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



NOAA’s State of the Climate Report

SPPI has put out an excellent collection of papers in response to NOAA’s State of the Climate Report.

NOAA State of the Climate reply by SPPI

NOAA State of the Climate reply by SPPI

..
As usual, the official taxpayer-funded report is full of half-truths and strawmen. Arctic sea ice is shrinking (no mention of the Antarctic), the world is undeniably warming (yes, so? what’s causing that warming?). There’s the compulsory allusions to “consensus” — 300 scientists, blah blah blah (trust us! we’re experts).

The interesting thing is that the seven different responses are all quite different, yet all skeptical, even though there was no coordination behind the scenes to create that. There are so many holes in the NOAA document, that seven commentators could fire ad lib, and for the most part, all find different targets.

Has the temperature been constant ’til humans industrialized?

Craig Idso noticed that NOAA actually said “people have spent thousands of years building society for one climate and now a new one is being created — one that’s warmer and more extreme”. So NOAA is rewriting history too. The Vikings were never forced out of Greenland due to the nasty cold spell called the Little Ice Age. Glaciers have never shrunk before, the sea has been constant for thousands of years, and the ice cores and boreholes around the world were “dead flat” at 15 degrees C for 5000 years? Don’t think so. Idso has collected hundreds of peer reviewed papers just on the topic of the Medival Warm Period, almost every one of which supports the idea that that o-so-recent period was warmer than now.

The Propaganda, it would seem, is full-gloss-government-funded-glamour and not just packed with half-truths, it steps into the realm of outright lies. The report claims that each of the “more than 30 different climate indicators” it has analyzed “is placed into historical context.” But it’s not the historical context that’s backed by empirical evidence.

Are sea-level rises accelerating? No sir.

From Dennis Ambler:

There is no significant increase in [in the rate of ] sea level [change] over the past century*. In 2007 S. J. Holgate of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK, showed that the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual when compared to nearly continuous sea level records around the world for 1904–2003.” It was published in Geophysical Research Letters, vol 34, 2007. His research demonstrated that “The rate of sea level change was larger in the early part of last century in comparison with the latter part.”

250 years of warming but not so not much lately:

David Evans focuses on why government agencies are doing a conspicuously poor job with land thermometers (and “yet” the scare-campaign loves them), on Argo ocean measurements, and on the wild mismatch between the global temperature trend of the last few centuries and human emissions (which have nearly all been since WWII, half since 1975, a quarter since 1995):

“Global temperatures as measured by our best and least biased means, satellites and the Argo network, have been flat to slightly down over the last decade. Consequently, the bandwagon built around the theory of man-made global warming is stalling. The 2009 State of the Climate report is an attempt by climate authorities to browbeat the public and politicians.

“While people outside the climate establishment may not understand climate science, they do understand cheating. As the world becomes familiar with photographs of official thermometers near air conditioning outlets and in the backwash of jet airplanes, let alone the many tricks played by the climate science establishment, the public are becoming increasingly angry.

“The 2009 State of the Climate report is just another authoritarian attempt to hoodwink the public, hiding behind complexity and apparent “expertise”. If the report was really trying to explain what was going on it would have been simple, direct, easy to understand, it would have included satellite temperatures and Argo results—and it would have admitted, as leading warmist Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, did recently on the BBC: “from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”.

A carefully thought out logical dissertation? Not so

Christopher Monckton lists the assertions required to make the NOAA report make sense, and demolishes them. He sums up the report:

  • The authors perpetrated the elementary (and, in climate science now near-universal) logical fallacy of assuming that, merely because they had failed to consider any other explanation for recent “global warming”, the only possible explanation was mankind’s emission of CO2 though burning fossil fuels;
  • The authors carefully selected only those temperature indicators that suited their desired conclusion, carefully excluding those pointing the other way;
  • The authors carefully chose data periods that suited their desired conclusion;
  • The authors carefully ignored natural explanations for recent global warming.

Is winter snow cover diminishing?

Joe D’Aleo writes:

“This is a blatantly false claim as can be seen using NOAA’s own data as compiled by Rutgers Snow Lab.
The winter snow was claimed to be in decline. Here is the Northern Hemispheric data yearly since record keeping began in 1966. There is no trend (0.0/year).”

