JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The mystery deepens — where did that decline go?


Frank Lansner has done some excellent follow-up on the missing “decline” in temperatures from 1940 to 1975, and things get even more interesting. Recall that the original “hide the decline” statement comes from the ClimateGate emails and refers to “hiding” the tree ring data that shows a decline in temperatures after 1960. It’s known as the “divergence problem” because tree rings diverge from the measured temperatures. But Frank shows that the peer reviewed data supports the original graphs and that measured temperature did decline from 1960 onwards, sharply. But in the GISS version of that time-period, temperatures from the cold 1970′s period were repeatedly “adjusted” years after the event, and progressively got warmer.

The most mysterious period is from 1958 to 1978, when a steep 0.3C decline that was initially recorded in the Northern Hemisphere. Years later that was reduced so far it became a mild warming, against the detailed corroborating evidence from raobcore data.

Raobcore measurements are balloon measures. They started in 1958, twenty years before satellites. But when satellites began, the two different methods tie together very neatly–telling us that both of them are accurate, reliable tools.

You can see how similar the data from both methods is:
Comparing Rabocores and Satellites.

So what do the raobcores tell us about the period before satellites started recording temperatures? They make it clear that temperatures fell quickly from 1960-1970.

Rabocore results

The decline in the original graph in National Geographic in 1976 is apparently backed up by highly accurate balloon data, and was based on peer reviewed data:  Budyko 1969 and Angell and Korshover (1975). These two sets overlap from 1958 to 1960, and correlate well, so stitching them together is reasonable thing to do and it doesn’t make much difference which year is chosen from the overlap period (indeed any other choice makes the decline slightly steeper).

What’s thought provoking is that the raobcore data above is for 30N-30S, covering all the tropics on both sides of the equator, and yet still shows the decline. That begs the question of whether the Southern Hemisphere data  has been adjusted too. It would be good to see the raobcore sets further up towards the arctic. It would also be good to look at the Southern Hemisphere. Where are the data sets and peer reviewed papers on temperature from 1965 to 1980? I’d like to follow that up.

Three decades of adjustments

When did the “funny business” begin? By 1980 Hansen and GISS had already produced graphs which were starting to neutralize the decline. His graphs of 1987 and then 2007 further reduced the decline, until the cooling from 1960 to 1975 was completely lost.

Hansen Giss adjust temperatures from 1940-1980

(Click to see a larger image).

Watch how the cooling trend of the 1960′s to 1970′s is steadily adjusted up so that 0.3 degrees cooler gradually becomes 0.03 rising (notice the red and blue horizontal lines in the graphs above).

Mathews Graph 1976: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.3C warmer than 1970′s
Hansen/GISS 1980:
1955 – 1965 was around 0.1C warmer than 1970′s
Hansen/GISS 1987: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.05C warmer than 1970′s
Hansen/GISS 2007: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.03C cooler than 1970′s

And in 1974, there was the fore-runner of the “It’s worse than we thought” message.


US NAtional Science Board 1974. Temperatures falling sharply!

Frank has more information and details on his blog Hide the decline.

If 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990′s, it rewrites the entire claim of all the unprecedented warming of late. Lansner also remind us of the photos taken in the arctic by submarines that surfaced around the north pole.

Submarines surfacing at the north pole

My post on Part I of the missing decline.

Graph references:

1. Hansen et al. (1981) Hansen, J., Johnson, D., Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Lee, P., Rind, D., and Russell, G. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

2. Hansen, J. and S. Lebedeff (1987), Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature, Jour. Geophys. Res., Vol.92,No.D11, pp13,345-13,372″ (See the graph on page 7 with my additions of red and blue bars).

3. NASA graph adapted from Goddard Institute for Space Studies data.

EDITORIAL NOTE:

April 20, 2010. I’ve had help from volunteers behind the scenes, and just discovered tonight that in the paragraph above the three Hansen graphs the wording had been changed by one of the volunteers. I’ve immediately reverted to my original wording.

UPDATE: The graphs have been re-scaled to match better.

<h3 style=”text-align: left;”>Graph references:</h3> <p class=”hang1″>1. <a href=”http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/”>Hansen et al. (1981) Hansen, J., Johnson, D., Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Lee, P., Rind, D., and Russell, G. 1981</a>: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.</p> <p class=”hang1″>2. <a href=”http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf”>Hansen, J. and S. Lebedeff (1987)</a>, Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature, Jour. Geophys. Res., Vol.92,No.D11, pp13,345-13,372″ (<a href=”http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-lebedeff.gif”>See the graph on page 7</a> with my additions of red and blue bars).</p> <p class=”hang1″>3. NASA graph adapted from <a href=”http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/”>Goddard Institute for Space Studies</a> data.</p> <p class=”hang1″></p> <p style=”text-align: center;”></p>
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (3 votes cast)
The mystery deepens -- where did that decline go?, 10.0 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yk8tv2w

278 comments to The mystery deepens — where did that decline go?

  • #
    Ian

    Looks like a significant further nail in the coffin for AGW promotion. Should the balloon data be called raobcores, as in the graph, rather than rabocores, as given in text?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    geronimo

    @Ian: “Looks like a significant further nail in the coffin for AGW promotion.” I don’t think so, minds are pretty set on this issue, there are a significant number of people out there who need to have impending catastrophe unless humandkind changes its ways, and history tells us that no amount of science will change their minds. We’ve been here before with the major religions and their deliberate attempts to make “science” support the hypothoses they propounded, and when it didn’t they would simply imprison/execute those who had the temerity to put the slightest doubt in the minds of the faithful. It is no coincidence that the pre-eminent scholars of the Dark/Medieval Ages, the Arabs, disappeared with the rise of Islam. The Jews, who, like the Arabs are semites, have a religion which doesn’t suppress scholarship, and have won 42 Nobel prizes in Physics alone, while the Arabs have 8 Nobel prizes under their belt.

    CAGW is a religion and brings with it all the trappings of a religion, including religious fundamentalism.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Isn’t 1934 still the warmest for the US and 5 of the top 10 warmest years are in the 30s. I know NASA tried to push 1998 as the warmest, but after repeated exposure of the flaws of their models, didn’t they changed it back to 34.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Do you have a tag line?

    Like cutest skeptic down under.

    I know. Bad American.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Slabadang

    Good Work!

    The pictures of the submarines says it all!
    Hansen and GISS are corrupted.Like in Sovjet they rewrote the history and even the maps to fit the political agenda.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Michael Not Mann,

    1934 was the warmest US year when I downloaded the data from NASA in about November last year – iirc it was 0.03C warmer than 1998 and 2006.

    But then I downloaded the data in December and it had changed so that 98 & 06 were 0.01C warmer than 1934 again.

    In January I downloaded the data once again – and it had completely changed. Maybe I got the wrong data because the 20 hottest years were now in the last 25 years, and 1934 was 0.7C cooler than 98 & 06. Even the format of the data had changed – 5 columns instead of 2, and several different averaging arrangements(thus I suspect I downloaded a different data set). I spent some time trying to get the old data but I believe its all been removed. There was some chatter about this on climateaudit.org at the time – something about re-applying TOBS adjustments from NOAA/GHCN (ie, not NASA’s fault apparently).

    I gave up downloading data after that. I figured if the data was going to keep changing that much we couldn’t argue with it sensibly – because any argument we made would be invalidated by future changes anyway.

    Obviously I must have gone wrong somewhere so I’m looking forward to being directed to the current NASA dataset for the US showing ’34 as the hottest still…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Our CSIRO has released a brochure confirming MMCC to combat the perceived attack by sceptics on the science. Unfortunately, for them, they insist on publishing the settled science arguments as well as quoting the IPCC. I contacted them with a series of simple questions arising from discussions on this site and others over the past several months. The CSIRO say they will respond to queries within two working days but I’m still waiting. Maybe they are like the ABC and only respond to “positive” questions.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Marty,

    Was that the raw data you got or the corrected data? It think it’s Watts that has a gif that shows the corrected data bouncing around as the IPCC corrects history. The IPCC keeps moving the 1880s, 1930s, and 1980s data so they can keep their ever upward trend line going.

    My mom’s family is western Kansas farmers. They watch and record weather daily out there since their lives depend on it. I’ve got family that probably has weather records going back to the late 1800s. The truth is out there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Michael not Mann: #5
    March 18th, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    Settle Grettle. I am the cutest sceptic down under, or was that acutest, can’t remember. Don’t go there anyway bro, this is a science blog.

    James Hansen still hasn’t replied to my email. I want to be sued by him, so here goes.

    James Hansen you are a crooked liar and a manipulator of public data. A disgrace to science. Your grandchildren that you talk about so much will probably change their names in the future to get away from the stigma of being the offspring of a CORRUPT PUBLIC OFFICIAL.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    janama: #11

    Interesting pictures.

    They were taken from a height.

    Presumably from a maritime reconnaissance aircraft.

    It was therefore staged for a press release (not that there is anything wrong in that, in the circumstances), but interesting, none the less.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Wilson

    Jo

    The “evolution” of the decline is particularly damning for James Hansen, particularly given the recent work done by many (unpaid) sceptics demonstrating the manipulation of data from many individual stations. It needs emphasising that this is not a mere detail at the edges of the debate, but an utterly central platform of CAGW alarmmism, that 20th century temperature increase is both extreme and unprecedented – if its not, what are we worried about?

    Between this apparent manipulation of the data, and the exposure of the “hockey stick” as the junk science it is (tree rings as thermometers?!?) , what is left of the alarmist case? Of course, we hear there are “thousands” of lines of evidence proving the co2-warming link – its just that no one seems to actually know what these are.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Jo,

    Might be an idea to date when James Hansen received his PHd- it was based on the CO2 problem on Venus (Carl Sagan might have been his supervisor?).

    The only reason Hansen is obsessed with Earthly CO2 is because of his belief in the Venus runaway Greenhouse concept.

    Show that Venus isn’t hot due to that mechanism and AGW must collapse.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Update. Just received the CSIRO reply to my queries. No specific answers but look at all our reports and papers that prove we are right and you sceptics (entitled to your opinion) are wrong. I did ask if the fact they received nearly half a billion dollars for clean coal research had a bearing on their acceptance and promulgation of AGW. I also asked if any of their scientists were actively engaged in falsifying the “consensus”. Obviously the answer to the latter is a resounding NO.

    Part of the response is as follows:

    We have recorded your comments and respect your right to have views contrary to the prevailing consensus. Whilst we are not in a position to address your specific points, we strongly encourage you to review the full extent of related resources that CSIRO has provided on our website at: http://www.csiro.au/climate . This email also contains links to many specific information resources.

    Lead by some of this nation’s most educated and experience experts in their field, CSIRO is conducting comprehensive and rigorous research to help Australia understand, respond to and plan for a changing climate. CSIRO’s role is to conduct the research that will underpin that nation’s understanding of the related sciences, which will then allow the appropriate Government bodies and authorities to make informed decisions for policy and action.

    CSIRO scientists welcome open and serious debate, discussion and questioning of their science through the peer-review process. They also stand by the results of their research.

    CSIRO unequivocally stands by its scientists. To learn more about CSIRO’s role in climate change science and the position of our scientists, please read: http://www.csiro.au/science/CSIRO-scientists-and-the-climate-change-debate.html

    Our climate scientists have contributed to a number of fact sheets and articles addressing the common enquiries about climate change science, which are readily available on our website.

    They are committed all right. Only peer reviewed papers from scientists are allowed in their hallowed domain and questions from mere mortals are simply brushed aside. The impression is “we have written a paper, it’s right and you have no right to question it”. I did note that last time I asked similar questions I was directed to RealClimate.com. Not this time however. Improvement?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    “CSIRO scientists welcome open and serious debate”

    That’s BS and we all know it. How can they say on the one hand it’s all done and dusted, and that AGW is “proven”, yet on the other hand they say something like the statement above. Hitler would be proud of the CSIRO.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    I refer to the CSIRO Carbon Dioxide graph released on March 15th 2010 based on air sampling measurements made at Cape Grim (Tasmania).

    In view of the assertions of CSIRO Chief executive Dr.Megan Clark regarding the major influence of CO2 and methane on global warming, one would have expected the temperatures in Tasmania to show a steady linear rise in line with the aforementioned graph.

    I don’t know where CSIRO are doing their observations but I checked the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) surface temperature analysis charts available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station/_data/

    Before 1992 GISS was using data from 25 Tasmanian surface stations but on checking I found only 19 of those had reasonably continuous records. None show any evidence of global warming nor any linear correlation at all with the Cape Grim CO2 graph. Temperature variations are up and down as usual. However, in view of the history of the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming, some years of the variations are very interesting.

    In Tasmania, 1985 had a low temperature base which rose quite sharply to a high point in 1988, and still remains the highest annual mean temperature on all charts. This was the year NASA’s James Hansen appeared before the US Senate and made the alarming claims that humans, by their use of fossil fuels, were causing potentially catastrophic global warming.

    However, the charts show over the next five years from that high point in 1988 to the end of 1992, temperatures dropped sharply and consistently at all Tasmanian stations by an average of 1.24 degrees C. At this stage GISS suddenly dropped all but two stations for data collection, Launceston and Hobart Airports. Hundreds of other stations all over Australia were dropped in the same year and most of those I have checked showed five year falls 1988 to 1992.

    I contacted E.M.Smith and he has kindly posted some very interesting tables and graphs on Australian temperature anomalies as a result of changes in instrument count and other associated factors. He found that 401 Australian surface stations were dropped after 1992, leaving only 45 in 1993. His work on many countries has shown that a step up in apparent warming almost always occurs when instruments “change” and/or there is some other modification or adjustment.

    Jo (and others of a technical bent) I would really appreciate you having a look at these sites:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/north-america-flat-canada-not-so-much/#comment-3016

    http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/australia_hair_seg.png


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’d love to see an official explanation for those 3 graphs – the reversal of the 2 levels in the latest set is very suspicious. The AGW set poke at us blogger sceptics and say we’re nit picking and it doesn’t change anything, but ffs, this is like ground zero for the whole thing. All the predictions are based on models which require inputs which are looking very sketchy at best. And thats before we get started on the models and their assumptions on how radiative transfer works.

    bodged data in to bodged models = science fiction.

    ‘Kirk to engine room, Scotty, we need warp 9 in 10 seconds or we’re toast’
    ‘ach, she cannae do it captain, I can give you 30 mph in a week, the dilithium crystals are totally homogenised..’


    Report this

    00

  • #

    ROFLMAO!

    What James Hansen is doing is plain dumb,because it was well known back in the 1960′s and 1970′s of a significant cooling trend.

    I personally witnessed such cooling where even the Columbia River froze up a lot around the blue bridge in the winter of 1971 at Pasco Washington.There is a photo of it in the Tri-City Herald.Not seen since again since the 1980′s.

    The Yakima River used to freeze up deeply almost yearly in the 1960′s and 1970′s in Richland Washington.Since then only occasionally freeze up and not usually that significantly since the 1980′s.

    There are simply too much evidence of real cooling cooling from the late 1940′s to the late 1970′s for second rate people like Hansen to eliminate in their irrational quest to promote something that does not exist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul

    “401 Australian surface stations were dropped after 1992″

    From what I’ve read, Canada and Russia dropped many stations at the same time, and other countries as well. Does it not strike you as odd that at the very time all of these climate concerns were gaining steam, that there was a significant reduction in measurement capacity? Especially since surface station data forms the basis of all of the most important temperature records. If changing temperatures were such an important thing, wouldn’t you measure more, and more accurately, and not less? Instead, we’ve been treated to an inverse relationship between reliance on measured data and reliance on computer models.

    Reality is no longer measured by direct observation, but becomes what the models say it is. Which fits right into a discussion on post-normal science I was reading a few days ago.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    george

    Lawrie @#16

    Your mention of the CSIRO`s “prevailing consensus” is relevant to something I came across just today. I must say that until fairly recently I had no interest in the “debate”, then the BS detector started going off. Reading the attached article I couldn`t help but keep saying “yep…yep…yep…”.

    Perhaps if there had been less stridency, eg blatant propaganda such as black balloons popping out of electrical appliances and a proposed CARBON POLLUTION Reduction Scheme (and, ironically, pro-AGW mouthings in the MSM!) I would possibly not have noticed or been as intrigued…and I`m guessing I`m not the only layman in that boat. No science here, nor denigration of any generic scientific process per se, just the old “if it looks like a duck, etc”. Caveat emptor?

    http://american.com/archive/2010/march/when-to-doubt-a-scientific-consensus


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John P.A.Knowles

    I’m with Paul at No 21. We need more stations not less. Pruning out the cooler ones would be so easy. Enrolling a few rural properties with the ‘net should be relatively simple. Then we could screen (say) Richmond RAAF base in NSW against its hinterland and come up with an average, which would almost eliminate reader error and urban heat island effect.
    As part of his PhD, my nephew is shunting individual molecules around using a lazer. It’s pretty exacting research with little known ground and even less practical application so far, but by contrast, all WE need to do is read the max and min on a thermometer and log the results. The data analysis is well within reach of a large number of Uni students with a computer.
    It’s not complicated but the CSIRO’s and CRU’s of the world would have us believe it’s hard-core science best left to the hallowed few. The more they try to pull the wool over our eyes the more obvious their deceit so we need to remain vocal, -well done Lawrie.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    D. King

    The graphs for 1980, 1987 and 2007 correlate perfectly
    with observed step change declines in integrity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KDK

    I don’t want to go too OT but I just wonder how many know, or believe there was ONE big super-continent on earth. What happened? The Atlantic stream turned into the ATL river, then ATL sea, now the ATL Ocean exists… The EARTH is NOT a Constant.

    What about the civilizations that were abandoned in the past due to changes in climate (earth)… those that created the Nazca Lines had to abandon their civilizations, like many others in SA due to ‘changes’–were they AGW, or just Naturally occurring changes? Anthropologists don’t have ALL the answers, but one fact is this: Civilizations disappeared (and relocated) due to Natural Variations of our planet time and time again and it wasn’t due to CO2 or ANY air pollution via human. Granted there were human factors like greed, corruption, etc., no doubt, but they didn’t dry up the waterbeds or stop the rainfall, or, or, or…

    To believe in AGW one must DELETE the past (and their memory).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MS

    Great posts! that National Geographic article is a goldmine… take a look at the change in the Austrian Alps Glaciers since 1956:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/03/austrian-alps-glaciers-have-almost.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    A C Osborn

    Note the shift in the Zero position from 1925 in the First graph to 1930 in the second and then 1940 in the last one. They also changed the Baseline as they went along.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    I’m not sure at all that RAOBCORE is a valid thing. From their web site: “This page provides homogeneity adjustments for upper air temperatures from the global radiosonde network. The homogeneity adjustments are required for serious analysis of the upper air climate of the past decades and may be used also for improving the data input for climate data assimilation efforts (often called reanalyses) such as” …a link follows, then:

    “The adjustment process has two steps:
    1) Detection of shifts in existing radiosonde observation time series
    2) Estimation of the size of the shifts through comparison with suitable reference series.”

    Standard RAOB times have always been at 00 and 12Z – at least since the Korean War 60+ years ago. Some sites took additional runs at 06 and 18Z, but these are still standard SYNOPTIC TIMES. Somehow,”homogenizing” much beyond milk leaves me sceptical. Some were taken at nonstandard times, for example to support air testing of nuclear, and of course dropsonde runs are at (sort of) ad-hoc times based on when the aircraft got to the proposed drop area, or, for example to measure a particular area of a hurricane. But then dropsondes are not part of the “global radiosonde network,”

    One thing that a lot of folks don’t think about is that during the 1 1/2 hour or so rise of the balloon, it is drifting with the wind. If the observation started over Podunk the height or temperature for example at the tropopause is NOT generally over Podunk, but some distance downwind. In other words, a Raob does NOT measure the atmosphere in a neat vertical column over the launch site. At balloon burst it is not at all unusual for the instrument to be 100 or more miles from the launch site. If it hits a jet-stream it can really be a long way off in a short to me.

    I’ve never seen any “corrections” for this reporting “anomaly” (and I don’t like that word either) but a reasonable (not exact) location could be dialed-in by plotting the movement of the balloon using the reported winds. Also the actual time of reporting any and level could be estimated by using the targeted ascension rate, usually 3000ft a minute.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    For heavens sake — nuclear WEAPONS, not just nuclear above.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    #18 thru #23

    We need to stop the use of stations. They’re just political tools that are easy to manipulate to get the result you want. And that is what the GHCN is doing. They’re dumping stations at higher latitudes and higher altitudes to up CO2 and Temp data.

    This is a collection of CO2 levels related to wind speed. Say you don’t like the result.
    Link

    You mine your data and find the stations that create the result you want.
    Link
    The next thing you know, CO2 and Temp is soaring.

    Here is an example from the great barrier reef. The pink section is the number of stations sampled. Station numbers dropped from 70 to 2.
    Link

    The you run your shaping algorithm over the data a half dozen times and the next thing you know, the great barrier reef is dying.
    Link


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “Do you have a tag line?
    Like cutest skeptic down under.
    I know. Bad American.”

    No no no. Thats you being a good American. But its not sufficient only to praise the friends of liberty. There is also the necessity of laying abuse on the enemies of a more free society. So just for balance sakes, you ought to email Clive Hamilton and tell him what an evil and ugly bloke he is.

    I cannot speak for the rest of us, but my view is the more praise you smooth foreign devils can heap on Australias pro-science women the better. Don’t forget to remember Jennifer Marohasy. Who appears to have temporarily (I Hope) damaged her career, because of her fidelity to being a true scientist.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks Graeme. You write like a man who hasn’t been up 24 hours and trying to comment and post. Google should add a new language translator to their site. An America English to English English so we all can write and sound proper.

    I should sleep, but there are more important thing to do. Like finish machining some parts so I can get the SUV back on the road.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Atomic Hairdryer

    Regarding submarines and the Arctic, does anyone know if the US, GB or RU navies released data from their Cold War Arctic surveys? Given the fear of subs popping up under the ice and launching, Navies surveyed it but I’ve not found whether that data has been declassified.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] She also has a followup post: Where did the decline go? [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Case

    Maybe they did the rest of the globe like they did the United States:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Michael not Mann: #30

    We need to stop the use of stations.

    And replace them with … what?

    I have commented before on the differences between aeronautical, urban, and rural stations; and how they are all cr*p.

    But you know, if you assume that they are “relatively” accurate; that is, consistent in terms of the absolute error of one thermometer, and if you assume that errors over a large enough sample will produce a statistical mean that is close to the real temperature in that geographic area, then I say use all of them, without any adjustments whatsoever.

    I don’t use the words bet or wager on this site, for fear of the Eddy, but I surmise that the results would be more accurate that the adjusted stuff.

    Just a thought.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jerome Hudson

    Dr. Roy Spencer has an interesting post at:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/
    His graph for low-population areas compares nicely
    with Jo Nova’s graph above for the period he
    covers. I realize Spencer’s
    is only for USA, so we could have apples vs. oranges
    here.
    His concern is that urban heating has skewed the
    temperature trends, and his data are convincing, at
    least for the USA.

    -Jerry


    Report this

    00

  • #

    We could use satellites. NASA launched a CO2 satellite in 2009. It’s currently studying the sea floor of the Antarctic ocean. But the idea is sound.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The image of the three GISS temperature plots is very usefull.

    Are the three plots from old journal articles? Can anyone provide citations for the three sources plots?

    Best regards
    Tom Moriarty
    ClimateSanity


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    For those interested Ian Wishart has a graph in his book “Air Con” showing the reduction in stations along with the “increased” average temp recorded. He attributes it to McKitrick
    @ http://www.uoguelph.ca/-rmckitri/research/nvst.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grant

    D. King @ 24

    Ah! But correlation is not causation. :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    I don’t think the stations are so bad, or the meter readers are so bad, or the regional weather collecters are so bad.

