unproven computer models.

ray on February 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Why does it matter if a particular climate change is caused by humans?

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM

It depends on the effects. We are adapted biologically to a fairly narrow set of variables. If those variables change to much what was once a planet suited to us becomes a planet not so suited or actively hostile to us.

We are dependent upon agriculture and changes to that would cause hunger or starvation.

Holger on February 15, 2010 at 12:02 PM

wow, that post’s format went crazy

ray on February 15, 2010 at 12:02 PM

In my view, the science is sound. The question is how much of the warming is natural, how much is human caused, and how much may be caused by something else.

But warming is taking place.

SteveMG on February 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM

So, when Phil Jones of the CRU now says there has been no warming for 15 years, was he lying then or is he lying now. HE IS THE AUTHOR/LEAD SCIENTIST THAT CREATED THE HOCKEY STICK GRAPH.

barnone on February 15, 2010 at 12:03 PM

NOAA is useless

As I said, with respect to your skepticism. You might want to go on their website and review their methods (maybe you already have). Also, try NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) and also the site for the National Academies of Science.

That’s your proof of a warming trend?

It is neither proof (as stated, I have none) nor is it to be taken by itself out of the context of long-term trends. It is not necessarily warming that is of concern, but anomalies. For example, one year ago our region was in the throes of a terrible, historic drought (worst on record). This year we have had, in some respects, near record rainfall. These variations from the norm, if they become more prevalent, will have (and are having) major consequences to vegetation (and thus, crops). The main concern with “global warming” is a more unpredictable climate that is the result of more extreme weather patters (exactly what we have been seeing here).

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Here’s another Jones bombshell.
The warming from 1910-1940 is not statistically different from the current warming.

The previous period predates the big run-up in CO2.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 12:07 PM

As I said, with respect to your skepticism. You might want to go on their website and review their methods (maybe you already have). Also, try NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) and also the site for the National Academies of Science.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM

You can’t review what hasn’t been released.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Goes completely contrary to what I have read. I will not say that your reference is incorrect, but please notice who crafted the article – a party that is interested in selling bypass surgeries?

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:59 AM

As opposed to a scientist getting funding to study the problem of anthropogenic global warming?

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 12:09 PM

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:49 AM

All based on the discredited grond based network.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 12:09 PM

You can’t review what hasn’t been released

I think if you go through their site, you will see. I admit that it is somewhat of a labyrinth (sp?)

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 12:10 PM

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 11:49 AM

I forgot to add that all this data is after the super secret homongenization methods are applied to the undisclosed raw data.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 12:11 PM

As I said, with respect to your skepticism. You might want to go on their website and review their methods (maybe you already have). Also, try NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) and also the site for the National Academies of Science.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM

I suppose you can’t find the evidence for the “significant warming” you claimed above so you revert to your usual diversions.

You can’t even make a half-assed layman’s argument for global warming. Forget NOAA and all the others, if the science is settled and the debate is over … and “significant” warming has taken place you should be able to prove to anyone that it’s real.

You can’t. Neither can NOAA, NASA, UEA, the UN or anyone else.

darwin on February 15, 2010 at 12:11 PM

For example, one year ago our region was in the throes of a terrible, historic drought (worst on record). This year we have had, in some respects, near record rainfall. These variations from the norm, if they become more prevalent, will have (and are having) major consequences to vegetation (and thus, crops).
oakland on February 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM

The norm for precipitation is not the amount of precip that an area will see every year. It’s an average of the historical rainfall amounts, which includes years of drought and years with lots of rainfall. Just like the 2 years you cite as examples.

So if the “average rainfall” for an area is, say, 30 inches, dont’ expect to see 30 inches of rain every year. Weather, like climate, changes.

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 12:11 PM

I think if you go through their site, you will see. I admit that it is somewhat of a labyrinth (sp?)

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 12:10 PM

I don’t know if you are trying to be funny, or to demonstrate that your reading comprehension is non-existant?

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 12:11 PM

As opposed to a scientist getting funding to study the problem of anthropogenic global warming?

I suppose, if you think that there is a product involved in that somewhere? Certainly, scientists want continued funding; however they normally must demonstrate efficacy in their work in order to get it.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Besides, \”normalizing\”/manipulating data until it shows you what you want to see is not proof.

ray on February 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM

This goes double when you refuse to tell anyone what subset of the raw data you used to get your results and refuse to release to anyone the code that you used to cook the numbers.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM

You can’t. Neither can NOAA, NASA, UEA, the UN or anyone else

As I said, you are not going to find “proof”. And you are unimpressed with the evidence that you have seen. What more can I say? We have different perspectives and takes on this issue. I wish you the best. Gotta go

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM

I suppose, if you think that there is a product involved in that somewhere? Certainly, scientists want continued funding; however they normally must demonstrate efficacy in their work in order to get it.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM

You actually think science is corrupted by funding, only when there is a product involved?

