Global Warming

[grmorton]

I agree, and the criticism and discussion of the NZ example so far has shown legitimate corrections. Or, at least, no indication of illegitimate ones.
Like I said, it depends on why and what you are changing. if you are making legitimate corrections (like accounting for switching stations), there is no fraud involved.

Agreed.

I understand the analogy, and I hope that you also understand that it allso assumes what it is supposed to prove- that the changes are specifically made to create a fake impression.

When a scientist loves his theory, there is a huge temptation to ignore or downplay problems with the theory. I have seen this in the oil prospecting business loads of time. As manager my job was to QC what the prospectors did. Many would come to the reviews with a pollyannaish view of their prospects. When the management team would ask, "What about the fact that there is no sand in that well," some would never have thought of the question. I remember a team working Morocco who had a map reconstructing the continents when they were together. The East coast of the US was just opposite their part of Morocco. One slide had a text box saying that there were 5 significant discoveries on the East coast of the US. I had been area geophysicist for ARCO for the East coat for 3 years. I knew that was BS. There was only one significant discovery on the East coast. I told the team to take that off the slide. The next two meetings that text box was still in the presentation. I complained at them again. When asked to name the discoveries in all meetings, no one could name them. Finally when a new geophysicist was put on the team and I complained this time rather firmly, he stopped his presentation, and edited the slide right in front of me. After that the erroneous data was gone for good.

Scientists are no better than anyone else, in spite of the aura of moral and intellectual purity society places on us. If we like a theory our skepticism goes ot zero, which is why I have tried (not always successfully) to be most skeptical when the data supports my view.

But this believers bias is destructive of science, and if one is made aware of it and one doesn't do anything about it, it becomes fraud--like that claim of 5 east coast discoveries. Selling that prospect with that false information would be viewed in a court as fraud. The expert SHOULD have known.

Or that stations change, from time to time?
I'm sorry, but are we back to air conditioners again? Where do you base this claim that scientists correct data to match the data received from stations near air-conditioners?

Sigh, Augustine (and I mean Augustine, not you Faid), this is why I can't give this a rest. No one has paid attention.

Faid, Anthony Watts had done a study of the US historical climate network and found that 69% are next to heat sources Below is the pie chart of that. Class 4 and 5 are stations biased by 2 to 5 deg centigrade. those degrees worth of bias come from the siting handbook of the weather service. see http://www.surfacestations.org/

My position is that when you have an active heat source, if you want to correct for it, you must know when it is on. No one keeps such records. Thus, no one can correct for them. you must also know how much heat they give off.

Certainly this claim has nothing to do with the corrections we were discussing so far. And it is certainly antithetical with the fact that such stations seem to be considered the least credible ones, if Tiggy's link was correct.

I have Tiggy on ignore. If you want me to look at his link please give it to me.

I would ask though, how can 69% of the stations be considered the least credible ones? Doesn't that mean that the whole system is useless?

[/quote]This is the exact kind of 'arguments' that should not be used to support an accusation of fraud. An accusation of fraud needs hard evidence that data has been manipulated with the intent to deceive.

Can you provide a link to this? If true, it represents an issue to consider. But it still doesn't provide evidence that the corrections are invalid and meant to produce fake results.
Again, something to consider, if true. Do you have a link?

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Phil Jones ,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xx...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500 Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mmaccra...@u.arizona.edu, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx



Thanks Phil,

(Tom: Congrats again!)

The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department...
The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:

Then at the end of the email Mike Mann says this about the criticism of skeptics that they can't get published anywhere. Of course that was because, as I have said several times, the peer review process is stacked against them. These emails prove it.

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...
What do others think?

mike

Attached to the Mike Mann email was an email from Phil Jones. He too is against free expression of scientific thought

Dear all,

Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don't let it spoil your day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.

Another thing to discuss in Nice !

Cheers

Phil

NOPE, skeptics need to try to publish because they won't be allowed to.