    We just need to take the piss out of giss.

    De-hansenize the place.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bemused

    Outstanding. I have a few points:

    1.The Budyko(1976) temperature data which appears to have been used in the National Geographic article was for the *northern hemisphere* only. The Hansen graphs you then compare them with are *global*. You are not comparing like with like.

    If you wanted to do a fair comparison you could look at the GISS Northern Hemisphere data here:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif

    Here you will see that (surprise, surprise) the 70s come out cooler than the 1955-65 period. No conspiracy. Am I really the first person here to bother to look this up?

    2.The RAOB core data that you plotted showing the data from the late-50s onwards is for the *tropics only* -again you are not comparing like with like. I’m not quite sure what your point was with that.

    3.You comparison, supposedly showing changes to the data after the fact is far from convincing. Obviously, new studies using different selections of station data and different analysis techniques will give different numbers. The position of your blue line is very sensitive to the short, sharp dip around 1965. You can pick points from the series which change both ways.

    For example, in your 3 Hansen plots figure, look at the peak around 1940 and compare this with the red line.

    Cooling between 1940 peak and 1955-1965:
    1980 paper = -0.10C
    1987 paper = -0.15C
    2007 paper = -0.15C

    Why don’t you accuse Hansen of introducing artificial cooling into the global temperature time series?

    4.”If 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990′s, this rewrites the entire claim of unprecedented recent warming.”

    Which data that you’ve shown has allowed you to conclude that 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990s? The “National Geographic” northern hemisphere data only go up to 1975. The RAOB data are for the tropics only and incidently match very closely to tropics data in the GISS data (linked in (1) above). The global GISS data show the 1990s to be considerably warmer than 1958.

    5.As you suddenly have such huge faith in the observational records provided by satellites and RAOBCORE (“both accurate, reliable tools” apparently), I would like to point out that both of these (in your figure) independently confirm a global warming trend of approx 0.2K/decade (1979-2008).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michcael not Mann

    I don’t think the stations are so bad, or the meter readers are so bad, or the regional weather collecters are so bad

    Come on. Half the stations in the US are next to a Taco Bell grill vent. Seriously, check out surfacestations.org. 78% of USHCN sites are with in 12 feet of an artificial heat source.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kdk33

    This is the last time I’ll post this rant:

    I continue to be baffled by the fascination with a global average temperature. It’s meaningless. Nobody/nothing/no creature, plant, or rock experiences this number. And it is impossible to calculate. The data is poorly (gross understatement) distributed over both time and space, and nobody seems able to attempt it without correcting/adjusting/homogenizing the data. I have absolutely no interest in this exercise.

    Somewhere, there are a stations that have been collecting data for 100 years or so and haven’t moved and are in a location that hasn’t changed much and aren’t next to a road/ac unit/airport/whatever. Where are they and what do they say – and don’t forget an estimate of measurement error.

    I think we’ve lost site of whats important. The question is: is CO2 changing climate in a way that threatens humanity. This globally averaged temperature business does not help because it can’t help because it doesn’t mean anything because it can’t be found.

    end of rant


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RexAlan

    A “Consensus” is a political term not a scientific one.

    “A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.” – Abba Eban, Israeli statesman,
    diplomat, and scholar.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    kdk33 –does this help?

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1990.post

    Not the best design of website as the right handside of the article gets a little covered but you can get most of it


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    While National Geographic’s graph from 1976 may tell an interesting tale, the magazine is now unfortunately firmly in the alarmist AGW camp.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    Half the stations in the US are next to a Taco Bell grill vent.

    that explains the trend on .98 cent taco day.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    Correction: My #28, I now see is incorrect. Ascent rate is around 1000 fpm — not 3000 fpm. My brain must be disconnecting from my eyes and fingers!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kdk33

    @ross

    As a matter of fact, that’s the kind of data we ought be seeking. Surely there’s more than one.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    @ 40. Sorry I note the link I put up doesn’t work.(in too much of a hurry earlier to check it)

    Try this link:

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] on faith, I went and got the original data that was used by National Geographic. According to Joanne Nova, the early part of the record is from Budyko, and the latter part from Angell and Korshover. I [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    You surely cannot be serious?
    err…a few helpful pointers.
    1) If you want to know what the temp was in the 50s and 60s then just go and download the data from Hadcrut, or GHCN. It is all publically available and I’m sure not even the most ardent sceptic is going to say that Mann (or any other climate scientist) has (or could) changed the station data at source, and then gone and hacked all the proxy servers to change the data there as well?
    I’ll even give you the links…
    Hadcrut2&3 HERE NOAA/GHCN/NCDC HERE
    Plot it for yourself, it isn’t difficult. You can do it properly in Fortran or you can use one of the public domain tools like Panoply.
    2) Comparing graphs like this is meaningless. They have different axis scaling and most likely different smoothing timescales. You can’t just line different graphs up and say ‘hey they look different’. Of course they do.

    3) ‘Hiding the decline’ refers, as you say, to the fact that one of the tree-ring proxy datasets doesn’t line up with the land record post 1960. So, which do you trust? Data from about 4000 thermometers or data from a dozen trees? The effect is actually to weaken the confidence in the data reconstruction from about 1100-1400, not to say that the modern temperature record is somehow all wrong. Whilst this does indeed call more doubt over the ‘hockey stick’ and could even mean that middle-age temps were close to present day, it doesn’t mean that Mann, Jones, and hundreds of others have been sabotaging contemporary datasets – that is a silly notion, given that they don’t have access to the source data – only the copy they download.
    The worst allegation possible is that they have faked the graphs, but that is, as I say, not difficult to check, since the data is still around. If you think they have done some dodgy homogenisation or willfully dropped some of the warmer station data then go and plot the data and you will have prima-facie evidence.
    (This has, of course, occurred to several thousand of us who have already done it and found no such thing….


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “1) If you want to know what the temp was in the 50s and 60s then just go and download the data from Hadcrut, or GHCN. ….”

    Is that some sort of joke? No I’m afraid its not OK to use rigged data. And its never going to be OK to use rigged data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bikerman:

    At #54 you claim:

    The worst allegation possible is that they have faked the graphs, but that is, as I say, not difficult to check, since the data is still around. If you think they have done some dodgy homogenisation or willfully dropped some of the warmer station data then go and plot the data and you will have prima-facie evidence.
    (This has, of course, occurred to several thousand of us who have already done it and found no such thing….

    Really!! You have done that? How?

    1.
    The unadulterated station data are not where you say. Only data with a first adjustment are.
    2.
    There is no listing as to which stations are used at any time and they frequently change the used stations so their results change with time (as the above article reports).
    3.
    They frequently change their methodology and do not report the changes so it is not possible to accurately replicate what they have done and their results change with time (as the above article reports).
    4.
    They do not publish their computer code so it is not possible to accurately replicate what they have done and their results change with time (as the above article reports) which makes it impossible to assess what they have done.

    And you claim “several thousand” of you have achieved this series of not possible actions.

    But none of you “thousands” has published any report of this or of any assessment of the GISS, Hadley or GHCN global temperature time series.

    However, when I and several others did try to publish an assessment of those time series the frequent changes to those data sets made it impossible to publish: their data changed between each submission of our paper and its publication so we had to keep withdrawing it for correction (we eventually gave up). I explain this in my Submission to the UK Parliamentary Select Committee that is investigating ‘Climategate’: it and all other such Submissions are linked from
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm

    It is not surprising that you hide behind a pseudonym because you are condemned as a liar by your own words.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I get what you are trying to do Bikerman. You are trying to say that we are scapegoating a couple of tendentious fools and turning it into a big fat conspiracy. You are trying to say that any hanky-panky does not go as far as the raw data itself. But why would that be the case? Once they start hiding stuff, and lying, it follows that they would try to bugger the raw material to cover their earlier wrong-doing. Like a kidnapping plot that subsequently develops into an assassination the crime will feed on itself.

    We are not talking about a few bad apples here. We are talking about dysfunctional institutions. The iron law of secretive stolen money institutions is that they will reinforce their mistakes. In the face of systemic corruption feeding on itself it is useless to tease people about some sort of irrational belief in conspiracy. You call it what you want. But don’t pretend it doesn’t happen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Turboblocke

    You can’t legitimately expect radiosonde data to reflect surface temperature exactly. I’ve found a plot of surface vs radiosonde and satellite data. It’s clear that the anomaly on the surface is different.
    see bottom left plot: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    George @ 22. Thanks for that great link. The best summary of arguments against the whole “science is settled” and “overwhelming consensus” nonsense I have seen. A must read for anyone having difficulty in explaining or justifying their reasons for being an AGW sceptic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Submariner

    I was in the Navy in the Submarine Service in the 1960′s and 70′s. It was a well known fact (among the Submarine Service) that MANY of the supposed “North Pole” pictures, that were on the front page of the newspapers at the time, you know the ones with the submarine surrounded with ice and a barber pole were not made at the North Pole. The reason those were NOT taken at the North Pole, is because there was NO ICE at the North Pole. The people expected a picture of the submarine surrounded by ICE, so after traversing the North pole and taking pictures at the real North Pole and recording other data confirming and verifying the great accomplishment, we would then go to an area that had ICE for the newspaper photo. It is kind of hard to get that barber pole to stand up in open water. The typical site at the REAL North Pole was more like the photos you have on your web page. These the crew would keep. The newspaper photo went to the newspaper.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    @Graeme Bird: A great phrase, that “dysfunctional institutions”. I don’t think it could be improved on very much. Well done!!

    Here in Florida we are in the Spring Break season at the beaches. I would opine that the word “dysfunctional” could be used as well to describe a lot of the students from those institutions, with maybe an “ill mannered” and/or “uncivilized” thrown in for good measure.

    @Turboblocke: I WOULD expect a Raob to reflect the surface temperature exactly! A good accurate surface pressure and temperature are prerequisite to an accurate Raob, else other values such as instrument calibration and layer thicknesses will be wrong. The differences you are finding are likely due to the launch site usually being separated by as much as several miles from the usual surface observation site. Check the lat/lons of both for an accurate measure of the distances involved. I hope this clears up some of the “differences” for you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kdk

    @ Submariner… your #60 post is VERY enlightening. A first hand account of the games our GOV/MSM play. “give em what they want to see and say anything, but don’t let it be the absolute truth, or any truth at all”.

    Thanks for your account… it actually has merit if it is true :) .


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Would the person who is responsible for the three temperature vs. time graphs all combined in the same image, found in the original post, above, please provide sources.

    The comparison of these three plots is quite interesting. But the kind of people I deal with will simply dismiss them if the sources are not given. This is human nature, especially given the climate of mistrust on both sides.

    The graphs look like copies from journal articles with added annotation. Can somebody (perhaps Jo Nova or Frank Lansner) provide citations?

    If the sources are already somewhere on this page and I have overlooked them, please excuse my bumbling, and point them out to me again.

    thank you,
    Tom Moriarty


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tom,

    I copied the graphs from Frank Lansners site to put them into a horizontal view.
    The original graphs come from http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/
    which was described on Lansers page.

    Strictly speaking the Hansen 1980 possibly ought to be Hansen 1981, since it was updated then. I’m guessing these are the papers he meant, but I’m not sure. I’ll email him to ask and get the full answer. There are graphs that look very similar in the 81 and 87 papers. I can’t find the 2007 one.

    Hansen, J., Johnson, D., Lacis, A., Lebedeff, S., Lee, P., Rind, D., and Russell, G. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

    Hansen, J.E., and Lebedeff, S. 1987:Global trends of measured surface air temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research, 92, 13345-13372.

    I may be linking the wrong papers…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] of you who still believe that the ClimateGate scandal was just a bunch of emails in England should read this article. James Hansen of GISS appears to have systematically adjusted the historical temperature record to [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Alan Davidson

    #54 Bikerman and others should look at E.M. Smith’s website http://chiefio.wordpress.com for a very interesting series of graphs and explanations covering many different regions and countries including Australia, New Zealand adn the Pacific.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Joanne,

    Thanks for the citations.

    Tom Moriarty


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Tom!
    Yes, the refs by Joanne are correct, here a little more:
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200711_temptracker/
    The Hansen graph that ends late 1970´ies is from “Hansen et al. 1981″

    “The first reliable global measurements of temperature from NASA, published by Hansen and his colleagues in 1981, showed a modest warming from 1880 to 1980, with only a slight dip in temperatures from 1940 to 1970. (Graph adapted from Hansen et al. 1981.)”

    Hansen 1987 i took from Singers superbe writing:
    http://www.sepp.org/publications/GWbooklet/withfigures.html

    the exact graph GISS is from “Hansen and Lebedeff”, 1987 is
    “(1)Hansen, J. and S. Lebedeff (1987), Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature, Jour. Geophys. Res., Vol.92,
    No.D11, pp13,345-13,372″

    Here are GISS graphs compared from 1987 and foreward by Steve McIntyre:
    http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/durkin91.gif

    As one can see, the 1930-1940-peak as a whole is reduced and reduced and reduced. – I will just update my article with this :-)
    And since the Soon = HL87, then the global warming swindle graph is in fact HL 87 it seems – as McIntyre describes here:
    http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/03/risk-management-solutions-ltd-and-the-38-professors/

    K.R. Frank Lansner
    And thankyou everyone here at joanne´s beatiful blog, keep up the good work!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I guess my backyard thermometer is telling me the truth then. The winter nights are colder than in the past.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bemused

    Has anyone actually come up with a single response to any of the points I made in my earlier post (43)?

    If you compare like with like then the cooling in the northern hemisphere is still there today in the GISS data:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif

    You guys are hilarious!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Submariner #60: An old salt I used to work with (he was in the Nuclear Subs no less) basically told me the same thing. At the time (back in the 80s), I did not really pay it much mind. But it does merit documentation today!

    Thanks for verifying my friends stories.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bemused,
    1) Your graphic shows not “northern hemisphere” because NH is 0N – 90N.
    Your graphic is from 23N. Does this matter? Yes! The thing is, the Arctic shows very big drop in temp after 1940, so when only going from 23N, this will enlarge the dive after 1940.
    The dive from 23N, your giss graph, then shows a decline on approx 0,3K – but this is in fact still to little compared with the original full NH graphs.

    2) The picture that we have used often in this debate is exactly what we need: A direct NH – NH compare. We compare original Mathews 76 NH with CRU 2006 (Brohan) NH, and it looked like this:

    - And the GISS and CRU graphs are very similar – was this answer?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Wops, no picture came out, heres the picture with compare mathes 76 NH – CRU 2006 (Brohan) NH:


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    This sounds like something from George Orwell’s novel, “1984.”

    http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor
    Nuclear & Space Science
    Former NASA PI for Apollo


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Wow. Isn’t that cool? The news from Submariner and Phil Jourdan?

    There was a history book that apparently was a bit too wildly speculative. I actually bought it. I was quite fascinated by it. The Gavin Menzies book about the Chinese doing this world tour. Mainstream historians rubbished the book for being speculative and for lacking valid scholarship. I saw a documentary of them all rubbishing it, and Menzies being interviewed. But there was nothing there to suggest that every last thing mentioned in this book was untrue.

    So if people ever quoted this story about the Chinese sailing over the North Pole, this was assumed to be wrong, by association with the alleged wider faults of the book. Lambert got on Monkton’s case about it. I didn’t think much about the issue, since I reasoned that if they never sailed over it at least we ought to be pretty confident that they could easily have done so were they lucky which September they happened to try it on.

    But there we have a first-hand and second-hand account of the North Pole being ice free in recent times. Thats pretty cool. This must be the place to come to for the better information.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bemused

    Frank,
    But that is CRU, I thought you were talking about Hansen?

    It does rather beg the question -why don’t you download the GISS data and check before making wild accusations? Maybe make a plot or two from the source data rather than overlaying images on photoshop?

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/NH.Ts+dSST.txt

    And if you’re so concerned about whether you use 23-90N or 0-90N why did you show full global data and tropics only data during the course of your argument in the article?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    March the 19th hey? Was that UN international liars day?

    “If you think they have done some dodgy homogenisation or willfully dropped some of the warmer station data then go and plot the data and you will have prima-facie evidence.
    (This has, of course, occurred to several thousand of us who have already done it and found no such thing….)”

    No-one mentioned anything about UN international liars day?

    In this story by Bikerman we have several thousand righteous climate alarmists, dutifully doing the hard yards to try and falsify the work of their peers, in line with contemporary notions of falsification.

    So this stuff ought all be at Bikerman’s fingertips. Graphs drawn. Notes made.

    1. Do you have no small words of advise for the public service Bikerman? No “friendly amendments” at all? After all that hard work of due diligence?

    2. Why aren’t you here under your own name presenting your graphs? What did you find out about their use of the data? Which techniques did they use that you found particularly nifty and convincing. Is there NOTHING you can offer them to improve their act? The public sector so tight, so slick, the well-oiled machine, so that even looking at it all with the benefit of hindsight, and fresh eyes, you cannot offer the slightest improvement?

    I think you are busted. Break Down. Shake Down. You’re Busted. No personalised graphs for us. No comments at all. So you are busted.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk-W_i7Z59I

    Still cannot find anything about UN international liars day. But then everyday is UN international liars day, if you are lying every day for the UN.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    You know I don’t like your attitude Bemused.

    Look at this:

    “And if you’re so concerned a……” Yeah as a matter of fact. For your information, some people tend to be pretty concerned about people FAKING THE DATA.

    Your tone of voice is riddled with contempt. You are not the least bit interested in people faking the data. This doesn’t seem to concern you even a little bit you jerk. With an attitude like that you appear to be one of the culprits, or some fool that identifies with taxeaters having some sort of superior proprietory over the people they are SUPPOSED TO BE working for.

    I think certain people ought to be collecting IP addresses here. Find out who these undercover bigshots are.

    Just re-read Bemused a number of times. Just check his tone. He’s in contempt.
    So I take it that you are not the least bit concerned are you Bemused? And why would you be? You are not a scientist mate. Even if you are a science worker you are not a scientist. If you got a brain transplant, a dumbass tumor removal, and then subsequently died and were born again, you still wouldn’t have what it took to be a scientist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JAY

    How dare you challenge settled science!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Submariner,

    I’m curious. What time of year were those boats up there at the North Pole?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John A. Jauregui

    The truth is there’s a lot more to this ClimateGate story than what little is being reported. The small (2 to 3 dozen) international cabal of climate scientists could not have possibly gotten to this point without extraordinary funding, political support at virtually all levels of government, especially at the national level and unparalleled cooperation from the national and world media. This wide-spread networked support continues even as we-the-people puzzle over what this is all about. I ask you, “What are you seeing and hearing from our national media on the subject?” Anything? What are you seeing and hearing from all levels of our government, local and regional newspapers and media outlets? Anything of substance? At all of these levels the chatter has remained remarkably quite on the subject, wouldn’t you say? Why? What points and positions are you beginning to hear on the radio and see on the television? This cabal of scientists has an unprecedented level of support given the revelations contained in the emails, documented in the computer software code and elaborated in the associated programmer remarks (REM) within the code. And —- this has gone on for years, AND continues even in the presence of the most damning evidence one could imagine, or even hope for. Watergate pales in comparison, given the trillions of dollars in carbon offset taxes, cap & trade fees hanging in the balance and the unimaginable political control over people’s lives this all implies. The mainstream media’s conspiracy of silence proves the point. Their continued cover-up is as much a part of this crime as the actual scientific fraud. ABC, CBS and NBC are simply co-conspirators exercising their 5th Amendment rights.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John A. Jauregui is right.

    There is a lot of filth beneath the Climategate scandal.

    Before Climategate started to unfold, I thought that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and NASA were the main culprits, and that Nature, Science, BBC, PBS, CBS, NBC, etc. were innocent victims. Now we can see that all of these parties, and Al Gore, the UN’s IPCC and the Norwegian Nobel Committee, are up to their ears in this mess.

    Climategate has exposed a worldwide alliance of politicians, scientists, heads of governments, the UN, research agencies, news media, and publishers that have hidden and manipulated data and observations that show:

    1. CO2 did not cause global warming.
    2. Earth’s heat source is not a ball of Hydrogen (H).
    3. The Sun selectively moves lightweight elements like Hydrogen to its surface.
    4. The Sun and other stars generate and discard H from neutron decay.
    5. The Sun is heated by neutron repulsion in the solar core.

    To learn more about neutron repulsion, the energy source that powers the Sun and the cosmos, join the discussion group that Kirt Griffin moderates: “Neutron Repulsion: An Alternative Energy,” neutron_repulsion@yahoogroups.com

    To subscribe go to http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/neutron_repulsion/join

    Here are two papers that review decades of data that NAS, NASA, and DOE tried to avoid:

    1. “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass”, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856 (English); Yadernaya Fizika 69 (2006) number 11 (Russian) http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509

    2. “Earth’s heat source – the Sun”, Energy and Environment 20 (2009) 131-144
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

    As mentioned above, the only motives for this deception seem to be greed and power over others – like the Big Brother tyrants described in George Orwell’s novel, “1984.”
    http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor
    Nuclear & Space Science
    Former NASA PI for Apollo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    John A. Jauregui: #82

    I will be accused on conspiracy theory advocacy but the US Democrats, the Anglo-Saxon socialists (UK, Aust., Canada, NZ), the EU, have been quietly busy taking over society’s institutions with one goal in mind – as enunciated by the English Fabians during the late 19th and early 20th centuries – the emancipation of land from class and individual ownership, aka private property. Their agenda is state control of human activity, period.

    I know because I have been told so to my face by devout socialists in the Australian ALP, (Rudd and his people). I have been told that we are going to be forced to live more sustainable lives, and AGW is the means by which this will be done.

    And all most seem to be concerned with are trivial arguments over the science explaining temperature fluctuations of a tenth of a degree Celsius. Talk about being magisterially distracted by the intellectual classes.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Louis,

    You describe the Brave New World of George Orwell’s novel, “1984.”
    http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

    See the synopsis on the left side.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bemused,

    It is too late in the game for your camp to continue to B.S. us.We are now wise to your attempts to get us to waste a lot of time using the constantly adjusted GISS data,it still disproves you anyway,if you bothered to read up on Franks presentation.

    I LIVED through the global cooling times of the 1960′s into the 1970′s.I also read and heard first hand the increasing concerns of a cooling trend that at the time appear to suggest a run into a new ice age epoch.The cooling was very obvious and well known and yet people like you have selective amnesia when it collides with the long debunked AGW hypothesis.

    Officially the NOAA did state that it had cooled approximately .5 degrees from the the 1940′s to 1968.It cooled a little more to 1976.

    How can you overlook that fact?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bemused,

    after reading your post # 70,I have to wonder if even read Franks presentation at all? That showed that James Hansen keeps ADJUSTING upward the the said time period until all of the decline vanishes.

    He did it several times over the years and we have all the charts to show for it and you STILL ignore that.

    LOL.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bemused, you write:
    “Maybe make a plot or two from the source data rather than overlaying images on photoshop?”

    Hmm.. Where do you find downloadable data from Mathews 76?? Your point was to key in one set, then photoshop the other .. or??

    CRU and GISS (as you know!!??!) are very much the same in many ways. But you think that showing CRU offical 2006 data is “wildly” diferent from GISS??
    The original article was about CRU compared to Mathews. Then in addition I found some problems for GISS too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    The picture above: – not only did Hansen alter the trend 1940-75, he also made a HUGE adjustment around 1975-80, much more warming trend after 1975!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    OK – I lived in London the Midlands, the North and South of England
    between 1942 – 1960 – went to the Levant from late 1960 – early 63,
    then to Australia in 1965.

    1947 was the cold year since (?) then 1963 when I returned from the Levant to London and then the Midlands until 1965. We did not grow grapes or citrus fruits on the mainland of England, certainly not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, they were too cold. Tomatoes were grown in greenhouses.