Graph: winter snow cover northern hemisphere

Winter snow cover northern hemisphere

CONTENTS

The State of Earth’s Climate 2009 …………………………………………………………….3
…..by Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

Comments on the  NOAA/Met Office State of the Climate Report 2009 ……. 5
…..by Dennis Ambler

World has been Warming for 250 years, but not since 2001 …………………… 12
…..by Dr. David Evans

Comments on NOAA’S 2009 Climate Report ……………………………………… …..29
…..by Christopher Monckton

Selected Critiques of NOAA’s 2009 Climate Report …………………………………44
…..by Joe D’Aleo

General Talking Points – NOAA’S 2009 State of the Climate Report ……….60
…..by Chip Knappenberger

* Erratum

Thanks to John Brookes in comments below for pointing out that this paragraph should read “no significant change in the rate that sea level is rising”. Obviously sea-levels are rising, and have been since 1860 or so. Dennis Ambler is referring to this research below and writes:

“His research demonstrated that “The rate of sea level change was larger in the early part of last century in comparison with the latter part.” Mean sea level rise was 1.74 mm per year, or just under seven inches for the whole century. “”

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
NOAA's State of the Climate Report, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/296xdcl

49 comments to NOAA’s State of the Climate Report

  • #
    elsie

    Yet most historians will say that about 10 or 12 000 years ago the climate warmed enough for farming to begin in the fertile crescent leading to urban living. Up to then the climate was too cold. Also the Roman era was marked by warmer climate. Wine was grown in the UK but AGWs say that since vineyards are now viable in England it is a sign of global warming caused by Man. Interesting that Hannibal was able to guide a few hundred elephants over the Alps which supposedly were covered in thicker ice, glaciers and snow than now. As an aside I find it interesting that Gore once said the earth just 2 kilometres down was million of degrees; good for geothermal power. Yet the earth’s core is only about 7000′ F and the sun’s surface about the same. Only the core of the sun is in the millions. If facts like this come from the leaders of the AGW debate then what amount of integrity can be given to any of them? Near enough is not good enough and to be way way way off the mark is …cheee!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Meikle

    I neglected my science education when i got sidetracked by music and the fine arts, but history I know something about.

    It was my knowledge of the medieval warm period and the little ice age that had me smell a rat when they claimed AGW; and it defintitely stinks to high heaven that they have to rewrite attested and witnessed history to foist their claim on people.

    If their doctrine were true why rewrite history?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    “people have spent thousands of years building society for one climate and now a new one is being created”.
    How can NOAA say such nonsense and expect people to believe it? People aren’t that stupid are they? Did Eskimos adapt their society to the climate of the tropics or polar regions? Did Amazonians adapt their ssociety to the climate of the tropics or polar regions?

    If only there were time to read all this.

    If only we could get politicians to read this.
    If only we could get politicians to read Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion.
    If only politicians had the interests of their electorate as their sole objective.

    If only, if only.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Some opportunities to mix satire and puns just cannot be resisted …

    So, from now on I will always think of this particular Government Agency as NOAA’s Fark


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Steve Meikle: #2

    I neglected my science education when i got sidetracked by music and the fine arts …

    Well, I guess that makes you over-qualified to be a Climate Scientist – music and an eye for perspective require an intuitive feel for mathematical principles.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I, too, plumped for a Fine Arts education and a career in that field, but that does not mean I can’t understand scientific concepts. I also know when I am reading alarmist nonsense which attempts to deny the evidence that substantiates the MWP as a world-wide phenomenon. I get quite angry when I realise how much Western governments are spending on this nonsense.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Alexander K, You and me both. But NOAA are not alone, they have company. The CSIRO with the conivance of BoM have also released a “State Of The Climate” brochure which iterates all the old chesnuts so familiar to the AGW con artists. More frequent and worse droughts, bleaching of the GBR, hotter summers and so it goes. More propaganda for leftist teachers to indoctrinate the children with.

    Funnily enough I found five temp records of more than 100 years in NSW all saying the 20th century had a slight cooling. BoM on the other hand keeps telling us that 2009 was the hottest year and 2010 is shaping to be worse.

    I wonder what will happen when a sceptic wins the lodge. Will the chief scientist review her advice? Will the CSIRO realise their $484million grant to study geosequestration is more likely going to be used to pay down debt? Will the local consensus fold as “scientists” struggle for a job in a reduced CSIRO? Interesting times ahead.