The above is from 1047388489.txt of the hacked emails
see http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emai...1047388489.txt

Again, another issue that needs addressing. What is this Oroko Swamp charge? From what I remember, they published data that showed a warming trend. No "hockey stick", but still a warming trend. Was there more?

the charge in my mind is that it doesn't show warming but their temperature data does show warming. They knew that the oroko swamp data existed but they still got the warming they used to arrive at warming and they don't mention Oroko as being contradictory.

[quote\All the above cases must be presented and evaluated, not just mentioned. Otherwise it's like shouting "Nebraska Man"! as an argument in the discussion of the validity of Australopithecus fossils.

Glenn, I understand your opinion. What I want you to understand is that an accusation of fraud cannot just come with an opinion, but with evidence and the evaluation of that evidence. I believe it's now clear we have not seen such evidence in the case of station switching in NZ, at least; But I am interested in the other cases you mentioned.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but with all due respect, I have probably examined more raw data and read more of the emails and documents than you. Go look at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...he-real-story/

[grmorton]

One problem that has not been getting enough attention is the lack of an accurate model. If we had one, then we could run it with the anthropogenetic CO2 content fixed to some level, say zero, and see how the temperature goes. As easy as that. Unfortunately IMO we are still as babies and will be for a long time. Another problem is the dishonest implication that our numerous models are reliable enough to set government policy on. I’m sick of the problem of getting good-quality measurements, which is important, but far less so than the 2 problems.

You may be right, but as Faid has demonstrated too many people don't pay attention to the inability to acquire good data.

[Tiggy]

I posted this in the 'Global Scandal' thread but felt it was important enough to post here too.

The "NZ Climate Science Coalition" (a collection of AGW denier cranks with no scientific affiliations who gave themselves a fancy name) has been caught lying and fabricating the data in that "uncorrected" NZ temperature graph that Morton is pimpimg in this thread and elsewhere in NS301

NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientist

The cranks in the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition have sunk to new lows in a desperate attempt to cash in on the far-right driven furore about the Hadley CRU data theft. Here’s an extract from a press release which was doing the rounds of NZ’s newsrooms this morning:

New Zealand may have its own “Climategate”, including manipulation of temperature readings, according to a combined research project undertaken by members of the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. The researchers claim that temperature readings from seven weather stations throughout New Zealand have been adjusted to show a higher degree of warming than is justified by a study of the original raw data.

The author of the press release and the “research project” into NZ’s long term temperature record is blogger Richard Treadgold, not unknown to readers of Hot Topic. Unfortunately for him, and for the credibility of any of the members of the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition, Treadgold’s approach to the issue is ignorant, his results meaningless, and he can have no excuse for not knowing he was wrong. Worse, Treadgold, Dunleavy and the rest of the NZ CSC seem determined to smear NZ’s best-known and most respected climatologist, Jim Salinger (who did much of the early work on NZ’s temperature record), based on little more than straightforward lies.

whole article with real station temperature graphs here

The NZCSC basically took data from eight different sites, ignored the history of the sites, and concocted their own fraudulent 'Frankenstein' graph that is being pushed by deniers all over the web.

Let's see what 'honest' Glenn Morton does about this proven fraudulent data.

- T

ETA: here's NIWA's response to the news that the NZCSC had been caught lying

[Tiggy]

Faid, Anthony Watts had done a study of the US historical climate network and found that 69% are next to heat sources Below is the pie chart of that. Class 4 and 5 are stations biased by 2 to 5 deg centigrade. those degrees worth of bias come from the siting handbook of the weather service. see http://www.surfacestations.org/

I would ask though, how can 69% of the stations be considered the least credible ones? Doesn't that mean that the whole system is useless?

This is another bogus claim by Morton. Watts' unscientific 'study' consisted of untrained and unqualified AGW deniers from Watts' audience emailing Watts with what they claimed the stations' set up to be. There is zero corroborating evidence that the 69% figure is anything but pulled straight from Watts' behind.

- T

[Augustine2004]

I've reconsidered somewhat. Of course you need good data as well as a good model. One may have a great model of how air conditioners affect the temperature, but if nobody keeps records of when they are on and off and how much heat they put in the air, the model may be useless.