    Since I left UK in 1965, I left Lincolnshire when that summer we had water restrictions, we arrived in Sydney in late November and also had water restrictions. The first Christmas in Sydney was
    120 degrees in the shade. A few years later, we had snow north of Sydney in November (out late spring) and I cut out the Sydney Morning Herald article where snow was up to the border of Queensland and particularly on the Northern Tablelands and told
    her ‘We have snow before you!’

    Now inbetween times we have had freak weather events, a bit of snow on the 22nd December etc., (Our summer on the Northern Tablelands).

    What I am trying to tell you, the climate debate is definately
    corrupted, because you can’t judge ‘average’ weather over 50 years, one has to go back a thousand or even million of years.

    We are an ICE PLANET! We will have periods over 10 or 15 years possibly longer when we have warmer or cooler than normal summers or winters. This is to be expected. Look at those graphs. They won’t tell you anything by a year or two years. Nor will they tell you much by a 50 or 100 year cycle.

    We are heading back towards a cooling period. Might last 10, 20 or 50 years, hopefully no longer. So long as we get enough rain,
    to nourish our soils, reservoirs, etc. We’ll have to live with it.

    BUT ONE THING FOR SURE… OTHER THAN REGIONAL POLLUTION, CO2 DOES NOT CHANGE THE CLIMATE… THE SUN, SUB ATOMIC COSMIC RAYS, OCEANS
    ETC… AND IF OUR LITTLE SHEEP, COWS ETC, WANT TO FART OR BURB METHANE THEY CAN TOO. IT WON’T CHANGE THE CLIMATE!

    I’M OFF TO BED… THIS CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH IS A COLLABORATION OF BANKERS, THE UN IPCC, AND POLITICAL MOVEMENTS TO PUT DOWN DEVELOPED
    COUNTRIES TO EXPLAIN WHY UNDEVELOPED COUNTRIES AREN’T DOING SO WELL!

    AND WATCH THE CHINESE … THEY ARE TRYING TO BUY LAND IN NORTHERN QUEEENLAND ESPECIALLY THE CUBBY STATION TO POSSIBLY CONTROL WATER
    TO NSW AND SA.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] “The mystery deepens: Where did that decline go?“, 18 March 2010– Weather balloon data provides more evidence of the missing decline in temperature. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)FM newswire for 28 November, hot articles for your morning readingFM newswire for March 4, articles for your morning readingFM newswire for 27 November, hot articles for your morning readingJan 25 2010 Analysis of Obama’s Psychological Make-up [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    sunsettommy

    Once again my postings are no longer getting posted here.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sunsettommy – thanks for letting me know. Two emails caught in the spam filter. I have released them. No idea why…

    And since I did that, there are exactly 19,950 approved comments, so 50 to go to hit the big 20K. (Well, 49 now) :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    John A. Jauregui: Post 82,

    A well spoken statement my Man!!! So very true…as you have stated eloquently;

    And —- this has gone on for years, AND continues even in the presence of the most damning evidence one could imagine, or even hope for. Watergate pales in comparison, given the trillions of dollars in carbon offset taxes, cap & trade fees hanging in the balance and the unimaginable political control over people’s lives this all implies.

    Hence, in your last statement;

    The mainstream media’s conspiracy of silence proves the point. Their continued cover-up is as much a part of this crime as the actual scientific fraud. ABC, CBS and NBC are simply co-conspirators exercising their 5th Amendment rights.

    Being “biased” is an objectivity towards a purpose! To become part of one’s agenda and to receive it’s “rewards” in kind…Money is one’s security, money is power, money is a “vehicle” towards this agenda for which these Organizations have choosen… It cannot be stated anyother way…With purpose, greed rears its “ugly” head…Hence the “Past” has given Us the “Present”. All one has to do is “understand” what’s before them. Then, of course, a decision has to be made…Leave it alone or take it head on…In this context, it can be for “Good” or “Bad” of oneself or Mankind…Need I say more… “The Simplest Path Taken Can Be Foresaken For Only What The Truth Provides”


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I will be accused on conspiracy theory advocacy but the US Democrats, the Anglo-Saxon socialists (UK, Aust., Canada, NZ), the EU, have been quietly busy taking over society’s institutions with one goal in mind – as enunciated by the English Fabians during the late 19th and early 20th centuries – the emancipation of land from class and individual ownership, aka private property. Their agenda is state control of human activity, period.

    I know because I have been told so to my face by devout socialists in the Australian ALP, (Rudd and his people). I have been told that we are going to be forced to live more sustainable lives, and AGW is the means by which this will be done.

    Louis @84,

    You’ve nailed it to the wall! Now I wish I knew how to get the point across to prospective candidates for public office. Or better yet, equal time in the media.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Submariner

    The first picture is of the Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959. The second photo is the Seadragon (SSN-584), foreground, and her sister Skate (SSN-578) during a rendezvous at the North Pole in August 1962. Note the men on the ice beyond the submarines.

    Other USN photos are at NavSource Online: Submarine Photo Archive and here is some more history. http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-subs.htm

    The story I was given was that the ice was thin, polynyas would brake up from the wind and that the ice was not one big continuous mass like you think it would be. The wind and storms break it up.

    It was definitely not “Ice Free” every or all Summer. Some trips it was to thick to break through, others were as in the photos above and some were like the photos you recall from the news paper – a submarine with ice leaning up the sides and some sailor standing next to a barber pole.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Roy Hogue #95

    I wish I knew but in terms of the US, ever since J.P. Morgan started his political interference, haven’t both the GOP and the Democrats been under Wall Street control? Both parties are essentially statist and exist to gull us into thinking we have choices at the elections.

    These people do have the numbers – the two state elections in Australia (South Australia and Tasmania) have resulted in hung parliaments, but more of concern is that 60% of Tasmanians support socialist policies, while the socialists in SA retain their majority of 1 despite a large change in voting patterns. Again the majority seem to prefer socialist policies and the specious benefits of the welfare state.

    Since we in Australia have the political system of the dictatorship of the democratic majority, (and not a republic based on the rule of law), hence the incessant obsession the progressives have with various rights and entitlements, these state election results are not good news for freedom lovers.

    Might be time to batten down the hatches, work out a survival strategy and let them destroy what they set out to destroy – industrial society.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Submariner,

    Thanks for the link. The time of year gives some context to the condition of the ice. In August it’s certainly not surprising that a lot of ice has disappeared. Alarmists always act like the fact that they just discovered something means it must have just started. It was the same way with the “ozone hole” even though it was first discovered in the 1950s.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Louis @97,

    I can’t speak for politics in Australia but I don’t know as I would say U.S. politicians are controlled by Wall Street. Influenced I’ll grant you but politicians are a fickle bunch and will kiss up to any hand that feeds them. And it certainly is not Wall Street that’s controlling Obama and Congress right now.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    joltinjoe

    What could possibly be the motivation to skew the temperature readings by the climate warmist folks? It has to be reputation or economic greed. Those who predicted a warming period do what they have to do to make it come”true”. As a criminal investigator and a student of the criminal law for 3 decades, this theme repeats itself time and time again. I don’t profess to know from where the climatalogists get their funding but the incentive to keep the spogoy open is obvious. I support those who suggest it is for economic gain. If it is from private funding so be it. But if it from taxpayer or government funding then it s a fraou which is punishable under the criminal law. Now you know!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    You should all be ashamed for attacking Dr Hansen with such baseless accusations.

    Raw GHCN data shows a similar result to GISTEMP (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/global-update/), so I don’t see how any claims (however false) can be laid at GISTEMP or Hansen doing “funny business” or “fudging”. HadCRUT finds similar results too – so on the face of it the focus on GISTEMP and Dr Hansen is incorrect.

    Time to stop baseless attacking scientists for the hell of it. Or at least do it more openly. Phrases like “funny business” are all too obvious what is meant. Just say it outright.

    The RAOBCORE data presented back to 1960 is only for the tropics, which obviously isn’t the same thing as global temperature. Yet in this article it is cited as if it is one and the same. It would be better to check/use global RAOBCORE data as that might not show the same thing.

    A case in point is the reference to temperatures at the north pole. The arctic surface temperature record shows a larger drop than the global record from the 40s to the 70s:
    http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/trends-in-arctic-temperature-1880-2006

    Even worse the Mathews 1976 graphic from National Geographic is labelled Northern Hemisphere. So why not look at GISTEMP Northern Hemisphere? (is that not a blindingly obvious thing to do?):
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif

    As for the 3 GISTEMP graphs, they look pretty much identical to me. Although I am eyeballing them – but I presume that is what everyone is doing. The differences seem to be largely a case of nitpicking.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    joltinjoe: #100
    March 21st, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Well lets see Joe. Forget conspiracy theories or greed for money and power for a moment and assume AGW scientists are scientists just going about their work. This work of theirs has mobilised nearly every nation and billions of dollars and countless resources.
    And what is all the above based on? A HYPOTHESES. Not a theory, not a scientific LAW, just a plain unproven hypotheses.
    Who says so? Why, the IPCC themselves say so. Here is the relevant paragraph from AR4 WG1 pp98 The very first paragraph.

    A characteristic of Earth sciences is that Earth scientists are
    unable to perform controlled experiments on the planet as a
    whole and then observe the results. In this sense, Earth science
    is similar to the disciplines of astronomy and cosmology that
    cannot conduct experiments on galaxies or the cosmos. This
    is an important consideration, because it is precisely such
    whole-Earth, system-scale experiments, incorporating the full
    complexity of interacting processes and feedbacks, that might
    ideally be required to fully verify or falsify climate change
    hypotheses
    (Schellnhuber et al., 2004).

    So then, when you’ve just literally had the whole world put on your shoulders because of your “say so”, I guess you would bend over backwards to splice, jimmy, wedge (enter your own descriptive here)any data to fit your world wide famous hypotheses.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    joltinjoe

    To Gerinomo:
    What’s your point. Are Jews and Arabs superior to the rest of us? Do the like each other? Are they smart? You actually said nothing. I wish you had. Now you know!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    joltinjoe

    I just loved the “submariner” story. Best this said about global warming in years. Now you know!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    joltinjoe

    “Much is made of criminal statistics by governments. However, the officer on the street puts down anything he pleases.” The same is true of “scientists” especially those of CRU and other gatherers of marks on paper. The “data” is not really credible data at all. The instruments taking the measurements are compromised as so may witnesses have shown. The proxy “tree ring data” is not credible at all. Core drillings are inclusive. What’s left? Vacuous accumulations of little marks on paper signifying nothing. Nobody knows anything about “global warming”. Not even me! Now you know!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    joltinjoe

    Global Warming is not amenable to scientific inquiry to the degree that laboratory experiments are. The ideal conditions in a lab are never present in the atmosphere or elsewhere in the sphere of “climate”. The scientists really cannot tell you with certainty what they are looking at. Temperatures on the surface? Tree rings? Ice cores? They all may indicate something but scientists do not know what. Neither do politicians nor the rest of us. It is all guess work. Ill designed computer models are no help either. Easy in, easy out. Garbage in, garbage out. No one can say with certainty just what AGW is all about. Especially, the self agrandizing Al Gore. The sins of the recent past of the “scientists” are a strong indication of something really wrong with the study of climate being considered as a “science”. It is more like a seance than a science. Now you know!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olly

    What most have forgotten, is that CO2 has been some 10-20x higher in the past (EG: the Jurassic), where life clearly thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans, without a tipping point, ever (it’s true, check your history).

    If CO2 had the capability to acidify the oceans such that warmists claim, how is it we have fossils from that time? Shouldn’t they have been dissolved or non-existent?

    AGW catastrophists need to shut up right about now..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    1) If you want to know what the temp was in the 50s and 60s then just go and download the data from Hadcrut, or GHCN. It is all publically available and I’m sure not even the most ardent sceptic is going to say that Mann (or any other climate scientist) has (or could) changed the station data at source, and then gone and hacked all the proxy servers to change the data there as well?

    You can download a 5 year spectrum of GISS data from Archive.org here:

    GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    You can see that the years before 1900 change nearly every month. I haven’t done a full analysis but the variance seems to be around 10% so you can watch the 50′s and 60′s changing temperature over the 2005 to 2008 timespan. Interestingly, nothing from 2009 so presumably GISS is now blocking the archive engine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Socold: #101
    March 21st, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    You say..

    Time to stop baseless attacking scientists for the hell of it. Or at least do it more openly. Phrases like “funny business” are all too obvious what is meant. Just say it outright.

    OK, is this “openly” enough for you?

    I wouldn’t trust James Hansen as far as I could throw him. He has been an activist alarmist for over 25 years. An accolyte of that other excuse for a scientist Paul Ehrlich.
    Hansen is desperate to be proved right so he has, does and will manipulate, fix, distort and torture data to show his predetermined idea of a warming world. (He has adjusted the US T’s 3 times now. Too late though, the first 2 sets got plenty of MSM alarmist coverage. i.e. 8 of last 10yrs hottest ever etc)

    If Hansen was to say black is black, I’d get a second opinion on it from a trusted source.

    Was that open enough?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Joanne Nova: #92
    March 21st, 2010 at 3:48 am

    And since I did that, there are exactly 19,950 approved comments, so 50 to go to hit the big 20K. (Well, 49 now)

    hey Jo is there a prize for the 20,000th comment?
    Should I mindlessly post trying to win a prize?

    (This was one of the mindless posts lol)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I’d like to share a bit of humour with my friends here at Jo’s place.

    We’re all familiar with Steve Mcintyre. He of the hockeystick smashing fame. Donna Laframbois from nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com has found a picture of Steve hard at work.
    Steve McIntyre
    Steve worked for mining companies before his retirement (and new found fame outing Michael Manns deceitful hockeystick graph.)
    Visit Donnas site for more.

    cartoonsbyjosh.com for more funnies


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    “What most have forgotten, is that CO2 has been some 10-20x higher in the past (EG: the Jurassic), where life clearly thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans, without a tipping point, ever (it’s true, check your history).

    If CO2 had the capability to acidify the oceans such that warmists claim, how is it we have fossils from that time? Shouldn’t they have been dissolved or non-existent?

    AGW catastrophists need to shut up right about now..”

    Well lets see. There’s this phenomenon called evolution you might be unaware of by which species adapt to new conditions. There is also the phenomenon of mass extinctions caused by sudden changes which many species don’t have time to adapt to.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Larry Siders

    The warming trends from 1880-1940 vary significantly in the Hansen graphs. The 1980 rate (for 1880-1940)is ~ .75 degree/century; 1987 rate is 1 degree/century; 2007 rate is .50 degrees/century. How did the old raw data change by up to 100%.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    Baa Humbug writes: “Hansen is desperate to be proved right so he has, does and will manipulate, fix, distort and torture data to show his predetermined idea of a warming world.”

    Evidence flies in the face of your claims. Hansen just shows us what the data shows. Others find the same thing when they try to do the same.

    “(He has adjusted the US T’s 3 times now. Too late though, the first 2 sets got plenty of MSM alarmist coverage. i.e. 8 of last 10yrs hottest ever etc)”

    And you have evidence that those adjustments were fraudulent rather than corrective? No you don’t. The fact that the slight changes are so irrelevant to the grand scheme of things means there is no motive for fraud and so no accusation of such should be taken seriously anyway.

    All the GISTEMP data and source code is available to download online from the click of a button. All the methodology is outlined in several papers over the years. There’s even a detailed website for the GISTEMP analysis giving update history and providing a variety of graphical graphs, maps and other statistics over customizable time periods and subsets of the analysis.

    It’s sad to see Dr Hansen and the GISTEMP analysis being regularly subjected to evidence-void (and even outright false) accusations when GISTEMP has such a level of, possibly unprecedented, openness and sharing of data and analysis with the public.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Time to stop baseless attacking scientists for the hell of it. Or at least do it more openly. Phrases like “funny business” are all too obvious what is meant. Just say it outright.

    Socold,

    OK, I’ll say it outright. Dr. James Hansen is a proven fraud and therefore also a liar. He has in fact been called a liar and then the challenge was issued to sue for libel. No suit has been forthcoming. Hansen knows full well that his act can’t stand open scrutiny.

    Now please quit wasting both our time and yours.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Socold,

    Just to nail this down:

    Here’s one quote from Bill Hennessey under the title, Dr. James Hansen of GISS is a Liar and a Fraud (his words, not mine).

    “Dr. Hansen purposely and with malice aforethought manipulates actual temperature observations in order to perpetuate a global warming hoax.

    “If I’m wrong, he can sue me. But he won’t, because he’s a fraud.”

    http://hennessysview.com/2008/07/23/dr-james-hansen-of-giss-is-a-liar-and-a-fraud/

    A Google search will find many other such statements.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    C Nold

    I spent Midwestern snow day March 21 reading Ph.D. Mark Bowen’s biographical defense of Dr. James Hansen “Censoring Science”. Ironic title, isn’t it?
    Here is a book quote from the hot summer of 1988 when Hansen brought information to a Senate hearing:
    “The day before the hearing, Jim called Rafe Pomerance to let him know that he was planning ‘to make a pretty strong statement’. Pomerance and Senator Wirth notified the news media, and Wirth and his staff also set the stage by leaving the windows of the hearing room open all that sweltering night to ensure that the air conditioners would be working extra hard during the hearing the next day. ” (Chapter 9)
    What’s this? Perspiration as convincer?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Socold:
    March 22nd, 2010 at 12:05 am

    The fact that the slight changes are so irrelevant to the grand scheme of things means there is no motive for fraud and so no accusation of such should be taken seriously anyway.

    You poor misguided sap. Irrelevant slight changes? were you under a rock when ALL OF THE MSM repeated crooked Hansens claims of 8 out of last 10yrs hottest meme.

    I bet you thought the good folk at Enron were falsely accused as well right? You fool.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    SoCold, you write “And you have evidence that those adjustments were fraudulent rather than corrective? No you don’t. ”

    Any example can be called “cherry picking” and therefore its hard to just proove these thing in a blog.

    However, SoCold, do you not see a pattern that significant adjustments tends to support IPCC viewpoints?

    If so, how do you explain this?
    Or, you have not seen such a pattern?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    SoCold, you write:

    “Raw GHCN data shows a similar result to GISTEMP (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/global-update/), so I don’t see how any claims (however false) can be laid at GISTEMP or Hansen doing “funny business” or “fudging”. HadCRUT finds similar results too – so on the face of it the focus on GISTEMP and Dr Hansen is incorrect.”

    I think the point is not so much “who does what” – for me. GISS and CRU uses GHCN, as I understand it (Chris Horner shows an email that GISS uses CRU etc.) so exactly who does what, who knows who etc. its hard to say. But there is a dependence between these datasets, so that they all say the same thing is well known and does not significantly change much.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    Baa Humbug writes: “were you under a rock when ALL OF THE MSM repeated crooked Hansens claims of 8 out of last 10yrs hottest meme.”

    Seeing as that’s true i don’t see your point.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    Frank Lansner:
    “However, SoCold, do you not see a pattern that significant adjustments tends to support IPCC viewpoints?”

    Significant adjustments such as?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    “I think the point is not so much “who does what” – for me.”

    For you that’s great, but mysteriously this blog article being a case in point, Hansen is smeared even when the underlying data he uses is shown to show the same thing. The widespread “Hansen is committing fraud” meme seriously damages the credibility of skeptics given how misguided and false it is and is just one of the reasons why I often quote the word “skeptics”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Socold,

    For whatever it’s worth, here’s a little good advice. And I’m truly sorry to have to say things like this but it’s the truth.

    You really should be more careful not to make a fool of yourself in public by defending James Hansen. So many have followed his data manipulation for so long that even my cats would have no trouble convicting him of fraud. It’s that obvious! There’s a long record of what he’s done.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    I actually consider it an honor to defend scientists like Dr James Hansen against what I consider to be tabloid style anti-science.

    The “long record” you speak of only exists in the perception of people who don’t revisit arguments made by blogs to see that eventually many, if not all, of those arguments made against Hansen end up proving groundless. It’s easy and quick work to find something “strange” in Hansen’s work, the only prerequisite for that is ignorance. The blogs then jump all over it and spin it into a problem and an argument. Makes for a quick sound-byte style post for blogs. But it’s preemptive – before the work is done.

    It takes time to actually investigate the issues properly and usually by the time it’s done the blogs have moved onto 101 other posts in the meantime.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian George

    Socold at 124 says:-

    ‘Significant adjustments such as?’

    De Bilt is the only Dutch weather station used by NASA GISS . The first graph is the ‘raw data’ and the second graph is the ‘homogenised data’.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=633062600003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=633062600003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

    Is that ‘significant’ enough?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Socold: Post 127,

    It takes time to actually investigate the issues properly and usually by the time it’s done the blogs have moved onto 101 other posts in the meantime.

    Socold, so “why” does it take 22 years for Hansen to get his point across???

    Why consider it an honor when “Prophet Gore’s” An Inconvient Truth is denounced in the U.K. Courts for over 30 mistakes and “has” to be removed before showing it to their school children???

    Why are you ignoring “ClimateGate”? Emails and reviews that “show” the reality of how CRU and other pro-AGW organizations work???

    It is obvious that you come here for only “one” purpose, just of “Spout” off and show what “YOU” believe in…
    I believe your “point” has already been made…and hence either provide “proof” of what you state or stay in the background…You are a “typical Alarmist” that “TALKS” but doesn’t show Us “Proper Empirical” evidence…

    You’ve done your “whinning” now get to work or “go Home”!!!!! ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    The “long record” you speak of only exists in the perception of people who don’t revisit arguments made by blogs to see that eventually many, if not all, of those arguments made against Hansen end up proving groundless.

    I’m still waiting for anyone to explain the whole bunch of adjustments to the Darwin temperature starting in 1930 and going right through to 1980. I’ve seen some statistical justification for one single adjustment around 1940 but the rest of the warming comes from mysterious undocumented causes that have no relation to any thermometer readings.

    I certainly cannot say what hand Hansen may have had in this, but without actual investigation no one will ever know. Until someone can fully explain the Darwin temperature adjustments (all of them), I will be treating the data as mildly interesting but untrustworthy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    Ian George:

    There are stations adjusted significantly downward too. Eg:
    http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/02/smoky-fools.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    Tel:

    “I’m still waiting for anyone to explain the whole bunch of adjustments to the Darwin temperature starting in 1930 and going right through to 1980. I certainly cannot say what hand Hansen may have had in this, but without actual investigation no one will ever know. Until someone can fully explain the Darwin temperature adjustments (all of them), I will be treating the data as mildly interesting but untrustworthy.”

    Darwin Adjustment record 0 looks like an error to me. For one thing it disagrees with the other 2 adjustment records for that station. If I was compiling a global temperature record using GHCN adjusted data I would discard darwin zero because it disagrees wildly with the other adjusted records.

    It’s not necessary to use GHCN adjusted data though. If you want to bypass GHCN adjusted data you can just look at the raw GHCN data, that too shows a similar pattern (the overall global GHCN adjustments have little effect on the overall 20th century temperature pattern). Others have found the reason for this is that most adjustments are minor and the extreme ones like Darwin Zero, which can be in error are balanced with cooling and warming adjustment cases. Eg the link I gave above is a strange cooling adjustment (actually greater than Darwin Zero in magnitude)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian George

    I agree with you, Tel (@130).
    I am amazed at the NASA GISS for Darwin Airport. The ‘localised adjusted’ data graph starts in the 1880s but the ‘homogenised’ data doesn’t start until the 1960s. The first apparently takes in the Darwin PO and the other shows data from the Airport (even though the Airport started in the 1940s after the PO was destroyed in a Japanese bombing raid). They also show Darwin’s population at 56,000 (as opposed to 120,000).
    ‘Localised’ data can be seen at:-
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501941200004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
    ‘Homogenised’ data at:-
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501941200004&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

    Yet both show no apparent warming – it actually shows a cooling trend. But according to the CSIRO/BOM latest report, Darwin is in an 0.1/per decade warming zone since 1960.