    A November win for US Republicans and another failure for the UN in Cancun. See. Even politics can be self correcting in a democracy, just like an earthly climate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    A true global climate model would start from the formation of the planet until now.
    Climate is regional at best due to the shape of the planet and the interactions of many processes. Climate does not cross the equator and is separate!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    So they are clamoring for job security. They need less workers if the CO2 induced warming just isn’t proven.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    I read the report when it was released and could not find any substantiation of the claims being made on it’s behalf in the media. The press release that accompanied the report sent to media organisations must have been the only thing the reporters read. Why aren’t these things properly critiqued? It’s so basic!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    smallbites

    So can the students of history who have posted comment see any analogy with the current migration from science to dogma and the dark ages?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rblackbird

    A retired litigation attorney, I began studying agw in earnest when i realized the “evidence” the warmers submitted, if presented in a trial, would not survive cross-examination. In trials, I often saw logical inconsistency, glossing over or hiding “bad FACTS,” conclusions lacking support, arrogance disguised as expertise, and refusal to concede or even consider strong contrary evidence. It’s the same here. I just wish these climate “scientists” could be placed in a witness chair in a trial where they would testify under oath (with the attendant penalties for perjury) and be required to answer opposing counsel’s questions directly and completely. I believe none of the warmers, including Gore, would allow themselves to be put in this situation, especially the part about testifying under oath.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by chemicallygreen and chemicallygreen, Alexander Meyer. Alexander Meyer said: "NOAA’s State of the Climate Report" An excersize in beating a dead (or more accurately a fictitious) horse http://bit.ly/bO62ma #tlot #p2 [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    I guess the information the Report provides us is more on matter of the subject then on the matter of the object. That means that don’t tell us much of the climate but the sentence is on the climate scare mongers: They are so empty they cannot innovate their horror stories that don’t work any more.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Friends:

    The myth of AGW has captured the CRU, the Max Planck Institute, NOAA and several other supposedly scientific institutions around the world.

    If you really want to know how and why the myth of AGW has taken such a hold, then I suggest you read the excellent analysis of EU funding to Institutes and NGOs that John Rosenthal provides at
    http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43291

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    rblackbird: @ 13

    I suppose that’s why none of the climategate scientists have sued anyone despite various books having been released that accuses them of all kinds of misconduct.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian George

    Lawrie

    The latest 30 year temp statistics have just been posted on BOM. The long-term max average for my town has just dropped from 26.8 to 26.7. Minimum av temp over the same period has remained the same at 13.2.
    So no warming here. Yet on the BOM’s ‘State of the Climate’ it shows an 0.1 warming for the mean. I suppose they take anomalies only from 1960 when it was cooler but it still doesn’t make sense.
    Like you, I wonder how many areas are like this?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ppo74

    Pag 40 of the report, the color bar of the measured “missing” hot spot is not reported… can we let them know??


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Richard @ 16. Thanks for the great link. Some interesting bits there about the CSIRO’s attitude in developments.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    So the Emporer is naked. What a surprise!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Well, lets just be a little bit picky. Take sea levels.

    Here is a graph of sea levels since 1880. At least I’ve put an image link here, but if I did it wrong and it doesn’t show up, the address is http://bild-art.de/kpress/images/stories/02042009/sea_level_graph.jpg

    So lets compare this graph with the statement by Dennis Ambler above:

    There is no significant increase in sea level over the past century.

    .

    Now I’m confused. The graph seems to show a steady increase in sea level. No wait, I don’t think he meant that sea levels weren’t rising, I think he meant that the rate of rising is not increasing. But a quick look at the graph does seem to show an increased rate of rising sea levels. But I wouldn’t put money on it – its just that based on the data there, that seems the most likely conclusion.

    So anyway, I trust you will all correct my naive belief in this graph. The data behind the graph was probably fudged by greedy climate scientists (and I use the term “scientist” loosely here – have these people no shame?).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    John @ 22

    Sea levels have been rising following the interglacial period, which commenced about 10,000 years ago. The sea level rise back then was unquestionably a natural event and if you read the post again, you will see it says:

    Are sea-level rises accelerating? No sir

    The issue is that the rate of sea level change is business as usual -Mother Nature doesn’t care what we’re doing! There is an excellent SPPI review on the subject, which also demolishes the notion of Pacific islands sinking into the sea. Here’s the link for you:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/environmental_stress_and_migration.html?Itemid=0

    (At the risk of being a spoiler, Pacific islands tend to be low-lying because of wind erosion. Fresh sand is deposited from the breakdown of coral around the island and so the system is in dynamic equilibrium)

    Enjoy!