In this case the product is fear, which generates more funding. There is also the selling of indulgences, which has made a lot of people quite rich.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 12:16 PM

As I said, you are not going to find “proof”.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Once again, oaky admits that there is no proof.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 12:17 PM

As I said, you are not going to find “proof”.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM

???? What the hell does that mean? We should destroy our economies and funnel money to third world thugs on the basis of belief?

darwin on February 15, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Peer reviewers almost never re-run the experiment, nor do they examine closely your data and methods. Peer review, in reality, is little more than a sanity check.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Since the mission poster oakland seems to hang his hat on peer review allow me to provide a couple of anecdotes regarding the subject of peer review.

Approximately 40 years ago a scientist renowned in his field, and an employee of the premier organization of the science within the US government published the ‘seminal’ paper on a certain geologic process. He received many awards for the effort.

Years later, having worked for quite sometime in the area the paper referenced above covered, it was recognized that things were quite different than had been described. This was based on an overwhelming amount of new data. The change in thought and observation could have had world-wide implications for finding more of the same.

I was co-author of a major research paper that presented the new data and the aspects of a revision of the ‘process’. It was presented for publication to the most important, highest circulation publication for that subject.

The publisher sent the paper to three reviewers for peer review. One of the three reviewers was the author of the seminal paper. Our paper was rejected for publication. Suggestion was that we offer it for publication in what was an obscure, low circulation scientific journal. We didn’t bother. It never got published.

Twenty years later, and after much more activity in the area, we were proven correct. By then the window for the subject’s application and use had closed.

Next:

Also, within the corporation I worked for we had a process of peer review for the papers that were written and intended for presentation or publication. Once one of these papers came before a number of us. It was discovered that the world-renowned scientist that had produced the paper had not been completely forthcoming in his presentation. His presentation was based on a graph that had five trended points. what was discovered was that there had been three additional data points that had been well off the trend and had the chance of completely invalidating his premise. He had simply discarded the points and concealed their existence.

Word came down from higher up to pass the paper on for presentation, at a major, international conference. The ‘company’ did not want to take the chance of tarnishing the reputation of the scientist in question and did not want to diminish the fact that he worked for them.

So much for the real world of peer review.

Yoop on February 15, 2010 at 12:24 PM

It depends on the effects. We are adapted biologically to a fairly narrow set of variables. If those variables change to much what was once a planet suited to us becomes a planet not so suited or actively hostile to us.

Holger on February 15, 2010 at 12:02 PM

I agree that the effects are what’s important. But I don’t hear an outcry to defend the planet from drastic climate changes caused by volcanoes, even though those changes can be drastic and sudden. I don’t hear dire predictions of the destruction of the planet because of the 32-year solar cycle. The only cause of climate change that seems to merit alarm is the unproven change that might be caused by humans.

Insects produce more greenhouse gases than all human sources; why no alarm over that?

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM

I suppose, if you think that there is a product involved in that somewhere? Certainly, scientists want continued funding; however they normally must demonstrate efficacy in their work in order to get it.

oakland on February 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Of course there’s a product here. Al Gore, and his friends at the CRU got a prize (which includes cash, btw) for inventing it. If AGW isn’t a product, why is billions being spent to market it, and market against it?

hawksruleva on February 15, 2010 at 12:29 PM

It depends on the effects. We are adapted biologically to a fairly narrow set of variables. If those variables change to much what was once a planet suited to us becomes a planet not so suited or actively hostile to us.

Holger on February 15, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Humans on this planet live from the Arctic, to the Amazon, to the Sahara. I would say that the range of variables is not all that narrow.

With modern technology, that range of variables has expanded exponentially.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Discussing this subject with Oakland is like discussing paranormal myths with ghost groupies. You know when someone throws out the “well, where is your proof that it isn’t”, then you are not having a real discussion.

He also has relatives in the industry that he also feels are infallible in their search for proving the evils of man.

ClassicCon on February 15, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Discussing this subject with Oakland is like discussing paranormal myths with ghost groupies. You know when someone throws out the “well, where is your proof that it isn’t”, then you are not having a real discussion.

He also has relatives in the industry that he also feels are infallible in their search for proving the evils of man.

ClassicCon on February 15, 2010 at 12:44 PM

You just described some of the attributes of a ‘mission poster’.

Yoop on February 15, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5