    However, you realise why when you go to the BOM trend data which shows a warming trend for mean temps. Max temps seem to have risen a little but minimum temps have fallen.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=meanT&area=nt&station=014015&period=annual
    So, like you, I don’t have much faith in any of this and hope someone in government has the gumption to go back to basics and recheck all the data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Socold: #123
    March 22nd, 2010 at 2:57 am

    Baa Humbug writes: “were you under a rock when ALL OF THE MSM repeated crooked Hansens claims of 8 out of last 10yrs hottest meme.”

    Seeing as that’s true i don’t see your point.

    Well you must have been in a coma Socold. It is NOT true ACCORDING TO HANSEN HIMSELF.
    You didn’t understand my post. His first alarmist release said 8 of 10 were warmest. His 2nd a few years later reduced that to 6. His final adjustment had only 2 of last 10 in the top 10, most were from the 30′s. A number of people including myself posted these figures numerous times.

    So the gist of my post was, Hansen crunches numbers, alarms people via MSM, then adjusts the numbers over a period of time. Too late, alarm bells already rung.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Socold: So how are all your blogging friends at realclimate? When does your “shift” here at Jos finish?

    I can’t remember, is there 6 or 8 of you doing this fine work for the “cause”? And isn’t it refreshing to have all your comments posted and not “moderated”? Oh! but ofcourse your comments don’t get moderated at RC, you’re “one of them”

    p.s. Remind your other friends of the agreed tactic, you were all supposed to keep calm and civil so as not to alert us but they lose their “persona” fairly quickly and revert back to their normal nasty “you’re all deniers” way.

    By the way, did any of you find any evidence that human emitted CO2 has/is/will cause warming enough to worry about?
    That’s about where your friends kept stumbling. Maybe you can do better.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I actually consider it an honor to defend scientists like Dr James Hansen against what I consider to be tabloid style anti-science.

    I think I’ve just seen someone say it’s an honor to make fool of himself. Will wonders never cease?

    The “long record” you speak of only exists in the perception of people who don’t revisit arguments made by blogs to see that eventually many, if not all, of those arguments made against Hansen end up proving groundless. It’s easy and quick work to find something “strange” in Hansen’s work, the only prerequisite for that is ignorance. The blogs then jump all over it and spin it into a problem and an argument. Makes for a quick sound-byte style post for blogs. But it’s preemptive – before the work is done.

    It takes time to actually investigate the issues properly and usually by the time it’s done the blogs have moved onto 101 other posts in the meantime.

    There’s an old Latin expression that covers all this nicely. It goes this way, bullius shittius!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    joltinjoe: Yes sir, I agree. My eyes are getting crossed looking at all those graphs LOL But Jim Hansen was Al Gores chief scientific adviser, and so was Stephen Schneider a colleague from
    NASA whom used a computer program designed by Hansen to herald The
    New Ice Age cometh series (available on U Tube) c 1970s. Stephen had a hippy long hair etc.

    When I heard Al Gore’s predictions, I cringed “That’s wrong” I said to myself… my son sitting is B.Sc said “Yes it is CO2 is a minor gas, pollution yes, but powerful enough to change the climate? No.’

    When I was studying Greenhouse gases warming the globe was brought up in 2003 this was. And our lecturer was emphatic. ‘The only enhance natural CO2 emissions’. And added we can’t control natural emissions, and any solar activity that effects our climate. He said then sunspots cause droughts or less precipitation as clouds covers are also effected. He predicted that Sydney would suffer from low water supply (it did) water restrictions in Tamworth as reservoirs became stressed by supply.
    This was due to lack of rain and sunspot activity. Sunspots have declined in the last few years, and as our lecturer predicted the rains came for sure.

    I wonder if anyone has thought to calculate (shouldn’t be hard) the population during those warm periods and compare it with the colder periods. More people more energy required and expended? More cars on the road etc.

    If during the cold periods population was up rather than down, how can that prove AGW will cause the climate to warm.

    Certainly agrarian populations shifted to cities after the closures of common lands, and terrible conditions arose. But with all the population shifts, doesn’t explain why the temps dropped again in recent times.

    Al Gore has a lot to answer for, as this can cause immense dissatisfaction amongst the people of developed countries. UK
    is in trouble, putting billions into wind farms. EU is also. And I have just read that electricity in NSW is due for a 60% hike, and the State government will pay $145 for pensioners, and unemployed to offset it. (Every quarter or just once a year eh?)

    So don’t forget electricity is a luxury item now, not a human right and Don’t forget to turn off your lights folks for Earth Day on Saturday the 27th March?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Socold, take a long read here and see if you are still enamored with Hanson. Tell me straight you don’t think his “personal” missions influence his “work”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/hanson-barracking-for-lawless-destruction-and-the-end-of-civilization/

    Hanson is guilty by association.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    I wouldn’t be surprised if he hasn’t read the book. Just was sucked in to reading some of it that may have been forwarded to him and stupidly thought it would endorse his own thoughts and fudged graphs. It happens… people endorse a ‘draft’ get their names on the back cover as commending the book, only to find they
    haven’t read the book in its entirety.

    I don’t take the yanks as fools you know, they still have the CIA and maybe there is work at foot to discredit Hansen in ways he doesn’t realize.

    Certainly I feel that those who have received public monies to prove AGW for the UN IPCC should be brought to account for their inefficient work. But maybe there are so many involved maybe only the top protagonists will be sought out.

    The world is in a mess over this… heads will fall I bet?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Oliver K Manuel @ 75. Your Orwell 1984 reference reminded me of a line from the late John L Daly in his excellent well-referenced article “The Hockey Stick – A New Low In Climate Science”.

    “(Michael) Mann completely redrew the history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events, consigned to a kind of Orwellian `memory hole’ “.

    This article is still relevant and well worth re-reading as is Daly’s “What’s Wrong With The Surface Record” at http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm

    Jo. This blog continues to improve as a valuable resource with the addition of contributors such as Oliver K Manuel and Frank Lansner.

    E.M.Smith at http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/pacific-basin-the-australian-hockey-league/
    has listed very interesting new graphs and information as part of his ongoing analysis of climate data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian George

    Socold @ 131

    Eh! Your records seem to be recently readjusted. Check localised adjustment at:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=403718310030&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    Now check ‘homogenised adjusted’ at:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=403718310030&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

    What? No change! Seems like James et al have been very busy at NASA GISS.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Socold:

    At #116 you assert:

    And you have evidence that those adjustments were fraudulent rather than corrective? No you don’t. The fact that the slight changes are so irrelevant to the grand scheme of things means there is no motive for fraud and so no accusation of such should be taken seriously anyway.

    Your assertions are so wrong as to cause astonishment!

    Please explain why data from decades in the past could or would require frequent “corrective” adjustments. Those data were obtained when they were in the circumstances that then existed. It could reasonably be argued that an adjustment is required (e.g. for station movement). But what possible “corrections” are required that provide a series of adjustments to be made at different times over recent months and years to data that were obtained decades ago? What “corrections” could these possibly be?

    And please note that there is no published explanation for these frequent changes. Why does the pear review mantra not apply to data that results from these adjustments?

    And the adjustment are very, very relevant to “the grand scheme of things” because they prevent publication of any critique of the CRUTemp, GISS and GHCN data sets. As is explained in my Submission to the UK Parliamentary Enquiry into ‘Climategate’ it proved impossible to pubish such a critique because of the frequncy of the changes toth data sts for mean global temperature (MGT). All the Submissions can be accessed at
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm
    and mine explains the point saying:

    7.

    However, the compilers of the MGT data sets frequently alter their published data of past MGT (sometimes they have altered the data in each of several successive months). This is despite the fact that there is no obvious and/or published reason for changing a datum of MGT for years that were decades ago: the temperature measurements were obtained in those years so the change can only be an effect of alterating the method(s) of calculating MGT from the measurments. But the MGT data sets often change. The MGT data always changed between submission of the paper and completion of the peer review process. Thus, the frequent changes to MGT data sets prevented publication of the paper.

    8.

    Whatever you call this method of preventing publication of a paper, you cannot call it science.

    But this method prevented publication of information that proved the estimates of MGT and AGW are wrong and the amount by which they are wrong cannot be known.

    (a) I can prove that we submitted the paper for publication.

    (b) I can prove that Nature rejected it for a silly reason; viz.

    “We publish original data and do not publish comparisons of data sets”

    (c) I can prove that whenever we submitted the paper to a journal one or more of the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets changed so either

    the paper was rejected because it assessed incorrect data
    or
    we had to withdraw the paper to correct the data it assessed.

    But I cannot prove who or what caused this.

    And you caim “There is no motive for fraud”. Frankly, that claim is ridiculous. The motives (n.b. plural) are money, fame and presige. Indeed, keeping employment is a basic motive for many people.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Socold @ 131

    Looks like Smoky Falls was an early casualty in “The Great Thermometer Dying” that took place from 1989 to 1992, seemingly for the sin of not only refusing to show the “catastrophic” Anthropogenic Global Warming predicted by James Hansen in 1988 when appearing before a US Senate Committee, but for also having the temerity to record actual cooling !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    sunsettommy

    Re post # 93 and 94,

    I am now in permanent spam zone since NOTHING I write is posted anymore! So far 3 postings never showed up.

    I never have this problem anywhere else.

    [Sunsettommy, I am sorry you have had this problem. I have checked (again) the spam filter and the other filters and can't find any reason this is happening to you. Since this one post worked maybe the problem is solved. No one has put you in "spam" or "moderated" so it is a quirk in the system. Keep posting and if you continue to have posts get blocked send an e-mail. ED]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    After the very good question asked: “Where did that decline go?” and many reasonable considerations made, it is not less important to ask: “Where did the decline came from?” It all started in the early 1940s. In Europe only four months in WWII. A Poster, presented at the Ocean Science Meeting in Portland in February 2010, addressed the matter with the title: “Is the climatic shift since winter 1939/40 a sea related matter?” (Here: http://www.oceanclimate.de/, and in PDF 2MB: http://www.oceanclimate.de/OCM/Poster.pdf) . That was definitely the case with regard to the three extreme Winter 1939/40 to 1941/42 in Europe. The reason was naval war, which contributed to the global temperature decline, particularly when naval activities covered wide areas in the North Atlantic and the Pacific since the end of 1941 to 1945. More at: http://climate-ocean.com/ .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Hi

    I have significant concerns with the integrity of the GISS comparison chart shown in the above post. The chart marked 1987 seems analogous to the current global meteorological data presented here by the GISS – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif – with the the 1955 trough (identified by the red line) still being shown as ~ .05 – .1 of a degree warmer than that of the 1960s (identified by the blue line) trough phase. The chart marked 2007 seems notably different, and it strongly appears that it is derived from this data set – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif – which shows composite data including oceanic surface temperatures. Thus the short term variability between the two charts shown in the above comparison is an artifact of completely different data sources.

    Accusations of active adjustment seem invalid given the fact that a. The current global temperature chart of station data seems very similar to the 1987 chart and b. The chart marked 2007 is depicting an entirely different data set. I hope there will be clarification of the issues raised, with justification for leaving up this comparison, as implying scientific fraud is extremely serious.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    DanielR:

    Please read response to Socold that is at #142 above. Then answer my questions to him in that post. If you cannot answer those questions then please withdraw your accusation at #146 that anybody has made a false “implication of scientific fraud”.

    And Ms Nova has not implied what you suggest. However, it could be argued that I have.

    Anybody can draw any implications they like from the frequent changes made to the GISS data. And Ms Nova having stated the fact of those changes does not mean she has implied any specific thing.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Richard S Courtney @ 142

    Further to your experiences outlined at #146, E.M.Smith has some very good advice for all. Quote:

    “I’ve learned there is a very active group of Langoliers that erase the past should you discover it, so my habit is now to SAVE a copy of everything interesting IMMEDIATELY upon discovery. It’s also why I’ll keep on using the copy of data I have NOW for future study and not go with GHCN Version 3. In “my world” data doesn’t need to come in “Versions”…”. end quote

    His preliminary observations from the work he’s doing are also of interest. Quote:

    But I think as you look over these “by Country” graphs of the “Change of temperature over time” it’s pretty clear that:

    1) It is “by country” and not a regional process nor a global one.
    2) CO2 does not work “by country”.
    3) The processes of “adjusting”, “in-fill” and “homogenizing” hide too many of the interesting bits.
    4) SOMETHING happened to the data in 1990. It is very important, it causes “warming”, and it isn’t CO2. It compresses peaks in both directions, but compresses cooling excursions more than warming.
    5) Lesser things happened in 1980 and 2006 (more or less) and can be seen in some countries more than others.
    6) Thermometer Change Matters. It’s a bad idea to screw around with the instrumentation and change the thermometers in the middle of a calorimetry experiment. end quote

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/pacific-basin-the-australian-hockey-league
    (the corrected link from my post at 140 – apologies to all)

    [The link in 140 was patched by ED]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    In search of clarity …

    JoAnn wrote:

    … real measured temperatures did decline from 1960 onwards…sharply. Yet, in the GISS version of that period, temperatures from the cold 1970’s were repeatedly “adjusted” years later, and progressively made warmer.

    The most mysterious period is from 1958 to 1978, when a steep 0.3°C decline was initially recorded in the Northern Hemisphere. Years later, this was reduced so far it became a mild warming against the detailed corroborating roabcore evidence. Raobcore measurements are balloon readings. How accurate are they? They started in 1958, twenty years before satellite temperature records (which are renowned for their accuracy). Put the two methods side-by-side, and they tie together neatly, telling us that both of them are accurate, reliable tools.

    This summary is a fair indictment of the process Hansen, et al, at GISS have mastered to an art.

    If data don’t fit the theory, it must be the data that are bad. Adjust them. Never question the theory. Even when clear evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the theory is deeply flawed.

    The activities of Hansen and GISS insofar as these “adjustments” are concerned demand a clear answer. At the least, there must be answers to elementary questions, e.g.,

        1. What motivated adjustments?
        2. Why did it take multiple changes to get it right? (Is it right now? Why was it wrong before?)
        3. What methodology was used to adjust data?
        4. How much other data needs adjustment? Why?
        5. Do adjustments predominately create an impression of greater warming in more recent years? Why does this bias exist?

    Lacking any clear explanation for their adjustments only invites allegations of fraud.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    OT – Did anyone attend James Hansen’s talks in Australia?

    He’s pushing nuclear energy. Stating renewable energy won’t work.

    Hasn’t he woken up nuclear energy ain’t renewable either!

    Maybe he should be invited to join this blog LOL And be educated
    Australian vernacular P… off.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Richard

    You have missed the point in my post entirely. I am not discussing adjustment, I am noting that the 2007 chart is from one data set – the land/ocean index, and the 1987 chart is from the station data set. Obviously if you compare two charts from two different data sources there will be differences. To present them as a single data source is misleading, and to try and use them to imply a patter of adjustment invalid, especially given that the pattern in the 1987 chart can be still clearly seen in the current GISS station data curve . Your questions do not relate to this point, and so I withdraw nothing. This specific chart appears fallacious when the above points are considered.

    Please address the specific issues.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Daniel do you know who Richard is? Do yourself a favor and Google him first.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Socold and Daniel, stats can be fudged and you should know that.

    1. Is the planet warming – NO It’s going to probably get colder.
    2. Is CO2 the problem – NO
    3. Did James Hansen’s former boss agree with him – NO In fact he was furious that he was accused of silencing him! He saw the graphs and he said they were not right!
    4. The so called climate science if faulty very faulty. It is selective to prove AGW warming and they couldn’t do it.
    5. Al Gore, has invested heavily in renewable energy.
    6. James Hansen has been Oz saying nuclear is the way to go
    renewable energy won’t work… nuclear isn’t renewable, ask
    Richard.
    7. Carbon trading has slumped! Of course no cap ‘n Trade or ETS
    people who have invested are losing dough ray me. Including
    the BBC who invested their pension fund in it.

    8. Trillions look to be lost in CCTs, while Pachauri (who is a chairman of a company trying to milk spent oil drills) and runs
    TERI Europe and India all with investments in clean energy.

    9. And Dr Jim Hansen told Australia to stop exporting coal, (what about our uranium?) and eating meat.. (one of our main exports sheep, wool and cattle).

    10. I knew way back as a mere BA Majoring in Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology that included a unit in Environmentalism.
    That CO2 does not drive the climate! When Al Gore got the Emmy and Academy Award I squirmed, then the Nobel Prize with IPCC I nearly cried. Such a scam I hope they all get booted where it hurts most!

    Foot note: When I asked one (young admittedly) AGW believer what was the composition of the atmosphere we breathe? Oxygen and CO2.
    Well it aint! 78% Nitrogen (that our plants need) 26% Oxygen and
    the rest CO2 plus trace gases. Plants give out oxygen, and need Carbon to live and grow. So don’t take this as being insulting your intelligence, you have been conned by scientists
    on the gravy train who have reaped millions of taxpayers money to
    prove something it ain’t true… They should all be brought to account now! With the news Australia faces 60% hike in electricity over the next 3 years, I want to ask why?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    DanielR:

    I copy your entire post at #151 so you – and others – can see that I am not avoiding any part of it. It says to me;

    You have missed the point in my post entirely. I am not discussing adjustment, I am noting that the 2007 chart is from one data set – the land/ocean index, and the 1987 chart is from the station data set. Obviously if you compare two charts from two different data sources there will be differences. To present them as a single data source is misleading, and to try and use them to imply a patter of adjustment invalid, especially given that the pattern in the 1987 chart can be still clearly seen in the current GISS station data curve . Your questions do not relate to this point, and so I withdraw nothing. This specific chart appears fallacious when the above points are considered.

    OK. I agree that you do make one good point; viz.
    “Obviously if you compare two charts from two different data sources there will be differences. To present them as a single data source is misleading, …”.
    Although – one can observe – it would be more accurate to say “could be misleading” and not “is misleading” (but I think we can agree that demanding this precision would be a trivial quibble).

    But your good point is one that only Ms Nova can answer: it is not for me or anyone else to discuss what may or may not have decided her to select the data she compares. She chose the data she wanted to compare and she can leave it at that or explain it as she sees fit.

    My point was that your accusation of implied fraud was misplaced. She did not make such an implication.

    And I pointed out that it could be argued that my post at #142 does provide such an implication.

    I think an accusation against a person is much, much more gregious than a knit-pick about selection of data. But I recognise that ‘warmers’ do not share this opinion so I am not surprised that you refuse to apologise for your untrue, objectionable and offensive accusation against the good lady.

    And very, very imortantly, the substantive point of Ms Nova’s article is correct: GISS frequently change the temperature time series for mean global temperature that they provide. This is fully explained in my post at #142. Hence, I repeat the request I made to you at #147; viz.

    Please read response to Socold that is at #142 above. Then answer my questions to him in that post. If you cannot answer those questions then please withdraw your accusation at #146 that anybody has made a false “implication of scientific fraud”.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #

    ArndB #145

    “Where did the decline came from?” It all started in the early 1940s. In Europe only four months in WWII. A Poster, presented at the Ocean Science Meeting in Portland in February 2010, addressed the matter with the title: “Is the climatic shift since winter 1939/40 a sea related matter?” (Here: http://www.oceanclimate.de/, and in PDF 2MB: http://www.oceanclimate.de/OCM/Poster.pdf) . That was definitely the case with regard to the three extreme Winter 1939/40 to 1941/42 in Europe. The reason was naval war, which contributed to the global temperature decline, particularly when naval activities covered wide areas in the North Atlantic and the Pacific since the end of 1941 to 1945. More at: http://climate-ocean.com/ .

    That is a very interesting observation! My father was an experienced engineer (he had his own construction company pre-WWII) who, in his 40s, was pulled into the US Army/Navy from New Zealand and then put in charge of the construction of airfields, beach landing zones, hospitals etc., etc., behind the various fronts in the Pacific theatre of war against the Japanese. He was not only very tough and pushy but also a very observant man. When I was a boy he used to describe to me his acute observations of all sorts of war time things from the very large to the minuscule. This included his notes of the great swathes of of clouds criss-crossing the Pacific which were caused by the sulfur in the bunker oil burnt by the various flotillas of ships.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Steve Short:

    At #155 you suggest that the decline in mean global temperature from ~1940 was a result of sulphate aerosol and you suggest it was mostly from shipping disasters in the 1940s.

    But that decline continued until ~1970.

    And the ‘aerosol excuse’ has been disproved.
    For example, I cite a paper I published long ago concerning the Hadley Centre’s climate model, and a 2007 paper by Kiehl that says the same as mine but for several models.

    My paper is:
    Courtney RS, ‘An Assessment of Validation Experiments Conducted on Computer Models of Global climate (GCM) Using the General Circulation Model of the UK Hadley Centre’, Energy & Environment, v.10, no.5 (1999).

    It concludes;
    “The IPCC is basing predictions of man-made global warming on the outputs of GCMs. Validations of these models have now been conducted, and they demonstrate beyond doubt that these models have no validity for predicting large climate changes. The IPCC and the Hadley Centre have responded to this problem by proclaiming that the inputs which they fed to a model are evidence for existence of the man-made global warming. This proclamation is not true and contravenes the principle of science that hypotheses are tested against observed data.”

    Although that paper is dated, I know of no published information that alters its conclusions, and a paper by Kiehl published in 2007 confirms its findings.

    My paper reports that the Hadley Centre GCM showed an unrealistic high warming trend over the twentieth century, and a cooling effect was added to overcome this drift. The cooling was assumed to be a result of anthropogenic aerosol.

    So, cooling was input to the GCM to match the geographical distribution of the aerosol. And the total magnitude of the cooling was input to correct for the model drift: this was reasonable because the actual magnitude of the aerosol cooling effect is not known.

    This was a reasonable model test. If the drift were a result of aerosol cooling then the geographical pattern of warming over the twentieth century indicated by the model would match observations.

    However, the output of this model test provided a pattern of geographic variation in the warming that was very different from observations; e.g. the model predicted most cooling where most warming was observed.

    This proved that the aerosol cooling was not the cause – or at least not the major cause – of the model drift.

    The Hadley Centre overcame this unfortunate result by reporting the agreement of the global average temperature rise with observations. But this agreement was fixed s an input to the test! It was fixed by adjusting the degree of input cooling to make it fit!

    Kiehl has conducted similar investigation of several climate models
    (ref. Kiehl JT, ‘Twentieth century climate response and climate sensitivity’, Jeophysical Research Letters (2007)).

    His finding was the same as that in my paper except that each of the several models he studied had been given a different ‘aerosol fix’ to get it to agree with reality.

    So, the climate models are wrong, or the determinations of mean global temperature are wrong, or both are wrong. Take your pick.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    From a lay person’s point of view, Richard, you can quote all this, but the basic stuff for people to understand, is CO2 emissions do not drive climate change. So AGW is a scam that hopes to make those who believe in it or are conned by the likes of Al Gore, the UN IPCC, TERI Europe and India et al (the movers and shakers) billions in CCT’s.

    The Outcome has been so far, the USA via Barack Obama from his Address to the Union, said he wanted to compete with China and Europe in Clean Energy investments. Nuclear, drilling off shore for oil and gas but very little towards geothermal, solar thermal and wind generation. Solar panels yes… would employ thousands in their manufacture.