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John Brookes:
    August 5th, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Well, lets just be a little bit picky. Take sea levels.

    Now I am confused. The graph seems to show a steady increase in sea level.

    I hope these graphs help you get “unconfused.”

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S3xTTpWSGjI/AAAAAAAAAyk/lWAqvOnb72Q/s1600-h/Fullscreen+capture+2172010+122234+PM.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Eddy

    You’ve obviously been stocking up on the heavy-duty niceness pills!

    On a completely different tack – do you have any experience with deep well scale inhibitors? I’ve got a little anhydrite problem at 180C in a heavy saline mud.

    Sorry for going off thread but I understand this might be your line of business and I need all the help I can get.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Speedy,

    Pass your email address to Jo and she will forward it to me. I will be more than happy to get my team on it for you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Hey I am only a dumb jaffa in the peanut gallery, but the sea level graph looks like ~130 years of the ~180 years the world has been coming out of the LIA @ ~ 1.5mm per year. What would be the grand average since the last ice age proper?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John,

    you are quite right, and I’ve added a note to the post. I’ll email Dennis Ambler to let him know. Thanks!

    Added Erratum:
    Thanks to John Brookes in comments below for pointing out that this paragraph should read “no significant change in the rate that sea level is rising”. Obviously sea-levels are rising, and have been since 1860 or so. Dennis Ambler is referring to this research below and writes:

    “His research demonstrated that “The rate of sea level change was larger in the early part of last century in comparison with the latter part.” Mean sea level rise was 1.74 mm per year, or just under seven inches for the whole century. “”

    Note that that graph above misses the period from 1860-1880 when sea levels were rising quickly.
    See this graph


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    John @22
    The fact sea levels are rising offers no insight or support of the AGW hypothesis. Nobody can determine how much of increase is due to a combination of thermal expansion, plate movement, a natural response to a warming climate, or anthropogenic effects. What we do know as fact is that in each IPCC report the estimates have been reduced and the range is so extensive as to be useless in terms of arriving at any determination. In any event the rate of increase is so low adaption will not present a problem.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    The data behind the graph was probably fudged by greedy climate scientists (and I use the term “scientist” loosely here – have these people no shame?).

    John, its not the raw data or the scientists its the way “results” are interpreted and presented. Any publicly funded organization takes on a life of its own, it grows as its revenue grows and its senior administrators are focused on empire building. They will always present the best case for the continuation or expansion of their operations. I can think of no public sector group that has voluntarily opted for reduction. I think that any report that is produced by NOAA, GISS, CSIRO etc is influenced by the politics of the organization and this affects which data is used, which is ignored or downgraded and how the selected data is packaged and presented.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Allen Mc @ 30

    Well you can bet your socks it won’t be 20 feet this century – or whatever it was that Al Gore claimed in his award-winning “documentary”.

    If he didn’t keep on buying buying beachside mansions, then people might believe him…

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Speedy@31
    then there is the opportunity to interact with scantily clad nubile young women.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Allen

    Well and good, but will they want to interact with us? Or you, actually, because I am very seriously married.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ben AW

    Obviously sea-levels are rising, and have been since 1860 or so.

    Looking a little futher back they have been rising since the last major ice age
    (about 20.000 y ago). Sealevel rise since then some 120 METERs.

    See eg here:


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes @ 22:

    Now I’m confused. The graph seems to show a steady increase in sea level. No wait, I don’t think he meant that sea levels weren’t rising, I think he meant that the rate of rising is not increasing. But a quick look at the graph does seem to show an increased rate of rising sea levels.

    It appears (from your graph) that the rate increase was a step at about 1925-1930 The 1930′s are the decade with the most heat records in the US, so that fits. These records are based on raw data – you know, thermometer readings — before being “massaged” by NOAA, NASA, etc. There doesn’t seem to be any significant rate increase after that step, despite most Anthropogenic CO2 being released after that.

    For a real long-term perspective, try this page from Wikipedia.

    Explain to me again, how Mankind is causing disastrous sea level rise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Remember the IPCC poster child islands, tuvalu, kiribati, etc. are not sinking, and were never going to..