Also, the co-moving sphere system won't really give us the overall global temperature--unless the heat content or overall temperature within the sphere is known at a given moment--but it can give the day-to-day trend if the heat flux measurements are high res and accurate enough.

[Tiggy]

I've reconsidered somewhat. Of course you need good data as well as a good model. One may have a great model of how air conditioners affect the temperature, but if nobody keeps records of when they are on and off and how much heat they put in the air, the model may be useless.

The co-moving sphere does not really give us the temperature--unless the heat content or overall temperature within the sphere is known at a given moment--but it can give the day-to-day trend if the heat flux measurements are high res and accurate enough.

Consider also that the data from all the different ground sensor stations has been broken out by class, and the class5 sensors (near heat sources) show the same warming trend line as the class 1 / class2 sensors (good location, no close heat source, no correction needed)

That's the data Morton keeps omitting and doesn't want you to see.

Remember, anyone who purposefully omits contradictory data is simply not to be trusted on anything.

- T

[grmorton]

I've reconsidered somewhat. Of course you need good data as well as a good model. One may have a great model of how air conditioners affect the temperature, but if nobody keeps records of when they are on and off and how much heat they put in the air, the model may be useless.

That is precisely the problem. One needs both. For some reason we as a society have decided that computers are the great oracle of modern life. Observation isn't important. When I was in Tibet, I went and saw what they told me was basically the oracle of Tibet see below. People would take their problems and the oracle would give them answers. I can't remember the details if someone was speaking from behind this or not but answers were delivered.

The Greeks and Romans consulted entrails. Today we do this with computers. We want to know the future? Well let's consult a computer model. The fact that they give inconsistent answers doesn't seem to bother us any more that inconsistent answers bothers the Tibetans or Croessus, the ancient Greek King who was told if he went to war a great empire would fall. (see below). But for everything, important we too go to our priest--the computer model.

Also, the co-moving sphere system won't really give us the overall global temperature--unless the heat content or overall temperature within the sphere is known at a given moment--but it can give the day-to-day trend if the heat flux measurements are high res and accurate enough.

Yeah, so long as no one monkeys with the observed trends. Once that starts happening, we are merely making it up.

[Augustine2004]

Viewing this movie
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/video/vid...s/?videoID=196 (Quicktime can play the movie)
and reading the commentary (click above), a thought struck me. Does the movie not show the importance of the heliosphere and the heliosheath? Without those critters, the interstellar medium would affect Earth’s atmosphere more directly and more strongly as the sun plows through the medium. This observation in turn points to the possible importance of the solar wind and the solar magnetic field.

In the past, people pooh-poohed the role of the sun in the global climate. ‘Too constant to be a factor,’ they said. But does not history including paleohistory show a correlation between the sunspots and the climate? Effects of the sun including the solar wind and the solar magnetic field should be understood, yet afik the many climate models assume a constant sun.

Also, as the sun moves through the medium, the heliosphere environment may vary. We don’t know how it did in the past and we may never have a good idea for a long time. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that the climate models keep failing to ‘postdict’ our data, unless we guess how the heliosphere environment varied in the past.

[grmorton]

Viewing this movie
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/video/vid...s/?videoID=196 (Quicktime can play the movie)
and reading the commentary (click above), a thought struck me. Does the movie not show the importance of the heliosphere and the heliosheath? Without those critters, the interstellar medium would affect Earth’s atmosphere more directly and more strongly as the sun plows through the medium. This observation in turn points to the possible importance of the solar wind and the solar magnetic field.

In the past, people pooh-poohed the role of the sun in the global climate. ‘Too constant to be a factor,’ they said. But does not history including paleohistory show a correlation between the sunspots and the climate? Effects of the sun including the solar wind and the solar magnetic field should be understood, yet afik the many climate models assume a constant sun.

Also, as the sun moves through the medium, the heliosphere environment may vary. We don’t know how it did in the past and we may never have a good idea for a long time. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that the climate models keep failing to ‘postdict’ our data, unless we guess how the heliosphere environment varied in the past.