    James Hansen was in Australia spewing his beliefs that renewable energy resources don’t work and we should invest in nuclear. Well nuclear isn’t a renewable energy either, and very expensive to install in Australia. With a population spread out over the continent, we would need about 50 at least nuclear plants to service us at 5 billion a plant?????? And we haven’t the technicians to run them! When we have what we have now servicing us quite well. Plus we Aussies shouldn’t export our coal and should become vegetarians. (Methane produced by farm animals that are adding to global warming – bullshit! Excuse the pun) Animals grazing produce and return nutrients N P & K to the pasture that vegetable crops do not. That is nutrients from soil producing say corn, are removed once the corn is cut and exported. Then if you don’t replace those nutrients via fertilizers, the soil will become depleted. Animals through their urine and faeces replace nutrients to the soil! Avoiding yearly additions of fertilizers? Providing their grazing plans are governed well. (Such as shade, water placements and salt and nutrition licks etc) It’s not a science but a management problem that can endorse our fertility in soils and pasture management.

    When our main exports are wool, beef and lamb products this is very important. James Hansen is a whore and trying to make money that his former boss said, his graphs were faulty. He didn’t mention we should not export uranium to India etc. or brown coal to China? Although he said we shouldn’t export coal, why you ask, because coal ain’t the demon in the peace as AGW would like us to believe!

    You and all those that would like to contradict you, will argue the point to earth’s end. With the announcement that Australia’s electricity costs will soar 64% in three years, I ask why?

    I’ve written a letter to the PM of Australia, hoping to register why this AGW theory is so wrong. And adoption of ETS or Cap and Trade will do nothing to change the climate from warming but give millions trillions to CCT and clean energy investors.

    Lots of love,

    I have to go to bed, I have my classes tomorrow in my Diploma for
    Agricultural Organic production. And it ain’t ‘alf hard, just below a degree!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bush Bunny:

    At #157 you say:

    From a lay person’s point of view, Richard, you can quote all this, but the basic stuff for people to understand, is CO2 emissions do not drive climate change. So AGW is a scam that hopes to make those who believe in it or are conned by the likes of Al Gore, the UN IPCC, TERI Europe and India et al (the movers and shakers) billions in CCT’s.

    I agree. But I was trying to be helpful.

    Some people may be interested in the science if only so they can cite references in letters such as the one you have written to your PM.

    If my posting messages such as #156 are not useful then let me know. I do have things to do other than posting here.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Bush Bunny, that is well said. I do agree with Hanson (perhaps a first for me) if he really said that “renewable energy resources don’t work and we should invest in nuclear”. It is foolish to try to alter carbon fuel consumption outside of voluntary methods. Until new nuclear resources are built we have to have carbon energy!

    With possibly a few exceptions, all the “renewable energy” concepts either cost way too much or actually use more energy than they produce (when you include raw material production and manufacturing). We have heard for years that solar electric would be “cost effective” when economies of scale bring prices down. Has anyone seen that reduction in any significant way? Biofuels are an absolute joke, (except extracting energy from waste byproducts of some other process). Ethanol will never be economically viable and is still a “carbon” fuel. Wind power is capital intensive and only works in certain areas (that are not not always where the energy is needed). It also does not produce energy 24/7, and is pretty ugly. Wind, however, is probably the most viable of the (new) renewable sources. Old fashioned hydro power is very viable too but not at all popular with “Green” advocates. (There are certainly significant environmental problems with hydro dams). Wave power is possibly economic but suffers from the same or worse problems with wind. (arguably it is wind power anyway) It also creates navigation hazards and of course is limited to coastal areas.

    The biggest problem with most renewable energy is that electricity is the energy form produced. We humans rely heavily on PORTABLE high density energy. Electricity is not economic when you make it portable.

    It is a shame that so much money has been spent on AGW when it could have been used to build nuclear (or at least research into better nuclear) which could cause a reduction of carbon fuel usage (to extend availability).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Richard, You ARE helpful and please do not stop posting!

    I could not cope with the trolls.

    I would be surprised if Bush Bunny meant those words in that way. This blog and the greater discussion NEEDS different levels of communication (including the occasional silly). Tedium would be the end of blogs because of human nature. We need variety to keep sane. Your level of understanding and knowledge is remarkable. It is generous and magnanimous of you to spend time here.

    Thanks


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Richard

    I never mentioned Jo in specific regards to the chart, I noted that the chart is fallacious and that to use it to imply adjustment is also false. I have no context of the selection of charts used, it could be a genuine mistake. BUT – the fact remains that the period question in the 1987 chart is very similar to the current GISS chart here – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif – whilst does not appear similar to the proffered 2007 chart, which is in fact a different chart encompassing a different portion of the globe. This directly invalidates the chart in Jo’s post, as minimal alteration appears to have occurred between 1987 and 2009. It is an extremely simple situation. Jo states that two period have realigned over 20 years , which is not the case when one observes the 2010 chart above. If one makes a point, but then supports it with invalid evidence then the point made can and should be called into question.

    This is not a nit pick, this an analysis of the whole body of evidence underpinning your argument. If periods are meant have been significantly adjusted over the last two decades (which is the point of the post) and yet the current GISS chart of 2010 and 1987 agree in regards to the examined periods then the hypothesis is not correct. If Jo wishes to clarify the natures of this on her own blog then she is (obviously) free to do so.

    In the above post Jo directly accuses the GISS of fudging and adjusting the data – and fudging means to fake or to falsify. So yes, she is accusing them of fraud, and it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether you find that objectionable or not. Quite frankly your tangential sycophantic behaviour is rather immaterial in this regards.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    DanielR:

    I only respond to demonstrate to others that I have not ignored your silly post at #161.

    Ms Nova did not make the implication you suggest.
    You have not apologised for that suggestion.

    Ms Nova is factually correct in what she says and I have twice directed you to the undeniable evidence for that.
    You have made a knit-picking objection but have ignored the evidence that I cited.

    And you conclude your post at #161 by saying to me:

    Quite frankly your tangential sycophantic behaviour is rather immaterial in this regards.

    So, you are another of the succession of trolls who come here attempting to disrupt serious discussion by spewing untrue insults while providing no constructive comment.

    Go back to UnrealClimate or whatever other stone you crawled out from under.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Socold,

    interesting to see adjustments going in both directions, but given that they are unjustifiable and largely random in application then the whole homogenization process is useless. Worse than useless because it creates an illusion of improving data quality where it actually adds noise to the data.

    More significantly, the measured warming/cooling signal being extracted is smaller than the homogenization adjustments and many times smaller than the ordinary daily & yearly variation. Then there’s UHI, sensor placement, sample time of day, etc. all adding more noise.

    If these were stochastic variables then applying the central limit theorem would allow a brute force approach by making no adjustments and just taking a very large number of measurements… however these are chaotic variables with known low-frequency energy on a bunch of timescales. Central limit theorem is not guaranteed to apply. Many of the noise sources (e.g. UHI) are also non-stochastic so although you can get an answer out of surface temperature measurements, don’t attach too much importance to that answer.

    We have taken a few baby steps towards measuring global climate in a systematic manner, we have a long way to go before we have any idea of what is happening out there and a long way further than that before we have even the slightest grasp of how to control it.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    #155; Steve Short: March 23rd, 2010 at 9:01 pm
    An interesting aspect of WWII; there are presumably many. What a pity that all such observations have never been collected, analysed, and used to understand climate, neither immediately after WWII, nor during the more recent AGW debate. WHY? Presumably because meteorology never performed as a serious science and the persons in charge live all well on tax-payers money ever since.

    #156; Richard S Courtney: March 23rd, 2010 at 10:22 pm
    The global cooling from 1940 to the mid 1970s is an ocean matter (http://climate-ocean.com/ ). Nevertheless aerosols may have caused more rain as usual, as raised in Ch.2_33 (see: reference) : “With regard to anthropogenic rain making due to military activities in Europe and Asia, and due to the fact that ‘aerosols’ from battle fields, for example in Poland during September 1939, could easily make their way to the USA, it should at least be mentioned here that in California precipitation in September 1939 was 370 % above normal (Alabama, 119%; Arizona, 335%; Nevada 327%; Utah 261%). However, in most States, September 1939 was unusual dry.”
    Even though there was an El Nino in place, that does not necessarily explain the California situation completely.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Richard S Courtney #156

    “At #155 you suggest that the decline in mean global temperature from ~1940 was a result of sulphate aerosol and you suggest it was mostly from shipping disasters in the 1940s.”

    If you had read my post #155 carefully you would see I did not suggest any such thing, Richard. I merely noted some good anecdotal evidence from my father of a distinct meteorological effect of the vast amount of oil-burning shipping activity that occurred in the Pacific during 1940 – 45.

    I respectfully suggest your post #156 is a bit intemperate. Where you got the bit about ‘shipping disasters’ especially escapes me entirely. So I can now return an earlier favor (thanks) and ask you to calm down.

    Mind you, I can understand your current high blood pressure given the intense trolling here of late. BTW, FYI it is ‘sulfate’ not ‘sulphate’ as many years ago IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) adopted the American spelling for sulfur, sulfate, and all derivative chemical terms. Real chemists have had to live with that decision ever since (;-)

    FYI I did find ArndB’s post interesting given that it is known that the European winters of 1939 through 1945 were very cold. Personally, I do not think that the intense marine activity of WWII contributed to a progressive cooling that lasted beyond 1945 and I wouldn’t have a clue whether it contributed to more intense winters around the Pacific seaboard over the 1940 – 45 period either.

    However, you probably do need to know that (a) the sulfur levels of the fuel oil used in ships were much higher in the 20th century and (b) many people with long-standing marine experience are perfect aware of the cloud-making effects of shipping activity in the world’s major shipping lanes. In more modern times it has even been logged by satellite activity.

    Moving right along, presumably you also know that it is the sulfur in DMS (dimethylsulfide) emitted by the world’s vast ‘standing crop’ of marine cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), making up ONLY about 47% of the world’s living biomass (ahem), which generates the sulfate-based CCN (Cloud Condensation Nuclei) which drives most of the world’s marine low cloud production and hence has a very profound effect on the world’s (SW) Bond albedo. Refer for example:

    Charlson, Lovelock, Andreae and Warren. (1987) Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulfur, cloud albedo and climate. Nature. Vol. 326, 16 April 1987, pages 655 – 661

    What you may not have realized is that, with the recent fast expansion of the human race the load of nitrogeneous nutrients being poured into the coastal shelf waters of the world has been rising very sharply over the last century.

    After the emission of anthropogenic CO2 this is the 2nd most profound anthropogenic chemical impact on the global biogeoshere!

    You may also not realize that the key limitation to marine cyanobacterial growth is very often trace levels of soluble nitrogen species (nitrate, urea etc)…

    Possibly a good time to kick back, open a beer or pour yourself a wine, forget the trolls for bit and think (calmly) about all the above for a while. Paraphrasing Shakespeare, perhaps there are more things in heaven and on earth than you have yet to think on.

    Best wishes
    Steve


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Tel: @ 164

    We have taken a few baby steps towards measuring global climate in a systematic manner, we have a long way to go before we have any idea of what is happening out there and a long way further than that before we have even the slightest grasp of how to control it.

    I think the only way this will ever advance beyond baby steps is with a whole new and independent temperature monitoring system. Laid out in a grid pattern without including metropolitan areas. This new network would sample at a frequent rate and be collected stored and “mastered” so that the original data could not be altered.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Steve Short and Richard,

    You two are funny! kind of like fencing with parry parry thrust repeat. :)

    Steve Short @ 166

    Moving right along, presumably you also know that it is the sulfur in DMS (dimethylsulfide) emitted by the world’s vast ’standing crop’ of marine cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), making up ONLY about 47% of the world’s living biomass (ahem), which generates the sulfate-based CCN (Cloud Condensation Nuclei) which drives most of the world’s marine low cloud production and hence has a very profound effect on the world’s (SW) Bond albedo. Refer for example:

    Steve if I can bother you with a question, does this particular blue green algae use photosynthesis in the same way as vegetation i.e. absorb Co2 and emit O2?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mark D #168

    Yes, Mark, the oceans are filled with what used to be called blue-green algae – now correctly called cyanobacteria or phyoplankton.

    Yes, they are what we call photoautotrophs i.e they photosynthesize, using a band of visible light (‘PAR’) to ‘fuel’ a process based on absorbing dissolved inorganic carbon (dissolved CO2 and bicarbonate (HCO3-) which is in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2) and converting it (photosynthesizing it) into organic carbon, while emitting (excreting ;-) O2.

    The cyanobacteria (phytoplankton) rise and fall daily in the water column – near the surface during the day and sinking or swimming deeper at night. They can generally also survive for considerable (dark) periods on heterotrophic growth where they absorb dissolved organic carbon directly.

    Every single millilitre (mL) of seawater typically contains 100,000 cells of the tiny nano-cyanobacterium Prochlorooccus and about 10,000 cells of the larger cyanobacterium Synechococcus.

    Cyanobacteria either die naturally and their cells then sink in the water column or, during blooms, are eaten by grazing zooplankton or killed by cyanobacteriophages (marine viruses). In each case the sea then ends up being covered by their cell contents, which are rich in lipids (oils). This increases the sea surface reflectivity (albedo) as well.

    Some cyanobacteria called coccolithophores secrete calcium carbonate (calcite). This also increase the reflectivity (albedo) of the sea surface where they are blooming.

    Living cyanobacteria exude an organic sulfur-containing compound which breaks down in water to dimethylsulfide, which, being volatile, escapes into the air above where it decomposes (photolytically) to sulfate which are the Cloud Condensation Nuclei.

    The major limitations to the density of living cyanobacteria in seawater are the concentrations of dissolved iron and dissolved nitrogen nutrient species present in the seawater.

    Cyanobacteria gave Earth this O2-containing atmosphere. We exist because we can breath their shit.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    If it is darn warm, how come there is so much sea ice?

    Speaking of “adjustments” by GISS, Joe Bastardi of accuweather asks a very good question.

    If polar T’s have risen so much, why is there so much sea ice?

    Link to a 4min video here


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony Hansen

    Does anyone know why Cryosphere have not updated (since January) their NH and SH Sea Ice Area charts?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Steve thank you for the detailed information. You just won (for me) a 13 year old bet I had with my brother. Long story short; he worked in the hatchery business alongside a number of fisheries biologists. They all bought into the AGW even that long ago. (scientists ya know). I had a gut feeling even then that the square area of “plants” based on the land surface area was grossly underestimated (Co2 uptake) which is ironic since he was with marine scientists. The bet was not for a large $ dollar amount so it wasn’t worth a lot of research. You have confirmed my hunch and settled that bet (which is a small ego boost) against my older brother.

    In the Skeptic Camp this could perhaps be one of the first “gates” because if memory serves right the “green uptake” calculations were a big part of those earlier AGW scares.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Richard

    This is taken from the above post written by Jo “By 1980 Hansen and GISS had already produced graphs that were starting to neutralize the decline. His graphs of 1987 and 2007 further fudged the decline, until the cooling from 1960 to 1975 was completely lost.”

    So she states clearly that she thinks that the GISS faked the trend displayed currently. So your semantics are blatantly wrong. I have demonstrated that 1987 trend is evident in the current graph – I.E. that the adjustments depicted in this chart have not occurred. You have not dealt with this issue in anyway, merely pointed to a prior post that in no way deals with the issues i have raised. I have not trolled you, I have demonstrated, with evidence, that the claims in the chart are erroneous. If this makes you uncomfortable then I suggest that you have become overly rigid in your position. I do not have to ‘apologize’ for identifying a discrepancy between the chart and the actual data at the GISS, thankfully science doesn’t orbit about the sensitivities of a specific personality, although much of your responses appear to indicate that this how you operate.

    Telling some one to ‘go away’ with no attempt to deal with points raised indicates an inability to even consider positions contrary to your own, which will unfortunately hamper your attempts to comprehend what is a complicated issue. It is telling that you when faced with an issue you’d rather not work with directly you just yell ‘troll’.

    [warning to Daniel R.: you are new here. Your posts have been aggressive enough to be called a "troll". This is not your blog you are a guest here. Take a less arrogant tone or you will be certified as a Troll. ED]

    [I wish I'd seen your comment earlier. I regret that a volunteer editor changed the words. I did not write "fudged" and I have the blog edit records to show that. But I am sorry that the overly enthusiastic help was under the mis-impression that it was ok to rephrase things like that. I have reverted the post to my original words, and I take responsibility for those. Hansens graphs are suspicious, they should be investigated in full to see if all the changes can be legitimately justified.--JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MarkD #172

    You are welcome. With respect to land plants you need to also be aware that there are now quite a few (refereed ;-) papers in the literature showing enhanced growth rates of land plants, especially trees, over the last 40 or so years as a result of the increased pCO2 levels. As land plants also emit (biogenic) volatile CCN precursor compounds, principally isoprenes, you can also safely bet that the rate of generation of biogenic CCNs over land has also gone up markedly over the last 40 – 50 years.

    Given that the body of literature shows clearly thatland plant and marine phytoplankton-based generation of biogenic aerosols easily matches or even possibly exceeds the rate of direct anthropogenic aerosols generation I really don’t understand the basis for all this angst and paranoia amongst the sceptical community (e.g. Richard) over the distinct possibility of the cooling effects of aerosols being overlaid upon CO2-driven AGW.

    IMHO it is a misguided fear based on a deeply naive ignorance of the profound involvement of the planet’s bio(geo)sphere in the planet’s overall climate system.

    After all, photosynthetic life, particularly in the oceans but more recently on land has only had in excess of 3 Gy to become intimately involved-in, to be profoundly affected-by, and to be capable of profoundly interfering with, that system!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Steve Short:

    I admit to being taken aback by your post at #166.

    It says:

    I respectfully suggest your post #156 is a bit intemperate. Where you got the bit about ’shipping disasters’ especially escapes me entirely. So I can now return an earlier favor (thanks) and ask you to calm down.

    Intemperate? Really? I have read it and fail to see that. My post at #156 points out that the “decline” lasted until ~1970, reports and explains a paper by myself, reports that a paper by Kiehl says the same and concludes;
    “So, the climate models are wrong, or the determinations of mean global temperature are wrong, or both are wrong. Take your pick.”

    Perhaps you think it is “intemperate” not to accept what you – or anyone else – says without question, but I do not.

    I did make one slight error that I freely accept and apologise for: i.e. I only addressed my comment to your post at #155, but I should have addressed it to your at post #155 and to that of ArndB at #145, because your post was agreeing his that said:

    “Where did the decline came from?” It all started in the early 1940s. In Europe only four months in WWII. A Poster, presented at the Ocean Science Meeting in Portland in February 2010, addressed the matter with the title: “Is the climatic shift since winter 1939/40 a sea related matter?”

    I acknowledge that error of omission and I apologise for it, but I do not see it as being “intemperate”.

    And you say to me;

    Where you got the bit about ’shipping disasters’ especially escapes me entirely.

    I got it from your post I was answering where you quoted and agreed the statement from ArndC that I copy above (incidentally I copied it from your post and not ArdB’s original).

    I will continue to use the English spelling ‘sulphate’. You may think that eccentric but I see no reason to change the habits of a lifetime: there are many good things about America but I see no reason to accept its corruptions of my language.

    And you say;

    Moving right along, presumably you also know that it is the sulfur in DMS (dimethylsulfide) emitted by the world’s vast ’standing crop’ of marine cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), making up ONLY about 47% of the world’s living biomass (ahem), which generates the sulfate-based CCN (Cloud Condensation Nuclei) which drives most of the world’s marine low cloud production and hence has a very profound effect on the world’s (SW) Bond albedo. Refer for example:

    I most certainly do know that.
    My analysis was the first to indicate that the 1980s European ‘acid rain’ scare was probably a result of agricultural activity and not industrial emissions.
    The geographical deposition pattern was not consistent with SOx emissions from power stations. But that pattern suggested excess P and K fertilisers were flowing into the North Sea and fertilising phytoplankton to increase their DMS emissions. Indeed, toxic algal blooms were washing up against North Sea shores and this was also consistent with the suggestion. Upon investigation my suggestion that ‘the enhanced sulphur content of Northern European rain was caused by excess agricultuaral fertilisers that were inducing increased DMS production’ proved to be correct.

    You conclude by saying to me:

    Paraphrasing Shakespeare, perhaps there are more things in heaven and on earth than you have yet to think on.

    Indeed, there are! And that is the joy of science.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    DanielR:

    At #173 you say to me:

    Telling some one to ‘go away’ with no attempt to deal with points raised indicates an inability to even consider positions contrary to your own, which will unfortunately hamper your attempts to comprehend what is a complicated issue. It is telling that you when faced with an issue you’d rather not work with directly you just yell ‘troll’.

    I answered you at 147# where I said:

    Please read response to Socold that is at #142 above. Then answer my questions to him in that post. If you cannot answer those questions then please withdraw your accusation at #146 that anybody has made a false “implication of scientific fraud”.

    And Ms Nova has not implied what you suggest. However, it could be argued that I have.

    Anybody can draw any implications they like from the frequent changes made to the GISS data. And Ms Nova having stated the fact of those changes does not mean she has implied any specific thing.

    You ignored that and made a retort at #151 that I answered at #154. My answer at #154 began by saying:

    I copy your entire post at #151 so you – and others – can see that I am not avoiding any part of it. It says to me;

    It included this:

    But your good point is one that only Ms Nova can answer: it is not for me or anyone else to discuss what may or may not have decided her to select the data she compares. She chose the data she wanted to compare and she can leave it at that or explain it as she sees fit.

    My point was that your accusation of implied fraud was misplaced. She did not make such an implication.

    And I pointed out that it could be argued that my post at #142 does provide such an implication.

    I think an accusation against a person is much, much more egregious than a knit-pick about selection of data. But I recognise that ‘warmers’ do not share this opinion so I am not surprised that you refuse to apologise for your untrue, objectionable and offensive accusation against the good lady.

    And very, very importantly, the substantive point of Ms Nova’s article is correct: GISS frequently change the temperature time series for mean global temperature that they provide. This is fully explained in my post at #142. Hence, I repeat the request I made to you at #147;

    At #161 you provided a response to me that failed to answer anything I had said, iterated your knit-picking point that I had repeatedly said only Ms Nova coud answer (if she wanted to), and concluded by saying to me;

    Quite frankly your tangential sycophantic behaviour is rather immaterial in this regards.

    My response at #163 listed what you had done and concluded;

    So, you are another of the succession of trolls who come here attempting to disrupt serious discussion by spewing untrue insults while providing no constructive comment.

    Go back to UnrealClimate or whatever other stone you crawled out from under.

    Now, at #173, you again refuse to address anything I have said, repeat your knit-picking point, and have the gall to complain that I called you a troll.

    Go away you offensive liitle troll.
    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Richard,

    Your posts are very much welcomed by thinking, rational readers. You are a very positive contribution to this site!

    I am constantly amazed that so many so readily accept fundamental claims of AGW theory without ever questioning their validity.

    I will freely opine that GISS under Hansen is definitely cooking the books. They’ve been at it for years. I see no reason for not concluding what is obvious, particularly when adjustments conveniently help sell a theory that cannot withstand full and honest scientific scrutiny.

    I look forward to your future contributions to this blog.

    Bob Webster
    USA

    PS: I applaud your proper use of the language.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Richard S. Courtney #175

    “My analysis was the first to indicate that the 1980s European ‘acid rain’ scare was probably a result of agricultural activity and not industrial emissions. The geographical deposition pattern was not consistent with SOx emissions from power stations. But that pattern suggested excess P and K fertilisers were flowing into the North Sea and fertilising phytoplankton to increase their DMS emissions. Indeed, toxic algal blooms were washing up against North Sea shores and this was also consistent with the suggestion. Upon investigation my suggestion that ‘the enhanced sulphur content of Northern European rain was caused by excess agricultuaral fertilisers that were inducing increased DMS production’ proved to be correct.”

    Hi Richard

    Notwithstanding that your comments above seem to be about acid rain rather than biogenic generation of aerosols which act as CCNs for low cloud formation (and hence Bond albedo increase), I’d very much like a copy of your 1999 paper in Energy and Environment wherein you proposed that biogenic CCN rather than direct anthropogenic (i.e. industrial/shipping) sulfur emissions per se were responsible for the global cooling 1940 – 1970.