    The IPCC climate scientist seemed suprised to discover this (sat imagery) even though the ‘peer reviewd science on how coral islands ‘grow’ was IN a 150 years ago ( Darwin: 1842)

    BBC: 03 June 2010 – Low-lying Pacific islands ‘growing not sinking’
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10222679
    “A new geological study has shown that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.

    The islands of Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, because of coral debris and sediment. ”

    As I said, this has been ‘known’ for over a 150 years!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hank

    @ john Brooks, well if you want to compare the rise in sea level with your erection, 50 to 60 mm over 100 years please go ahead.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Business as usual it seems…

    I’m tempted to ask, “What do liars do best?”

    And by the way, forget the islands of Tuvalu et al. When sea level rises enough they’re going to tip over. Say goodbye to Micronesia and the others! No less an expert than the august speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi has stated her deep concern about that and we all know that the elected elite know better than we do.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Connie

    WATCH THIS FANATICAL GREENIE MAKE A FOOL OF HIMSELF!!

    “If Guam Gets Too Overpopulated It Might Tip Over”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

    WHAT A TOSSER!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Connie,

    It scares me that someone this STUPID is a lawmaker. He’s not only a fool; he’s not articulate enough to ask a question coherently. How that officer avoided laughing I’ll never know.

    And now I’ll be called a racist because the man is black. Well I’m sorry but stupidity speaks for itself.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] have been rebuttals elsewhere, such as at Jo Nova and Paul MacRae but this report by SPPI contains a number of rebuttal papers, and is worth reading [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have noticed something else very odd about the NOAA report.

    I have written it up here:

    http://peacelegacy.org/articles/noaa-lies-about-its-own-report


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Vince Whirlwind

    Interesting to see this article’s very second sentence contains the words

    (no mention of the Antarctic)

    I would imagine a competent journalist just might have noticed the small fact that Chapter 6 of the report is entitled “ANTARCTICA”.

    So I guess we have yet another Denialist writing comment about scholarly works she has not merely failed to understand, but not even bothered to read.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Oi, Vince Whirlwind, before you start insulting people, you might like to consider alternative explanations. As I show in this article:

    http://peacelegacy.org/articles/noaa-lies-about-its-own-report

    NOAA have been playing silly buggers putting out two different reports, one of which tells lies about the other one and both of which they confuse with each other. It is a not insignificant exercise simply sourcing the pdfs for both of the reports and then working out which statements on their web site apply to which report. And indeed, one of these reports DOES NOT MENTION ANTARCTICA.

    I don’t know about you, but when I go to a web site about a report, get a link and read it, I think I am being reasonable in simply assuming I have read the report the web page is talking about, don’t you?

    An apology on your part to Jo is clearly deserved.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] of an opportunity for a nice bit of CAGW propagandising. So, of course, it slipped in mention of NOAA’s highly suspect claims – gleefully bigged up by warmists everywhere – that this summer has been the hottest on [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Vince Whirlwind

    Ron, I can’t make head or tail of your confused “information”.

    All you have to do is go to the NOAA website and get it first hand.
    It is absolute child’s play to click on the link and download the 218-page report.

    Here’s the press release:
    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

    Near the bottom of the PR you will find this:

    The full report and an online media packet with graphics is available online: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate.

    And clicking that link gets you to the report.

    Notice that Chapter 6 is called “Antarctica”? What possible explanation could there be for a reviewer of this rerport to assert it has “no mention of the Antarctic”?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Vince Whirlwind, Did you read my full article http://peacelegacy.org/articles/noaa-lies-about-its-own-report? Apparently not, because in it I say:

    It turns out there are actually two reports, and the NOAA web page only links to one of them. At the bottom of the page, below the bit I screen-captured in the graphic, there is a link to “The Report” – which is the one whose cover is shown on the web NOAA page, and which is also the one written by “more than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries”. But that Report is not the Report that the NOAA website goes on to describe in detail!

    That is the link you refer to also, is it not? I go on to explain that the various statements made in the press release, which they claim are in the Report, are actually in a “summary” of the Report which tells lies about the actual contents of the Report. Your question “What possible explanation could there be…” has the answer: the reviewer, far too trusting of scoundrels, believed NOAA’s misrepresentation of its own document.


    Report this

    00