That is a good point. Many think that the sun-earth temperature connection is clouds. We don't have good cloud observations at small scales and many think that when the sun goes spotless and the suns magnetic field retreats from around the earth allowing cosmic rays to increase, clouds increase. This in turn reflects light and cools the earth. We don't know if that is true but it sounds plausible.


I thought I would make a comment about the role of the western press in climategate. I have been looking at hits on climate gate on google news, searching under various keywords. The US press has been very reluctant to discuss climate gate--being that most of them are politcal partisans, IMO.

The NY Times is once again more than a week late on big news. They finally have an article on it.

It says some interesting things:

Andrew C. Revkin, "Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research " NY Times Nov 27,2009

“This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails,” said Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology.

She and other scientists are seeking more transparency in the way climate data is handled and in the methods used to analyze it. And they argue that scientists should re-evaluate the selection procedures used by some scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the panel that in 2007 concluded that humans were the dominant force driving warming and whose findings underpin international discussions over a new climate treaty.

© source where applicable

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/sc...ml?ref=science



Now, I might point out that this reporter Revkin is no mere reporter. He is a partisan which explains probably why the NY Times is so slow in reporting on this issue. Revkin is the guy who basically silenced a valid question addressed to Gore about polar bears.

See this transcript

The American press is not much better than the Chinese press at being objective and reporting what happens. They are lap dogs of the political establishment.

[Tiggy]

I thought I would make a comment about the role of the western press in climategate. I have been looking at hits on climate gate on google news, searching under various keywords. The US press has been very reluctant to discuss climate gate--being that most of them are politcal partisans, IMO.

Or maybe they're professional enough to not go repeating political propaganda and unsubstantiated accusations made by a bunch of ultra right wing anti-science con men.

- T

[Augustine2004]

Let’s perform the thought experiment of moving all ground stations upward say 1,000 meters. What adjustments to the data should be made then? None at all with a good model of the atmosphere. No measurements for the bereft (lower) 1,000 meters part is a bad idea, but the model ought to be able to work more or less without them, as long as one keeps track of where the stations were and are, and takes the locations into account.

I don't like the process of data adjustment, especially if some of the old data may be bad anyway. I care less about where the stations were and are, than how good the data plus good metadata we have from the network is.

Really all we need to do is to determine the trend from 1998. So far it's down, right, Tiggy?

[Tiggy]

Really all we need to do is to determine the trend from 1998. So far it's down, right, Tiggy?

No, we need a much larger sample size to determine long term trends. And no, the mean global temperature compared to the averaged mean has risen since 1998.

We went over all this before with MrManNo1here here and here, remember?

- T

[Bill the Cat]

What are you using for the "average mean temperature"? What should a "normal temperature" be for use in comparison to other years? Has the earth ever had a stable climate, or does it naturally go up and down over time?

[Tiggy]

What are you using for the "average mean temperature"? What should a "normal temperature" be for use in comparison to other years? Has the earth ever had a stable climate, or does it naturally go up and down over time?

The standard base period used by NASA-GISS for their anomalies maps is the average from 1951-1980, but in their map generating tool you can set any base period you want.

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Global Maps from GHCN Data

The Trends maps do not use the base period variables. All the variables are explained on the map generation page above. Both Anomalies and Trend maps from 1998-2008 show overall warming.

Earth's climate has certainly varied widely in the past, but never so rapidly as in the last 50+ years due in part to human causes, and never when there were almost 7 billion people here who are being affected.

- T

[Augustine2004]

Tiggy, the map you obtained is a projection that gives more map area to an area near either pole than to a same-size area near the equator. I have no idea how the global ‘average’ was obtained, but you certainly can’t get a ‘feel’ for that from just eyeballing the map.

I instead obtained polar-view maps (I think?) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...s=1200&pol=pol

Unfortunately, more than 1/3 of the maps are gray (‘no data’). There’s a note saying that a bug changed some particular areas to gray, but I have to assume no data.

Averages of averages can be rather misleading, but I’m still trying to figure out if anything is wrong with the way the overall temperature is obtained. I’m not sure you can get a feel from eyeballing the maps, especially with so much gray.