    I haven’t had any luck finding a on the Net a useful copy for my files (which I can reference in future posts etc) so if you wouldn’t mind uploading a copy to a convenient site, I’d be very grateful.

    Thanks.

    Regards
    Steve


    Report this

    00

  • #

    For those of you who have made comments about nuclear power, I invite you to view this interesting presentation on LiFTR (Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor)technology.

    “Energy From Thorium: A Nuclear Waste Burning Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor”

    although it is a nuclear technology, it seems to me to be vastly superior to the current nuclear technologies in that it:

    (1) is passively safe (no meltdown risk or expensive safety systems)
    (2) is low pressure (no expensive high pressure containment structure)
    (3) is generally unsuitable for production of weapons grade materials
    (in fact this is why development was originally abandoned)
    (4) generates a low volume of radioactive waste with a relatively short lifetime
    (5) can burn the waste of the gen 3 nuclear plants
    (7) maintenance is much simpler
    (8) It uses thorium which is more abundant than uranium and the U.S. has large deposits in Idaho


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hansen’s Predictions

    In 1988 Hansen testified before the US Congress to initiate the global warming scare amongst government. He provided temperature predictions based on climate models including three scenarios: ‘A’ had an increasing rate of CO2 emissions, ‘B’ had constant rate of CO2 emissions, and scenario ‘C’ had reduced CO2 emissions rate from 1988 levels into the future “such that the greenhouse gas climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000” (Hansen 1988, [http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1988/Hansen_etal.html]).

    The following figure is from Hansen 1988, showing the “observed” global temperature (solid black line) along with model outputs for the three future CO2 scenarios. (The shaded area is the estimate of global temperature during the peak of the current and previous interglacial periods 6,000 and 120,000 years ago.) The Hadley temperature anomaly data used by the IPCC and shown previously is superimposed (red) on Hansen’s 1988 model projections. The vertical blue line indicates the year in which the projections were made. (Note: The zero level is different since Hansen used 1951-1980 as the base period for the calculation of temperature anomalies, while the IPCC currently uses 1961-1990.)
    Hansen predictions 1988
    The reason for Hansen’s periodic revision of the climate history: the data in the last two decades has not matched his predictions. It most closely matches his scenario C – reduced CO2 emissions.

    For more information on Hansen’s modeling see:

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HansenModel.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hansen’s U.S. Temperatures

    Hansen did similar manipulations on the US data to increase the late 20th century warming, since the US has been lagging the globe and has not been showing significant warming.

    Hansen et al 1999 [http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal.pdf] (in which the warmest year is 1934):
    chart

    Hansen et al 2001 [http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf] (in which the 1908s and 1990s temperatures have been increased and the 1930s decreased
    chart

    Superimposing Hansen 2001 (red / blue) onto Hansen 1999 (black), and highlighting some of the significant changes:
    chart


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Dear Steve:

    You say to me at #178:

    Notwithstanding that your comments above seem to be about acid rain rather than biogenic generation of aerosols which act as CCNs for low cloud formation (and hence Bond albedo increase), I’d very much like a copy of your 1999 paper in Energy and Environment wherein you proposed that biogenic CCN rather than direct anthropogenic (i.e. industrial/shipping) sulfur emissions per se were responsible for the global cooling 1940 – 1970.

    Sorry, but I did not write such a paper for E&E. There seems to be some confusion.

    I was employed at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment (CRE) in the 1980s. The UK Coal Industry was nationalised and my research at CRE was wholly owned by the UK Government. Hence, my paper on the probable biogenic cause of ‘acid rain’ was not published in the public domain. This concerns me not-at-all because the UK Government sponsored research to investigate my suggestion and it proved my point. Some of that research was done by Universities and was published in the public domain (e.g. Nature) but not by me.

    I did publish a paper in E&E in 1999 and it concerned the ‘aerosol excuse’ for the failure of GCMs to emulate global temperature variations. I cite it and explain it at #154 above.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Baa Humbug:

    I am very impressed by your ability to insert images in your posts here. I often would like to do that, too.

    Please would you tell me how to do it? And remember I am an old man who is not very computer literate!

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Richard

    The situation is extremely clear. I note that the current and 1987 GISS charts do not appear significantly different, the above discussed trends are readily apparent in both. Your post in no way answers or even attempts to answer this very simple point. The chart marked 2007 is not the chart of meteorological data, it appears to be the land – ocean index. You post no. 142 does not answer or attempt to answer this point. All you have achieved is to direct my attention to questions which cannot and do not answer my issues, which are EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT. When challenged to answer these basic statements you have very quickly descended to insults, with no attempt to quantify or validate your position. Mine is supported by evidence, you have merely responded by calling me a troll. This is not acceptable behaviour, and nor is it scientific. I find this extremely disappointing. I have here to discuss what i feel to be a chart that provides distinct misrepresentation of the currently available data. I could have easily taken this chart elsewhere, though I am not active upon the websites you name. I do not necessarily consider this chart a deliberate or malicious act, indeed it appears based on my interaction here that the chance of genuine mistakes being proffered as valid evidence to be quite high.

    My sole motive in this exercise was to seek clarification in regards to this ‘evidence’. I have given ample opportunity for an explanation to be given in regards to two issues with a single diagram, and yet despite your advertised pedigree with in scientific research have failed to give any objective analysis. I’m afraid this makes your position quite tenuous, as the basic test of any hypothesis is whether or not it can be dis proven, and if a presented claim has directly contradictory evidence offered against it then this is what has occurred. The ‘fact of those changes’ does not hold up to external scrutiny, and neither you or Jo have given a satisfactory answer as to why. If you wish to comment further I ask that you remove the vitriol from your response as it does nothing but ‘disrupt serious discussion’.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Richard S. Courtney #182

    “I did publish a paper in E&E in 1999 and it concerned the ‘aerosol excuse’ for the failure of GCMs to emulate global temperature variations. I cite it and explain it at #154 above.”

    Richard, there was no citation at #154 above. However, in #156 you did cite your paper:

    Courtney RS, ‘An Assessment of Validation Experiments Conducted on Computer Models of Global climate (GCM) Using the General Circulation Model of the UK Hadley Centre’, Energy & Environment, v.10, no.5 (1999).

    Unfortunately, despite careful searching, I couldn’t find a site anywhere on the Internet where I can download a copy of your paper although I was able to find the publishers’ site.

    FYI, as well as being the director of a small mining engineering consultancy I am also a teaching fellow (aqueous thermodynamics) in the Faculty of Science at my almer mater – the University of Wollongong here in New South Wales, Australia.

    I therefore also tried to access the publishers of Energy and Environment via my academic login to my university library service and found that access is restricted to British institutions.

    I’d very much appreciate a copy if you would be so kind.You can access my company site and email address by clicking on my name above.

    Thank you.

    Best regards
    Steve


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Baa Humbug @ #181

    Great graphs, mate. Well done!

    Very interesting that the original 1934 anomaly of +1.45 C (1999 version) can be reduced to 1.25 C (delta = -0.2 C) only two years later (2001 version) but the original 1998 anomaly of +0.9 C (1999 version) can be increased to 1.2 C (delta = +0.3 C) only two years later (2001 version).

    I am a scientist with over 30 years experiment of data acquiring and handling issues and I find it is impossible to conceive of a physical contextual framework under which such adjustments could be rationally justified.

    Is Hansen et al. (NASA/GISS) saying that while it took 66 years to figure out that the original temperature measurements in the 1930s were in some way biased upwards but, despite improved technology, station location and dispersion etc., it still took another 1 – 2 years to figure out that the original temperature measurements a few years earlier in the 1990s were in some way biased downwards by an amount exceeding the error of the 1930s data.

    This can only be sophistry of a very high order (and in a US Government agency too) and I would hope that Daniel R has the simple human decency to concede that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Steve Short: #186
    March 25th, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Hi Steve

    Yes, interesting and telling isn’t it. Did you check-out the link I provided? A detailed account of the unexplained Hansen adjustments, fascinating as they are, can be found there.

    Daniel R:
    March 25th, 2010 at 5:56 am

    Hi Daniel
    I just wanted to point out the following..

    Blogs often feed-off each other. Often not all information is on a single blog. That’s just the nature of blogs, usually run by volunteering part timers doing their best in a hurry.
    I find it informative to follow all the links which usually fill any missing information.

    I believe you have doubts about the conclusions of this thread. Hence I posted additional information by way of the above graphs and link.

    ps We’ve had a concerted attack on this blog by a group(s) lately, (particularly since a post regarding an Aussie professor)I assumed you were one of them initially. Isn’t anonymous blogging a bummer? :)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I had checked out the link, and this page also:

    http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm

    So we now have:

    Hansen 1981
    Hansen 1987
    Hansen 1993
    Hansen 2001
    Hansen 2007

    all subtly different, but all shifing the profile progressively in the direction of reducing past ‘global temperatures’ and increasing recent ‘global temperatures’…..

    NOT ONCE, BUT PROGRESSIVELY OVER A 26 YEAR PERIOD AT ALMOST REGULAR 6 – 8 YEAR PERIODS!

    This is pseudo-scientific sociopathology on a quite stunning, Hitlerian scale. I know exactly where James Hansen ought to be and the sorts of medications called-for too.

    To think that tens of thousand of scientists the world over are buying into this shit!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Steve Short:#188
    March 25th, 2010 at 9:29 am

    People can’t be blamed for thinking Hansen is trying to make the graphs meet his infamous predictions.
    What was that about Mohammed and the mountain?

    Hansen needs to come clean about these “adjustments”
    Richard Courtney said in one of his posts that there is no reason whatsoever to ‘adjust” past data. Past data is what it is.

    This is a lose lose situation for Hansen, either the older graphs are wrong, or the current ones are wrong. They can’t all be right. If, as I believe, he says the older ones are wrong (adjustments due to new station info for example) then he alarmed the world over with wrong charts wrong info wrong conclusions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    humbug

    I’m sorry if you have suffered attacks, that is completely unwarranted. I note in passing of course if was going undertake such a thing i wouldn’t bother to post here, i would simply assemble the bot net and do it with out comment

    I have examined the the data posted by Steve Short and it also carries the error that i am objecting to. I feel that the chart marked 2007 in the provided link is not the global meteorological station data provided by the GISS (current chart here – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif – ) which still has the notable downwards trend during the 1965 period, analogous to the 1987 data seen above and in Steve’s link – but a completely different chart which is constructed using oceanic data as well. This can be viewed here – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif – and it can be seen that this chart has a flatter trend through the 1965 trough relative to previous periods and is essentially identical to the chart marked 2007 (here are the two charts of global temperature at the GISS site – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ -).

    It should also be noted that the lower cached .pdf of the 2007 chart at Steve’s link (- http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm – )is clearly marked as a Land-Ocean chart.

    The difference between them is readily apparent, as is the fact that the current STATION data chart appears similar in trend form to it’s 1987 counterpart through the analyzed period, but the Land Ocean chart has the disparate flatter trend. Thus to be a valid comparison an argument of adjustment in the station data trend over the decades would need to use the current Station data, and not an entirely different data series.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    DanielR:

    At #184 You say:

    My sole motive in this exercise was to seek clarification in regards to this ‘evidence’. I have given ample opportunity for an explanation to be given in regards to two issues with a single diagram, and yet despite your advertised pedigree with in scientific research have failed to give any objective analysis.

    Really? Seeking the evidence was your “sole motive”? Then why have you refused to consider the evidence I provided?
    Please read all my posts in response to you. My very first reply to you asked you to read my post to Socold at #142 and I repeated that request several times.

    My post at #142 provides direct evidence – that would result in my prosecution if it were wrong – that the GISS data has been frequently altered (the subject of this thread is those frequent alterations).
    You have repeatedly refused to consider that post.

    Indeed, in your most recent post at #184 you assert:

    The ‘fact of those changes’ does not hold up to external scrutiny, and neither you or Jo have given a satisfactory answer as to why.

    That is a blatant falsehood. Read my post at #142.

    And you made an untrue accusation against our host. I pointed out that it would be reasonable to direct that accusation against me, but not her.
    You bluntly refused to retract the untrue accusation and apologise.

    You keep harping on to me about the data selection Ms Nova used to illustrate that the GISS data is frequently “adjusted”. I have repeatedly said Ms Nova is the only person who can address that issue if she so chooses because only she knows the reasons that she selected that data.
    At #184 you do it again!

    And you suggest that I am unwilling to discuss with you saying:

    When challenged to answer these basic statements you have very quickly descended to insults, with no attempt to quantify or validate your position. Mine is supported by evidence, you have merely responded by calling me a troll. This is not acceptable behaviour, and nor is it scientific. I find this extremely disappointing. I have here to discuss what i feel to be a chart that provides distinct misrepresentation of the currently available data.

    That is a series of blatant falsehoods.
    My very first reply to you directly addressed the substantive point of the frequent GISS adjustments, their importance, and my clear evidence of that effect. It pointed you to my comments at #142.
    Address the issues in my post at #142 or go away.

    You claim you are not a troll but if that is correct then you are providing a very good imitation of being one.

    And you follow that with a very thinly veiled threat saying:

    I could have easily taken this chart elsewhere

    I am fully aware of the troll technique of pushing a trivial point and then boasting about it in ‘warmer’ blogs. What makes you think I have any doubt that you will do that?

    My patience exhausted with you days ago.
    Address the issues in #142 or go away.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Steve Short:

    You ask for a copy of a paper I published in 1999. Sorry, I do not have an electronic copy. You can get it from the publisher Elsevier Science but it is behind a pay wall.

    Sorry.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    If I may:
    Daniel R. There are several simple (paraphrased) questions here that I believe you have not answered from Richard’s post at 142 (Socold was also involved as a poster but you have commented similarly and if you are polite, might bother to answer because your claims are similar)

    1. Please answer; Do you believe there were adjustments made to the data? Y N
    2. If adjustments are/were made, do you think that an explanation should be published. Y N, explain.
    3. If adjustments were made, do you believe the adjustments are slight? Y N, explain.
    4. If adjustments were made, Do you believe the adjustments are significant? Y N, explain.
    5. If adjustments were made do you agree that they would make it difficult for a critique (of same) to be accepted for publication? Y N explain.
    6. If corrections are necessary for valid reasons, what method is available for critical or countering analysis exists?
    7. If no hearing or publication path exists to resolve question 6. what assurances do you provide that eliminate fraud in the presentation of said data?

    I trust you are able and willing to answer these questions.

    If you do, I believe Richard will have a response.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Richard,
    please accept my apologies if my paraphrasing is not in the spirit of at least a part of your replies. If Daniel responds to any of the questions I have assembled, I believe you will have something to work with.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    The post in no.142 doesn’t deal with the issue of use the wrong data in the comparison. It’s very simple. I’m not boasting about in on any blog. It’s really simple, your not comparing the same data series in this instance. This is evident both in data within this post and the link sent to me by Steve. Again nothing contained in no.142 deals with it. And nor is this trivial. If you present evidence of adjustment that isn’t comparing the same data then it is wrong. The evidence either has to have it’s validity justified directly or be considered false. And if you use this specific false evidence to argue for adjustment after legitimate, considered, and evidenced doubts have been raised then you are behaving in deeply hypocritical manner.

    This the crux of the problem, and no amount of not at all veiled insults will change it, nor will your disingenuous tactics designed solely to distract from this concern. I am referring to THIS CHART with in THIS POST, not with any evidence with in the broader argument. A more objective man that you would dealt directly this issue, either accepting or rejecting it based on supported reasoning. Instead your responses have become increasingly histrionic and repeated a request that is quite frankly irrelevant. I’m not bound by your pre formed parameters that do not deal with this issue. Your post deals with questioning peer review process. Mine does not relate to this. Your questions directed towards data corrections. Mine relates comparing disparate data sources. There is no alignment, so there is nothing that can be drawn in regards from these lines of inquiry that can elucidate the issue.

    I’m sorry your so sensitive towards inquiry into the presented data, I think need to stop taking this as personally as you appear to be. I’m not attacking you, I’m questioning significant anomalies within the data. In no way does the outcome reflect on you directly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    I’ve seen this fellow before. Now Daniel R. Are you in fact claiming that Goddard is NOT rigging the figures? Or is it part of your strategy to simply set enourmous amounts of homework for people when you yourself aren’t the least bit interested in the results? What I’m driving at here is that from unleashed I know that its never mattered to you in the past, the use of rigged figures. And I don’t suppose you’ve had some road-to-Damascus like transformation since. So you ought not be trying to get people jumping through hoops when you yourself aren’t the least bit interested in the outcome.

    Turn towards your own thoughts hear. Does the idea of people rigging the figures offend you at all. Inside. In a deep visceral way? I don’t think it does. Or you and Glen Tamblyn wouldn’t have been tossing Michael Mann studies at me, insisting on using CO2 data gleaned from next to a volcano, and on and on. Now being as that you don’t give a damn, and are happy with rigged figures, its not really appropriate for you to be setting exercises for more serious characters than yourself.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Daniel R. This is a blog not a journal. Talking points are just that.

    My last post may have crossed with your last post above (another problem with blogs). If you don’t mind consider my questions together with Baa Humbug’s graphs at #181?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Richard S. Courtney #192

    “You ask for a copy of a paper I published in 1999. Sorry, I do not have an electronic copy. You can get it from the publisher Elsevier Science but it is behind a pay wall.”

    Hi Richard

    I am afraid that the journal ‘Energy & Environment’ is not an Elsevier journal. It is published by Multi-Science. This is a publishing house which is not generally accessible via academic routes (I’ve checked wirh collegues at two other Austrlian universities).

    In addition, I note that when one tries to access abstracts or order papers directly from the Energy & Environment web site one is then redirected to the well-known academic publishing house IngentaConnect (actually the subsidiary Maney Publishing). I can of coure access IngentaConnect from my academic position.

    Unfortunately, however, IngentaConnect advise that the journal Energy & Environment is no longer carried by them. It is not on the maney Publishing subset list of journals either.

    Noting that you are listed as being on the Advisory Board of the journal Energy & Environment I’d be very gratful if you could please advise me on just how to obtain a copy of your 1999 paper, either commercially or academically.

    It doesn’t seem to be a very straighforward procedure.

    Thank you.

    Best regards
    Steve


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Richard S Courtney:

    I thought the following may be of interest to you, though it certainly won’t surprise you.

    It’s the “censorship wall” set up by AGU against J McLean, C.R. de Freitas, and R.M. Carter regards their 2009 paper; Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637

    The link is HERE (Icecap)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Daniel may I suggest you re read #154. That post is crystal clear.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Daniel R #190

    “I have examined the the data posted by Steve Short and it also carries the error that i am objecting to. ”

    Let me respond to that. HERE ARE the respective captions for those 5 figures (my CAPITALS).

    Hansen et al. 1981:
    Fig. 3. Observed surface air temperature trends for three latitude bands AND THE ENTIRE GLOBE

    Hansen & Lebedeff, 1987:
    Fig. 6. GLOBAL and hemispheric surface air temperature change

    Hansen et al. 1993:
    Fig. S.1. Observed GLOBAL temperature

    Hansen et al. 2001:
    (b) GLOBAL temperature (page 22)

    Hansen et al., 2007:
    Fig 1 (a) GLOBAL temperature change (o C)

    Clearly, in each and every one of these 5 cases (5 papers where Hansen is the lead author – 1981, 1987, 1993, 2001 and 2007) all 5 figure captions make it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the 5 graphs which are compared at:

    http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm

    are those authors’ current estimations of the GLOBAL temperature trend graph.

    I have also just re-checked the texts of those 5 papers and there are also strictly no grounds to sustain your argument that the graphs at:

    http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm

    are referring to different things.

    For example, your statement in connection with Hansen et al. 2007 that:

    “….the lower cached .pdf of the 2007 chart at Steve’s link is clearly marked as a Land-Ocean chart” and that “The difference between them is readily apparent, ….” is incorrect because you are actually referring to Fig. 4 (a) on page 4 and the graph at:

    http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm

    is VERY CLEARLY fig. 1 on page 1!!!!

    So are these all just silly errors on your part or a deliberate farrago of unadorned lies?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Daniel R

    The post no.154 is not crystal clear. Anyone can do as as i have done, and see that these chart are not the same series, it’s quite easy. Jo doesn’t need to provide it, however the reluctance of the poster to directly comment upon it is telling.

    1. Please answer; Do you believe there were adjustments made to the data?
    The above chart doesn’t show adjustments, it shows a comparison of two different data sources. There are therefore no adjustments between the 1987 chart and the 2007 chart
    2. If adjustments are/were made, do you think that an explanation should be published.

    This chart doesn’t show any adjustments, so there fore no explanation is necessary based on this evidence. There is however

    3. If adjustments were made, do you believe the adjustments are slight?

    Looking this chart, which doesn’t compare the same data, i see a basic pattern of a fall of a little more than .1 of a degree between the periods 1940 – 1970 in all three graphs, at which point temperatures plateaued and then increases by 1980. Given that this pattern is consistent through the period EVEN WHEN comparing completely different data sources then any adjustment is most certainly slight.
    4. If adjustments were made, Do you believe the adjustments are significant?

    No, the 1987 chart exhibits the same basic trend of the current GISS graph here – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif – thus i do not think any significant adjustment has occurred over this period

    5. If adjustments were made do you agree that they would make it difficult for a critique (of same) to be accepted for publication?

    Given that I’ve demonstrated that adjustments haven’t affected the temperature at a significant level over the last 20 years this suggests more the development of an excuse to justify a lack of quantified large scale studies supporting your claims. You prefer to operate outside the bounds of peer review anyway, as is amply indicated by the fact that none of you are capable of directly answering a question about a single chart, despite some here claiming to be published scientists.

    6. If corrections are necessary for valid reasons, what method is available for critical or countering analysis exists?

    The fact that there is a broad community of experts who analyze this material means a great deal independent verification can occur. The individuals who produce data based on satellite observation are not the same as those who produce station data, or weather balloon observation. This means that a large discrepancy would be noted with in this field. Critiquing with in the scientific process is constant, retorts of published work is an ongoing occurrence.

    7. If no hearing or publication path exists to resolve question 6. what assurances do you provide that eliminate fraud in the presentation of said data?

    Because it most definitely exists any overt fraud will get weeded out rather rapidly. The peer review process is effective in this role.

    Please now explain why you have a chart comparing to different data sources. This is the issue i have wished to discuss, and yet no one has managed to produce a direct response. This is most curious. I’m only asking you to examine two charts. Two charts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    I’m asking you to look at two charts bird. That not massive amounts of homework. Either do it or don’t, I care not, as you have long demonstrated yourself devoid of any substantial reasoning capacity. Your obfuscation capacity as always, is outstanding. Obviously I don’t consider it rigged. And guess what? Nothing that you say has in relevance or impact. And as always you begin an interaction with personal attacks, not that it matters, it merely confirms the vacuous nature of your position. What is wrong with you man? Are so you cut off from humanity that your sole pleasure is anonymously stalking and attacking individuals across the internet?

    It is note worthy that a person so driven by spotting fraud is incapable of even considering it with in something that he agrees with.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Well Daniel, I’m not sure how to explain this to you.

    I found the post #154 crystal clear. (and I’ve reread it again)
    Maybe it’s because old timers like Richard and myself habitually use diplomacy and tact.

    I’m never going to pretend that I can answer on behalf of Jo or Richard, so I tried to stop the merry go round by redirecting your attention to the post at #154. Had you been an old timer like us, perhaps you would have found the post crystal clear as well.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Even at the age of sixty-one I can still be rendered speechless at the astonishing levels of utter whacko our there….

    Comparing Hansen & Lebedeff 1987

    with Hansen et al. 2007


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Lol, age? Come on dude it’s really simple. Just look at the links and give me an answer. This isn’t complicated stuff and you ought not feel intimidated by it. Do you or do you not consider the 2007 chart to be a part of the data series given the evidence presented? You don’t need Jo to hold your hand.

    Richard’s diplomacy level slipped badly and quickly when asked to actual consider evidence, it was he who rushed to the accusations of trolling. I must commend yours however, you have been contained, and i appreciate it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Steve.

    There are two GISS global curves. One is station data one is ocean/land. The first chart offered at http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm has the following description.

    “Fig 1: “Annual surface temperature anomaly relative to 1951-1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature; the 2007 point is the 11-month anomaly. Green error bar is estimated 2σ uncertainty based on quantified effect of incomplete spatial coverage and partly subjective estimate of data quality problems.”

    (Note: This is the same figure as presented in Hansen et al “Global Temperature Change” 2006

    [ http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf ] with the addition of one data point for 11 months of 2007)”

    When i go to the link to the .pdf the chart is on the top of the second page, marked ‘global land-Ocean temperature anomaly’ And it’s trend is identical to the one on http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm as well as the current 2010 chart here http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif .

    I am neither mistaken nor am I lying. And this is the same as the 2007 chart offered above, in this post. However, the 1987 offered above is not same, not because it is adjusted, but because it constructed from station data alone, and the trend in the 1987 can be seen in the current 2010 GISS curve using the same data. – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif -. Thus the 1987 and the 2007 charts are not using same data source.

    At the very least acknowledge the fact that there are two global temperature curves produced at the GISS and that they have substantially different trends over the 1940 – 1975 period.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Daniel

    Now you’re being rude to me

    I must commend yours however, you have been contained, and i appreciate it.

    But before that..

    *This isn’t complicated stuff and you ought not feel intimidated by it
    *You don’t need Jo to hold your hand.
    *Come on dude it’s really simple

    And you also say, Just look at the links and give me an answer? What makes you think I am under any obligation to answer your questions regarding other peoples comments and posts?
    I commented and posted numerous times on this thread. If you have any questions about my comments, ask me. Maybe you want to know more about the graphs I posted above? Maybe you want to ask me about my comments re Hansen?

    Now, if you DO REREAD Richards post at #154, you’ll find he answered you amply. You may not be satisfied with it but he DID ANSWER YOU.

    This is as far as I’m willing to go regards this subject. But be patient, I’m sure Richard will get back to you very soon.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Greenhouse Jargon and its English Translation for Beginners

    “Aerosol sulphates”
    Environmentally friendly acid rain

    “Bio-renewable”
    Crop waste grown where the forest used to be.

    “Carbon credits”
    What you get from chopping down old forests to grow new trees

    “Computer enhanced”
    Fudged

    “Climate change”
    What humans do to the climate

    “Change of climate”
    What nature does to the climate

    “Clouds”
    Can’t be modelled accurately so are therefore irrelevant

    “Correct within an order of magnitude”
    Wrong

    “A discernable human influence”
    …. in writing the climate computer model and interpreting the results

    “General circulation model”
    A model to take as much money out of general circulation as possible

    “Greens”
    Vegetables

    “Greenhouse effect”
    A theory that says trace gases have similar properties to solid glass

    “Greenhouse friendly”
    Expensive, unreliable or inefficient

    “A highly significant area for study”
    A totally useless topic for which funding is available

    “It has long been known”
    ‘I couldn’t find the original reference’

    “It is believed”
    ‘I think so’

    “It is generally accepted”
    ‘A couple of others think so too’

    “Planet Earth”
    A virtual simulation of real climate models

    “Precautionary Principle”
    Chopping your leg off so your scratched toe won’t get gangrene

    “According to statistical analysis”
    Rumour has it

    “The Sun”
    Something that could not possibly affect climate

    “Three examples are presented”
    (The others contradicted the hypothesis)

    “Worse than previously thought”
    ‘My research funding is beginning to dry up’

    “Not inconsistent with …”
    Pretentious double negative to impress peers and MSM

    “Copenhagen Accord”
    A wish list for Santa

    Now you should have no trouble understanding AGW language.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Steve:

    At #198 you say:

    Noting that you are listed as being on the Advisory Board of the journal Energy & Environment I’d be very gratful if you could please advise me on just how to obtain a copy of your 1999 paper, either commercially or academically.

    It doesn’t seem to be a very straighforward procedure.

    Thankyou very much for that. I am taking the liberty of copying your post at #198 to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor of E&E, and asking her how on gets ‘back items’. I shall copy that email to Ms Nova so she can let you know what is happening.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    MarkD:

    At #193 and #194.

    Thank you! Thank you! Thankyou!

    Yes! That is it in a nut shell.

    The offensive, abusive, disingenuous troll posting under the name DanielR knows he is wrong, ignores all answers to what he writes, refuses to address the substantive issue, and keeps iterating his trivial assertion that two specific graphs are wrongly compared.

    If he were right about the graphs (he is not as Steve Short explains at #201), then it would not change the bulk of evidence one iota. But the troll refuses to consider any evidence.

    Instead, the troll persistently attempts to distract discussion of the issue towards his false assertion.

    Baa Humbug:

    You suggest to the troll that I will again respond to him. But I will not. I have repeatedly said I will not bother with his rubbish unless and until he answers the points in my post at #142. But despite the prodding from MarkD, the troll refuses to do that and, instead, continues his despicable behaviour.

    Why should I bother to answer the troll’s silly postings when he persistently refuses to answer any of the points I have made in response to him?

    I have repeatedly asked the troll to answer my points in #142. You, MarkD and Greame Bird have each tried – in different words – to get the troll to address the substantive issue. But the troll refuses and continues his posts that all make the same trivial point which – as Short explains at #201 – is plain wrong.

    I will not reply to the troll unless and until the troll addresses the issues in my post at #142 that are itemised by MarkD at #193.

    I suggest that others do that, too.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Baa Humbug:

    Yes, I was aware of the matter you mention at #199. Bob Carter had sent me copy of their paper that has been blocked from publication.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    OOPS!

    In my post at #211 please substitute “#193″ in each place where I have said “#192″.

    Sorry.

    Richard

    [corrected in the original post.... ED]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Daniel R #206

    “Lol, age? Come on dude it’s really simple. Just look at the links and give me an answer. This isn’t complicated stuff and you ought not feel intimidated by it. Do you or do you not consider the 2007 chart to be a part of the data series given the evidence presented? You don’t need Jo to hold your hand.”

    Here is precisely how Hansen ‘flattened down’ the first half of the 20th century in order to ‘steepen up’ the second half.

    Hansen & Lebedeff, 1987

    1890 -0.28
    1900 -0.03
    1910 -0.32
    1920 -0.15
    Average 25-year anomaly about 1925 = -0.78/4 = -0.195
    1930 -0.01
    1940 +0.15
    1950 -0.13
    1960 +0.01
    Average 25-year anomaly about 1945 = +0.02/4 = +0.005

    Hansen et al., 2007

    1890 -0.37
    1900 -0.10
    1910 -0.34
    1920 -0.19
    Average 25-year anomaly about 1905 = -1.00/4 = -0.25
    1930 -0.06
    1940 +0.04
    1950 -0.15
    1960 0.00
    Average 25-year anomaly about 1945 = -0.17/4 = -0.042

    Yep, I’m an ornery old dude alright, and you are most certainly a silly young wanker.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    I’m not going to buy into the argument with Daniel. However, I will explain my main reason for being skeptical is that the AGW advocates regularly and repeatedly delivery sly stories that either don’t make sense or omit important parts of the picture, or smack of inconsistency and deception. Here’s the latest example:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8584665.stm

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/rising-sea-level-settles-border-dispute-20100324-qwum.html

    Read the above stories and I’ll follow up later with the missing bits (or search around yourself if you are interested).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Tel:
    March 25th, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    There you are Tel

    Did you get my message to you at the Sunburnt Country awash thread? Think it was #53 or #54


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Richard

    I have explained my reasoning for not answering your post – it was written before my post and in no way relates to it. This is quite reasonable, how ever then tone here has descended to an almost bizarre level of infantile name calling. The only attempt to address this issue is to say that only Jo can answer it, which implies s that you are incapable of basic data interpretation.

    Steve, you persist in comparing the 1987 chart to the 2007 chart, which is invalid as it isn’t the same data series. I also have made no attacks upon your age, this is something you adopted and ran with on your own accord. The amount of personalized identification with a scientific issue in this blog indicates that a little bit more wanking might be in order relieve the tension for some over highly strung temperaments, particularly now that it has apparently it has stooped to the ‘I’m not talking to you’ level, from Richard. I may be young but the name calling has been one way, and now that Richard has apparently has refused to address me as human i can see level of maturity at which he operates.

    There still has been no attempt to address the original issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Daniel R #217

    “Steve, you persist in comparing the 1987 chart to the 2007 chart, which is invalid as it isn’t the same data series.”

    Uh – in that case why are the differing data provenances (?) not clearly explained in either reference?

    The only identification in each reference is that they are respectively presented as ‘best estimate’ global records (as at 1987 and 2007). The same can be said for Hansen et al 1991, Hansen et al., 2006 and Hansen et al. 2001.

    In each case, the reader is led to believe that these graphs are the current best estimates of annual global temperature means over time i.e. of the SAME THING.

    Anyone is therefore entitled to question why these various versions of the VERY SAME THING vary so significantly, and particularly why the progressive differences seen to follow such a curiously self-serving trend – especially in the context that Hansen has never stated that one provenance was different to another or one superior to another.

    Let us say we were comparing e.g. published records of mean annual ozone levels below 45 deg. south published by different groups of authors. If significant discrepancies in trend were found there would be an examination as to why that should be so and, in time, the cause would be found and agreement as to the correct record would be arrived-at.

    Absolutely nothing is to be gained here by whining on about provenance because, other than the differing lengths of the records the DATA PRODUCT has been purported to be the VERY SAME THING IN EACH CASE.

    So, your arguments boil down to:

    (a) because the data provenance may differ then we don’t need to question the observed significant trend discrepancies; and

    (b) the differences are negligoible anyway.

    Both of these statements are wrong and your argument is invalid.

    Obviously you don’t do science for a living.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Steve Short:

    I have obtained this from the Editor of E&E. I do not know if it helps.

    Here is Bill Hughes’ message of a few weeks ago:

    “…all our journals have moved to Metapress. It will take some time to get all the links around the place corrected. THe link is now: http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/121493

    I am trying to get approval to copy the paper and to give the copies to you and Ms Nova.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Steve

    The chart marked 2007 and is not the same data series as it’s predecessors. The are from station data, were as it is from the land ocean index. The chart 2007 has a trend found in this graph – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif -. The 1960s trend in the 1987 graph on this site can be seen in this chart – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif – which is the current 2010 graph of meteorological station data. It is clearly marked as such. At the GISS website here – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ – it can be seen that there are two defined and disparate curves. It is clear you compare the two that the 2007 chart on this website is not station data, but land-ocean data. That’s all I wanted any one to do, was simply get people to cross reference the two charts here with their counterparts on the actual GISS website. I did not expect the quite frankly ferocious resistance to such a simple task, especially from an individual who purports to be an experienced trained a qualified practitioner of science. In reality I found his behaviour quite frankly childish.

    You may question the discrepancy. That is most certainly your right. Indeed, I would be curious to see just how much the adjustments from the analyzed 1940 – 1975 raised temperatures at the end of that period, IE quantify the overall down ward trend over the 1981 1987 and even the erroneous 2007 chart, display exactly what drops have occurred at the start and at the end of that period and put an exact period. It appears to me that between 1940 – early 1970s the temperature dropped a little over .1 of degree in each chart, meaning that the subsequent rising period beginning towards 1980 begins at basically the same point, (I’m staring at this by eye mind, as the data is not given, only the chart, so no doubt there is variability) and as such i do not think this period has some how created the post 1975 heating trend.

    Note that AGW theory only believes that heating due to the phenomena post 1975, and subsequently only consider s that change after that point. Ergo their main interest is how much change has occurred over that period, not before, so they don’t care about the starting value but how it increases after that point. If adjustment in global data was occurring this is where the efforts would be focused. So I consider the above not only critically flawed but offering nothing to the debate.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Daniel R #220

    “Note that AGW theory only believes that heating due to the phenomena post 1975, and subsequently only consider s that change after that point. Ergo their main interest is how much change has occurred over that period, not before, so they don’t care about the starting value but how it increases after that point. If adjustment in global data was occurring this is where the efforts would be focused. So I consider the above not only critically flawed but offering nothing to the debate.”

    Well I sure hope for your sake that you are a paid bureaucrat in one of the countless Ministries of Global Warming Silly Walks i.e. AGW somehow puts food on your table.

    There can be no other explanation for your amazing persistence in the promulgation of such mindless syncophancy to the ‘gods’ of AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Oh, and BTW Daniel R:

    As Kevin Trenberth stated in the CRU emails regarding the discrepancy between GISTEMP and the other datasets:

    “My understanding is that the biggest source of this discrepancy [between global temperature datasets] is the way the Arctic is analyzed. We know that the sea ice was at record low values, 22% lower than the previous low in 2005. Some sea temperatures and air temperatures were as much as 7C above normal. But most places there is no conventional data. In NASA [GISTEMP] they extrapolate and build in the high temperatures in the Arctic. In the other records they do not. They use only the data available and the rest is missing.”

    No data available? No problem, just ‘build in’ some high temperatures…..

    Conclusion?

    Hansen and Lebedeff (1987) were correct that the annual temperature datasets of widely separated temperature stations tend to be well correlated. However, they were incorrect in thinking that this applies to the trends of the well correlated temperature datasets. Their trends may not be similar at all.

    As a result, extrapolating trends out to 1200 km from a given temperature station is an invalid procedure which does not have any mathematical foundation.

    Your ‘gods’ have feet of clay Daniel R.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Why are you guys still responding Daniel R who is not paying attention to the fact that all those charts are from James Hansen himself?

    He has nothing and yet he is not aware of it.

    LOL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    tommy

    I’ll make it simple . One of those charts comes from information only from the land. Another includes information from the ocean. They are different. You can’t compare them and then say you’ve found adjustment, all you’ve discovered is there difference between temperature trends whether or not you include sea surface temperature.

    Days later and I’m still explaining the basic principle?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    St4eve

    They may be 1200 km out but I’ll bet they know the difference between the ocean and the land. Apparently no one here thinks the difference is significant enough to worry about. Given what we’re discussing doesn’t that bother you, a little? All I’m asking is you guys change your charts that the final point of comparison is actually correct. Then you can go and battle Golems or what ever to your hearts content.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Friends:

    Ignore the troll.

    As Sunsettommy says, the troll has nothing and that is why the troll ignores every point put to him and mindlessly bounds along on his hobby horse.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Only because no one has approached my issue with any direct response. Oh i answered those question put to me quite a fair way up the page. If the points made were relevant to the issue then i would pay attention. But right now all I’m getting is preformed position have yet to answer the query.

    Your responses are becoming increasingly weird, not to mention an amazing display of avoidance.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Daniel you are stuck in the academic. Remember that these charts were used (at the time of their original printing) to sway PUBLIC OPINION, which without additional explanation might be fraudulent. Perhaps you are not a stereotypical warmist. Perhaps you are not a troll. Perhaps you can get over this fairly small perspective issue (and recognize why the skeptic views it skeptically).

    Points are earned on both observations. In a nutshell what is suggested here is that they (the graphs) are propaganda if you present these graphs (as Hanson did) to the public without any deep explanation.

    By the way, thank you for a more relaxed tone in your recent posts. We skeptics get beat up regularly by roving bands. If you are one of them so be it you’ll go away soon enough. If you are not one of them, you might stick around and even appreciate things from this side of the fence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Oh in regards to my issue, I don’t think this is fraud thing, I thinks it’s a mistake. Just remember – true skeptism doesn’t sit one side of a fence. I’m hardly a roving band, there is only one of me, and there are far more satisfying methods for attacking websites than posting contrary positions. I was rather irritated to find that apparently I have to fill out a questionnaire before any would answer my query. My only real objection was with Richard’s attitude, I apologise if this spilled over onto any other posers, who by an large have been polite. I’m not here scoring points, I could have copy/pasted this else where silently if i so desired, but since I have a specific issue I’d rather deal with it directly, i consider going elsewhere extremely cowardly. I have not posted elsewhere on this issue, and I don’t really post much anyways, apart from the ABC site where this chart was brought to my attention.

    I’ll have to go away sooner or later anyway. I’m behind in my work.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Daniel R

    For days now you’ve been asking about the graphs in this post and claiming (no judgement) that the 87 and 01 graphs have been derived from 2 different data sets.

    The chart marked 2007 seems notably different, and it strongly appears that it is derived from this data set – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    You then ask the poster, Jo, to justify why the graphs should be left up.

    She doesn’t have to or need to. Here is why.

    As you state, the graph strongly “appears” to you.
    The source of the 80 and 07 graphs is from an article by David Herring, NASA Earth Observatory, November 2007 here Titled Earth’s Temperature Tracker, in which he interviews Hansen.

    Near the bottom of the page is this statement..

    The first reliable global measurements of temperature from NASA, published by Hansen and his colleagues in 1981, showed a modest warming from 1880 to 1980, with only a slight dip in temperatures from 1940 to 1970. (Graph adapted from Hansen et al. 1981.)

    Followed by this graph.
    1987
    You will note it’s the same graph as the 1980 graph above.
    The article continues with this…

    Since 1978, global warming has become even more apparent. Over the last 30 years, Hansen’s analysis reveals that Earth warmed another 0.5°C, for a total warming of 0.9°C since 1880.

    Followed by this graph of 2007
    2007
    You will note it is the same as the 2007 graph above.

    What do we have so far? A NASA employee being interviewed for a NASA website article in which these 2 graphs are shown one below the other to “visually” show that “global warming has become even more apparent”.
    And it also shows (according to me) that your “assumption” of where the graph comes from is wrong.

    What about the middle graph (1987) you may ask.
    That graph doesn’t appear on the said article. However, in the references cited, one is to Hansen, J.E., and Lebedeff, S. 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research, 92, 13345-13372.
    This is a pdf document of 28 pages. It describes how surface T’s are derived, how the globe is divided into 80 “boxes” each with a side length of about 2500kms etc etc basically a paper on how Hansen works out global T’s.
    Here is a quote from that paper..

    Another indication of station coverage is provided by fig 2 which divides the global surface into 80 equal area “boxes,” the full dimension of a box side being about 2500 km. The total number of stations within each box and the date at which continuous station coverage began for that box is given in Figure 2. Most ocean boxes contain at least a few island stations, but five of the 80 boxes have no station.

    (my bolding)

    Further down the paper is a composite graph (fig.6) which shows the Global as well as seperate NH and SH T change. Quote..

    Fig.6 . Global and hemispheric surface air temperature change estimated from meteorological station records. The northern hemisphere scale is on the right. The 5-year running mean is the linear average for the 5 years centered on the plotted year. The uncertainty bars (95% confidence limits) are based on the error analysis in section 5; the inner bars refer to the 5-year mean and the outer bars to the annual mean.

    Unfortunately being a pdf document, I can’t post the graph here,(pls look it up yourself) but it “strongly appears to me” to be the graph in question. A graph produced from land and ocean data as the document states.

    I went to a lot of trouble to post this. In the future, if you have a query about a comment or a post by a blog owner, direct your questions to them, not to bloggers in general. Individual bloggers are not responsible for the comments or posts of others.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Daniel R:

    You write:

    My only real objection was with Richard’s attitude, I apologise if this spilled over onto any other posers,

    My attitude is and was that I object to unsolicited insults in response to my having taken the trouble to politely provide a complete answer to a point.

    My first answer to you was at #147 and it referred you to my post at #142.

    I defy anybody to find any sign of discourtesy or lack of helpfulness in my post at #147. Indeed, I ask that people check it to see if they can.
    Also,
    I defy anybody to find any omission in #142 from a complete answer to the substantive point that any doubt exists concerning frequent and unjustified changes by GISS of the GISS mean global temerature data set. Indeed, I ask that people check it to see if they can.

    At #151 you replied to my with an obfuscatory message that bluntly refused to consider anything I had said in #142. I gave a full and courteous reponse to that at #154. My response at #154 begins saying:

    I copy your entire post at #151 so you – and others – can see that I am not avoiding any part of it. It says to me;

    And it concluded saying:

    And very, very imortantly, the substantive point of Ms Nova’s article is correct: GISS frequently change the temperature time series for mean global temperature that they provide. This is fully explained in my post at #142. Hence, I repeat the request I made to you at #147; viz.

    ” Please read response to Socold that is at #142 above. Then answer my questions to him in that post. If you cannot answer those questions then please withdraw your accusation at #146 that anybody has made a false “implication of scientific fraud” “.

    You replied at #161 with another blunt refusal to consider anything I had said, hammered a fallacious claim that Ms Nova’s above article uses an incorrect data comparison, and concluded saying:

    Quite frankly your tangential sycophantic behaviour is rather immaterial in this regards.

    The discussion went downhill from there.

    Now, at #229 YOU HAVE THE GALL TO COMPLAIN AT MY ATTITUDE.

    Troll, apologise. Apologise fully and abjectly for your crass, insulting, offensive and silly behviour here.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    RICHARD!!!!!!! I meant no disrespect. In fact the opposite. I would like you to know you as per the web, have your avengers… just google yourself,(they doubt your qualifications and your sincerity etc) and I would say that Daniel might be in league with them. I have sent your 2006 paper to politicians who were very grateful for it.

    All I was inferring in my last message, was “you can take a horse to water but can’t make it drink!” No disrespect to the equine species that I love too LOL.

    But Hansen as one poster said is desperate. How can he urge Australia not to export coal. Anyway another post yet to come I have learned something recently that will curdle your blood re
    nuclear.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    If i find your behaviour sycophantic then i have right to express this. However what you have done, repeatedly, is merely name calling. Name calling is utterly infantile, and until you calm down and cease doing so I will express disappointment in your manner of delivery. It is rude and unprofessional, and despite having given my responses to questions posted above have yet to receive anything other than vitriol from you.

    Out of curiosity, do you really believe that making hard line demands in bold is an effective technique for discussing science?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    In August 2003 Paris experienced a heatwave. Plus of course all the pollution this city and others have due to mainly car exhausts
    etc. However, the temps in the city reached 40 C. Now in Australia this is still higher than we normally experience on the East coast but not unusual the further one goes from the coast or up North or into the Centre. Europe including UK had experienced a drought, I remember there was a forest fire in UK somewhere. Something not experienced in UK.

    Remember this Richard?

    Besides the Parisians were dropping like flies, resources were stretched to accommodate the fallen. In refrigerated facilities.

    But – Nuclear reactors were threatened too. They require 200,000,000 million litres a day to cool them. One in France was anxiously watching as its walls heated to 48C and the safety level was 50C they were about to pull the plug.

    Now this great ‘messiah’ pushing Australia to go nuclear, besides
    the waste etc., can you imagine when we have a heatwave here.

    I know I’ve been in Sydney when the temps in Penrith reached 43 C
    (in the shade) I was at a dog show. Dogs were dropping dead,
    I was stewarding and went to refresh my makeup, and my lipstick
    melted all over my chin! Going home, cars where on the side of the road having heated beyond safety.

    Think of nuclear reactor out West somewhere, where 40 C is not such an abnormal temp. And where in Australia have we a water source to supply 200,000,000 litres per day? Not our subterranean aquifers, they are no renewable.

    ‘Get behind me Satan, thoust name is Hansen!’


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Thank for your response Humbug.

    Here is the chart for references sake

    And here is the 2010 of ocean-land data currently being hosted at the GISS

    which has the the 1940s – 1970 trend largely identical to that shown in the 2007 chart in blue.

    There is however two charts marked global temperature at the GISS. This is the current 2010 land station data

    Note that it’s 1940 – 1970 trend is quite similar to that of the 1987 chart – and not that of the 2007 chart. This indicates to me that the Station data is the correct data series and no the 2007 land-ocean. It the very least that the 1987 trend exists directly available in the current chart at the GISS website. Far from hiding it in adjustments (that appear to create no long term warming in this instance). Please understand at the very least that two major global temperature indices exist, not one, and that possibility of mixing them up could occur.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Oh, the image tool doesn’t appear to work – do i have to upload to an external server or something?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Daniel R: What are your professional qualifications (if any) not that you need any to belong to this blog, but it helps, but it would help as you have picked on Richard S. Courtney in particular.

    Not all academics are rational, they corrupt the data to suit their hypothesis. It happens…and of course the argument you haven’t used is they are only as good as the data at hand at the time they create their hypothesis? I can’t tolerate Tim Flannery either, I’ve seen him over a 20 year period change his hypothesis
    and employed by governments to substantiate climate change. Well substantiating climate change is like proving the sun will rise in the morning, Summer will follow spring, Winter and Autumn. And if there is more solar activity we can expect a drought of cloud
    cover and rain in some areas. But AGW is a fraud, and CCT is a scam. Because CO2 is not the demon in the peace.

    Hansen has given us his hypothesis, AGW will cause catastrophic
    climate changes, and the developed countries are the worst offenders effecting other parts of the globe to their environmental disadvantage. Create ETS or Cap & Trade and pay undeveloped countries to pay for their environmental damage at the expense of developed countries. This is total bullshit.

    Now climate change is a reality. CO2 emissions or AGW is not! It is a lie and big lie, to enhance the investments in CCTs and clean (so called) energy. The amount of politics involved is awful and distracting from the real issue. If the world or planet cools, we are in bigger trouble than if it warms a few degrees C.

    However, it seems to me and others, that Hansen did have the correct data at hand to provide the correct data to the UN IPCC. His boss (google) said at the time, Hansen stated he was silenced, his boss said he wasn’t, in fact he told him at the time his scientific graphs were wrong! Is that being silenced? No!

    The AGW gravy train has come unstuck. If and this is hypothetical
    I wanted a million dollars (whoopee) to prove AGW was a non existent I wouldn’t get it. If I wanted 10 million dollars to prove AGW was a reality, I would get it? See my argument Daniel?

    I write regularly about climate change. Some people answer my letters. The latest was space junk was interfering with the ozone layer and causing climate change? Another Pluto (a frozen
    planet) was warming too. Well if it did, life might occur on it.
    This meant Earth was warming also, being closer to the Sun! (Give me patience). However I would prefer to believe that one, than
    Jim Hansen, Al Gore etc., whose hypothesis has one main theme,
    make money out of clean energy (if there is any) and CCTs.

    And then there is the Mayan calender 2012 we will be destroyed.
    But they insist on showing the Aztec calender as proof. I have one by the way in brass. Do a google, the Aztecs were not around
    when the Mayans were.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    Oh, I’m not picking on Richard, merely responding to his overtly aggressive manner. Why would i need a qualification to talk with some guy on a blog?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Don’t worry about uploading charts, it won’t be necessary because as my post points out, the 3 graphs used above come from an article about Hansen at Hansens site (GISS).
    The graphs do change as time passes. Whatever the reason maybe, be it adjustments unexplained or be it different data sets, they were used to make a point by Hansen, namely, “warming has become more apparent”.
    People reading that article have the right to critique it in the way they see it.

    In effect, the only thing Ms Nova may want to do should she choose to do so, (and I’m breaking my own rule here by stating this)is to point out that not only does Hansen adjust graphs without sufficient explanation, he uses graphs utilising different data sets to make a point on a government funded website, hat tip to DanielR even though he has been pig headed about this.

    The above is my opinion after spending quite sometime looking into the issue. I don’t wish to spend any more time on it. Should you not agree with what I’ve stated in any of these posts, so be it, to each his own.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    I would like to add Daniel. I believe that certain areas in the world where they are battling to live by subsistence standards and political boundaries,(including wars etc) have exploited their environment. And this is a political problem.

    Famines can be avoided. Droughts do occur. And International aid is available. When the Darwin devastation happened, who was the first to contribute. Arab countries. But when political unrest moves millions of people from their part of this planet to congregate in refugee camps to avoid genocide, then people are disadvantaged. Like Haiti. They cleared their land to create
    biofuels not food like they did before. Now the earthquake, and
    they are lost.

    I predict one big volcanic eruption in Europe or Indonesia or usually they follow each other, and countries like Australia could be plunged into a nuclear winter.

    Australia is lucky. But we need to survive by accepting climate change is a reality, we have to adapt, and provide a sustainability that particularly will benefit our primary industries. Not only to feed Australians but also others should the need become a crisis point.

    Cheers for now.

    Sustainability in times of climate change. Forget nuclear, clean coal as we have enough to keep us and China well into electricity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Daniel, from a point of social argument, I am interested. Not to
    be negative about your point of view necessarily, just to see where you are coming from.

    Are you a student? I think you are. And I admire you for your
    arguments…even if I don’t agree with you. I can tell by articulation you are a very intelligent person.

    And let’s face it we need a devil’s advocate sometimes don’t we
    to make us think again and reevaluate our established opinions.

    And so do you too. lots of love and encouragement


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    KK I’m a Batchelor of Env. Sci, third/fourth year (uni life is distracting, has taken a temporal toll). Apparently flattery has got you everywhere.

    I really don’t know anything bout the blogsphere surrounding this issue. As such I really don’t have any affiliations to other websites. I read papers/data for assignments, and that’s it. I’m certainly not phased about arguing with people opposed to my position, quite frankly I see little point to the alternative.

    Your being very diplomatic, are you a mod?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Daniel: Yes I would like to know your background and experience!
    No big deal is it? Don’t lose the thread. Challenging a professional who has been on Jo’s blog for months, might appear intimidating, and you have every right to question Richard’s hypothesis. But given his experience in this arena, I feel you should also admit, he has to be respected, and he has numerous times corrected your opinion by offering you corrected data and so have others.

    Just take it on the chin, to others you appear what we call a troll because you can’t seem to separate black from white sometimes. And are quoting outdated data or manipulated data.
    I’ve been called a troll to on some sites.

    You appear fixed in your opinions, and when someone like Richard
    tries to correct you, you rubbish his opinion with an unproven
    opinion of your own.

    Somewhat arrogance coming through I feel?

    The biggest danger in this world is ideological manipulation. Particularly when some seek to financially benefit from it, like the Al Gore’s, Pachauri, Hansens, Mann, Jones, Schneiders, etc.

    Don’t aid them willingly to do this. LOL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    I don’t think Richard provided any reliable claims, nor did I even realise he was a big cheese until you just said. You probably shouldn’t have, as I’m even less than impressed by his retorts in that context. His only response to my specific claim was that – only Jo can deal with it, followed by demands to answer seemingly unrelated questions. I consider this a cop out – what I’m presenting can be easily verified by checking my links. There are two GISS temp curves, and i think this comparison uses the wrong one. It isn’t a big deal. You can draw what ever inferences you like, but you have to use the correct data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Daniel? What’s a mod? Yes ago it was a post modern person, in some ways I am? Richard’s data is OK with me and others.

    As far as I am concerned, you and others can give me all these graphs and et al. But I am a BA graduate, and I can tell you that all the stuff graphs etc., provided by the UN IPCC Al Gore, Hansen, Mann, Jones, Schneider (the Ice age commeth predictions) etc., were paid to prove AGW.

    Where do you study hopefully it is not in Australia? Give a University millions to PROVE AGW they will do it without compunction. Give them millions to disprove AGW it is doubtful they would get it anyway. And if they did, their scientific research would be kept silent or hidden. The whole problem is that AGW is allegedly driving climate change, environmental pollution problems yes, CO2 is not the demon in the peace, that all these cap and trade and ETS is based on.

    The climate is driven by NOT CO2 emissions, but by solar activity or non activity, sub atomic bombardment, cloud cover, ocean currents, and then there is volcanic activity.

    On ABC Catalyst last night in Australia, some doods IN uk were getting money to help lower global temps. Their reasoning, volcanic activity tends to lower global temps… this is true if its a massive one … so in their misguided wisdom they felt by seeding clouds (like they try to encourage rain that is not successful of course and very expensive) they would seed them with sulphates such as volcanoes belch out… WHAT A TROLL!

    This is the type of rubbish that AGW is promoting! Sulphuric acid eh, to cool the climate!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Daniel R

    A moderator.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    No Bush bunny isn’t a moderator. Thanks for the thought I could be.

    lol

    Bush bunny to Daniel.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    I think Daniel you have to do more research towards the difference of opinion offered by those that are promoting AGW and also non AGW. And do a wide range of research. Environmental surely, but that is Earth bound. Human in someways moderated.

    Graphs and stats are not always correct. They can counteract each other. Stats are can be corrupted. But the basic physics and natural environmental science involves heaps of variables.

    Sun activity and non activity. Sub atomic particle bombardment with water vapor particles, ocean currents, cloud cover etc., volcanic activity…and the seasons the various latitudes countries are situated, and general climatic normal activities.

    And don’t forget the moon, king tides are associated with a full moon. I remember keeping little sea anemones in an aquarium, and for some reason when the full moon was expected they spread their tentacles and even climbed over the rocks to meet it. Now sea anemones don’t climb fast. Like slower than snails!

    And don’t believe those that want to earn money by offering you a better deal, when a better deal ain’t necessary? Take advice from a grandmother, eh.

    We humans are subject to cosmic forces we don’t understand. I always feel livelier during a full moon, don’t you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Not a mod… more a snitch.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Daniel R,

    The TOPIC is this:

    The mystery deepens: Where did that decline go?

    You have been telling us over and over about one of the charts does not fully match up with another and so on,all the while you generally overlook the main point that Frank brought up.All the while you have utterly failed to show that he is incorrect in his stating that Hansen has been progressively over the years flattened out the cooling trend from the late 1940′s to the late 1960′s.

    Then we have several people trying to point out the obvious in postings such as # 181 and # 188,that clearly supports Franks main point there is a PROGRESSIVE data manipulation going on over the decades.

    That the recent temperature trend charts is always warmer than what he showed in his earlier temperature charts,is undeniable.James Hansen has been exposed as being a biased temperature data manipulator.

    You have all along been clouding the point Frank made and that is why we are getting irritated at you for being illogical.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Daniel R,

    at post # 235,you are now in dispute with James Hansen’s previous presentations that Frank and others have posted in this thread.

    LOL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    …….Why would i need a qualification to talk with some guy on a blog?

    I laughed pretty hard at that. We humans probably all need to take ourselves less seriously.

    Mattb, funny you showing up here, I started to wonder that you were Daniel.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bush bunny #234

    “I know I’ve been in Sydney when the temps in Penrith reached 43 C
    (in the shade) I was at a dog show. Dogs were dropping dead,
    I was stewarding and went to refresh my makeup, and my lipstick
    melted all over my chin!”

    Best in show?

    Off topic tip: If you are feeling a little down and would like to see humans at their very funniest – just go to a dog show. Beats stand up comedy 90% of the time, and admission is usually free!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Would it interest anybody to find that the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect was recognized over 230 years ago?

    Hot Cities in Colonial America (13 Sept 03)

    A correspondent has drawn my attention to a book by William B. Meyer titled “Americans and Their Weather” (Oxford University Press 2000, ISBN 0 19 513182 7). That bane of weather station records, the `Urban Heat Island Effect’ was recognized as early as the American colonial era in the horse and buggy days. Page 29 says in part -

    “…. It was a Charleston physician, Dr. Lionel Chalmers, who in 1776 offered the fullest early explanation of the phenomenon now known as the urban heat island: the tendency for temperatures to be higher in cities than in the surrounding countryside. [52] The presumed direct connection between heat and ill-health made it especially troubling, given the already high summer temperatures. Jefferson as president urged his territorial governors in laying out or extending towns to reserve alternating squares of a grid pattern for trees and open space. Europeans, living under cloudy skies, could “build their town in a solid block with impunity,” he judged, “but here a constant sun produces too great an accumulation of heat to permit that.” The extremes of the American summer demanded a greater spread of “turf and trees.” But the inconvenience of dispersing settlement and the seeming waste of building lots told too heavily against the plan. It was not employed in the extension of New Orleans; in the one southern case where it was tried, the new capitol city of Jackson, Mississippi, it was quickly eroded, and the reserved lots turned to more productive uses. [53]”

    The reference [52] to Dr Chalmers comes from L. Chalmers, “An Account of the Weather and Diseases of South Carolina” (London: Edward and Charles Dilly,1776), I: 30-31. Meyers main academic reference [53] was John W. Reps, “The Making of Urban America: A History of City Planning in the United States” (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965), 314-17, 321-22.

    For the Urban Heat Island to be not only recognized, but considered a health threat as far back as 1776, its magnitude must have far exceeded the few tenths of a degree accorded to it by the greenhouse industry today, most notably by GISS and CRU. Those early years in America were well before industrialisation and motorised transport and yet the urban effect was recognised even then to the extent that corrective action was called for, though not carried out. The Urban Heat Island Effect today must be much greater in the much larger, more heavily built-up, and more mechanised, cities of today. A concrete jungle beneath a baking sun is not a normal air temperature environment, yet data from such artificial sources are treated by the industry as if they were.

    Weather station records from towns and cities today are worthless for climatic comparison purposes or for determination of historical global mean temperatures precisely because of this urban effect contaminating the data. Only genuinely rural stations (`rural’ as in green fields environments, not merely smaller towns) can best represent climatic trends. Alternatively, the satellite temperatures provide the best global coverage, albeit only from 1979.

    via John L Daly Still Waiting for Greenhouse


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Stephen Short: O/T Ha, Ha, Ha. I was stewarding. Not showing.
    But for those not interested in pedigree dog showing, or obedience
    training, dog dancing (oh yes) trails, tracking, gundog, etc., and
    free agility circuits and jumping. Probably is funny. Particularly when you see some loving 20 stone handler handling a peke, or small toy dog. (We always joked if he/she fell on the dog she/he would kill it LOL) I was into showing real dogs, gundogs, hounds and working dogs. It’s a multi million dollar business. (Foods, grooming tools, and if not taken too seriously quite good fun day out).It’s a hobby for most, and an enjoyable one too. That PETA and animal rights liberation groups, and vegan groups of course are trying to trash and destroy, like meat eating too.

    Must admit – some people see it is their ONLY chance to star in life, even though the dogs should be stars not them the handlers!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Everyone this is a good one. I got it from Emeritus Prof.Oliver K.
    Manuel from the US I think. From the Honest Climate Debate blog.
    He was the Former NASA Pl for Apollo. And Nuclear and Space Sciences.

    Check out http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

    Seems that Obama’s energy person still believes in AGW?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Baa Humbug: I thought everyone knew about UHI? You would think that they would when giving a report on temps.

    I wonder where Daniel has gone, he would be interested in this!

    This is something we studied in “Earth in Crisis?” UNE. Concrete
    retains heat. Tall buildings deflect wind and cooling naturally.
    Cloud cover at night can warm areas (urban or not) or cool them too. And trap greenhouse gases whom in unusual weather conditions
    as most large cities have ports, can cause SMOGS, Fogs, etc.

    I’m sorry but I did this at high school in the 1950s when we had the big London SMOGS and we had another in the late 1950s too, when they sold SMOG masks in London. They made Inner London smoke free and it worked.

    Even in Armidale Northern NSW, they are trying to stop wood burning fires, (wood has the least greenhouse emissions) but from
    where I live I look down on the valley where the CBD is. And sometimes we see white fog and under it a brown level of heavy
    particle smoke. You can smell Sydney from Windsor, about 30 miles
    away from the greater Sydney suburban area. Only when you come from the pollution free regional areas, soon get used to it though.

    Of course big cities have higher pollution levels than country areas where the population is less congested! This is 6th Year (UK) high school stuff. How can those so called scientists doing
    a climate report for the UN IPCC not understand this?

    But the big thing is the congestion of humans all living in a small space, and motor cars and carbon monoxide. Cities with large populations will= More people more heat! And CO2 emissions. Especially if they are close to the sea where there is more water vapor.

    God give me patience eh? These people have been paid millions
    to produce an articulate report… that they haven’t. I believe the UNIPCC are now saying they weren’t interested in a scientific
    study… well why would they base the political motivated solutions on a myth? Anyone like to answer that?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    MattB: A snitch? @249? You talkin’ to me? A dishonest person who sneaks and informs. You are a very unimaginative and rude young man. I hope you are young, if not, you have nothing to boast about in life… particularly your use of the English language and slang.

    “Get behind me Satan, thoust name is Matt B and Daniel R.’ LOL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Check out A Honest Climate Debate: Bob Carter reports in New York
    about climate change. Jo’s there too. And Lord Monckton, Prof.Soon
    and our Bob Carter also. This month too.

    Good reporting.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Richard S. Courtney #219

    “I have obtained this from the Editor of E&E. I do not know if it helps.

    Here is Bill Hughes’ message of a few weeks ago:

    “…all our journals have moved to Metapress. It will take some time to get all the links around the place corrected. THe link is now: http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/121493

    I am trying to get approval to copy the paper and to give the copies to you and Ms Nova.”

    No, Richard, I am very sorry but it definilty does not help!

    May I respectfully note that access to your paper by academics in a very wide range of universities other that in the UK (and some few in Europe) is still not possible as my examination of the new link has shown.

    Regards
    Steve


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bush B maybe you’d have been happier had I used the Australian term “dobber”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    snitch
    2   /snɪtʃ/ Show Spelled [snich] Show IPA Informal.
    –verb (used without object)
    1.
    to turn informer; tattle.
    –noun
    2.
    Also called snitcher. an informer.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bush bunny #255

    No offence intended. I’m a nutty dog lover too. Being from a long Whitechapel line, I have to boot my standard English foxy sidekick off my feet at night just to get to grapple with the sweetheart…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Steve. Those that love dogs go to heaven. Because DoG spelled backwards spells GOD. I got a poem in the semi finals of an International poetry comp, titled Prayer to my faithful dog.

    … When you get to the gates and St Peters asks

    Was this soul ever loved by a dog,
    And my friends came to meet me as before
    Waiting at the gate to welcome me home again
    Forever to explore great adventures
    Because on Earth Dog spelt backwards is GOD.

    Something like that it made me cry every time I think of my canine
    friends that I have lost and love. More so than some of the humans… isn’t that awful… possibly dogs are not judgmental
    and forgiving that humans arn’t. So pure in spirit and loyal.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bush Bunny,

    I have a cat that I feel the same way about. He’s more of a friend than a pet. There’s nothing nutty about it. I understand your feelings perfectly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Roy, God bless you and your ‘pud’. (My nick name for a friend or cat)

    I fear for our puds and doggies, as PETA, and all those Greens
    are out to stop this planet owning any pets.

    I don’t think I will be owning any more dogs or cats after my present ones leave me to travel over the rainbow bridge.

    Maybe one Staffie. I always said the last dog I owned would be a Staffie.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    WestHoustonGeo

    Now that I think about it, I have anecdotal evidence of the decline from 60 to the 70′s.
    I remember my grandfather’s 8 mm silent movies of the Christmas reunion at my house in the early 60′s. Lots of short haired men with skinny black ties on short-sleave shirts – with huge sweaty armpits. They all squint in the glaring sun of Dec. 25th.
    Fast forward to Winter 1973 – three snowman-capable events. Unknown in my short (or my parents longer) lifetime in Houston. The ground froze for the first time in decades and killed off all the palm trees and lots of citrus.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    WestHoustonGeo

    P.S. the women didn’t seem to sweat, then. They didn’t get caught on camera, anyway. ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    WestHoustonGeo: In Europe during the early sixties they had strange bad weather patterns. 1963 was the coldest winter until this last one possibly worse. I had returned from 2 1/2 years in Cyprus.

    Stayed in East London for a month, and they had just gone smoke free. The Thames froze over like in Victorian times, at Windsor. The first time I had ever suffered chilblains. Icicles on the inside of the house on the upstairs taps. No central heating then
    just a small coke fire in the sitting/dining room. One of those
    terraced Victorian Homes.

    People think of summers, not winters. A mild winter does less
    harm than a severe one.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    MattB: O/T Dobber is a person who informs the police or tries to
    discredit others by causing trouble. By describing me as a snitch
    or dobber doesn’t offend me if it is used in the context of informing others of what I see as the untruths and hidden agendas attached to the balmy AGW.

    Dobbing in on your mates to save your own backside is considered
    the lowest of the low tactics in Australia. Probably stems back to the earliest colonial days. The police and initial military tended to be more corrupt & opportunistic than the general population. Troopers the cops were called, and they were very nasty.

    If you think Australia was easy to populate in comparison to
    the USA. Think again! The climate was unpredicable. Our Aborigines were not armed bar spears. They didn’t ride horses
    and generally were a peaceful lot in comparison to the Apache
    and Sioux. However, the natural environment and isolation lack of
    communications were the main battlefronts, and water supplies,then the authorities who were also bent. Plus our dangerous wildlife, spiders, snakes, flies etc. And sharks of course.

    Add the measures of climate changers propose, and they’ll put us
    backwards not progressive. To suit the Green policies that are social/political is their makeup.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] av världens få kvarvarande vetenskapsjournalister med ryggrad – Joanne Nova – rapporterar om Hansens upptåg som  vakthavande officer för NASA:s GISS temperaturserier [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] révision constante à la hausse des températures entre 1945 et 1975 par Hansen (GISS) pour diminuer le déclin et [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Nova digs deeper into the mystery of the missing decline, it’s a [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KAP

    The 1980 and 1987 graphs are identical; only the vertical scale is different. Neither of these graphs are global, they are land only. The 2007 graph is global, i.e., it includes SST. Thus you are comparing apples to oranges. Nothing to see here: move along.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    KAP writes: “The 1980 and 1987 graphs are identical; only the vertical scale is different.”

    Nonsense.

    Yes, the ordinate axis scales are different, but so are the differences — differences which should remain proportionately the same if data were simply shown to a different scale (e.g., Fahrenheit vs. Celsius, for example). We have no idea why the scales are different and we certainly have no explanation for why the data were changed to reflect increases when earlier the same periods exhibited a decrease!

    Note the following:

    The 1980 chart shows 1960 temperature is ~25% DROP from 1940 temperature (~0.24°C to ~0.18°C) and 1980 temperature is ~17% DROP from 1960 temperature (~0.18°C to ~0.15°C).

    Summary, 1980 chart:
    1940: ~0.24°C
    1960: ~0.18°C (DOWN ~25%)
    1980: ~0.15°C (DOWN ~17%)

    The 1987 chart shows 1960 temperature is ~50% DROP from 1940 temperature (~0.16°C to ~0.08°C) and 1980 temperature is ~175% INCREASE from 1960 temperture (~0.08°C to ~0.22°C).

    Summary, 1987 chart:
    1940: ~0.16°C
    1960: ~0.08°C (DOWN ~50%)
    1980: ~0.22°C (UP ~175%)

    How was this achieved in a mere seven years? By artificially “correcting” (“fudging data” to make it conform with Hansen’s theory?) well-established measurements by reducing earlier temperatures and increasing later temperatures.

    This is the perhaps the best example of “man-made” warming this planet will ever experience!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Last line of previous post should read:

    This is perhaps the best example of “man-made” warming this planet will ever experience!

    (too many “the” in the original!)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Nicely done Mr. Webster!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks, Mark.

    The fudging of data at GISS is a serious offense that I would hope the new Congress takes a hard look into.

    I am always amazed when people can see things that aren’t there (e.g., the Mann’s “Hockey Stick”) and then not see things that are there (as with KAP above).

    As if life isn’t challenging enough!

    Best,

    Bob


    Report this

    00