Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[oxmixmudd]

Sure it is flagged questionable. It is still a measurement. But why is it flagged questionable? Because it violates their expectations, not because they know what they did wrong during the measurement. I point this out to simply note that when expectations of what one should measure become the measure of what should be ignored, one has left science and gone into religion. One dare not make one's expectations become what data one will accept.

The data itself gives one example - bad atmospheric conditions - but it does not give an exhaustive list. I get the impression that they have criteria for what conditions and sample parameters are required to generate trustworthy data, and that 'questionable data' is data for which they know there was an issue with how the measurement was taken or the state of the sample itself. It's not just the out of range data that is flagged as questionable. Some data, a good bit of the data actually, that is flagged 'questionable' but is in line with the expected results. That is why I think the criteria for 'questionable' is not 'something other than what we like'. However, it does make sense that obvious wild points would be excluded, for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post.

Below is the picture of Christmas Island. Note that the 'bad values' come along in clusters. They are NOT randomly distributed.

This would be consistent with needing certain atmospheric conditions to be good results.

Also, what is one to do with 1990.66667? Both flasks measure the same BAD value? Why should that be thrown out Jim--mere expectations?

Well, if these folks are all involved in a vast conspiracy to fool the public, I suppose so. But anyone involved in science knows that such a criteira is a bad idea - not science. And I don't believe in vast conspiracies involving independent groups of people, and unless there is some kind of ideological screening program all over the world to make sure the folks taking and recording these data samples are willing to risk destroying their potential careers in science by falsifying large amounts of raw data, my guess is that the criteria for marking data 'questionable' is more objective than that. Again, they give an example in the data set, and a good bit of teh SPO data has comments beside the questionable data that I assume explains at least partially why the data is marked as questionable.

I am, or course, curious to see the magic decoder ring for those comments ...

1990.654472 has two flasks showing different values, but both are far from the average and both are high values. Indeed, every asterisked measurement in the list below is more than 2 sd away from the 1990 2nd half average. Those with additional arrows are more than 3 sd away. yet they were repeatable on day 1990.666667

Reality 1. Their measurements include very different values. Some of those 'bad' values come in clusters and recur during several successive measurements. When you look at the numbers below, remember that the 1990 averages of measurements were 356 ppm for the first part of the year and 354 for the 2nd half of 1990. Note how far off that mark most these values are.

1990.576423 355.75
1990.576423 368.25
1990.593496 368.27
1990.593496 385.52*
1990.654472 447.61 * <---
1990.654472 375
1990.660163 447.61*<---
1990.660163 354.23
1990.666667 447.63*<--
1990.666667 447.63*<--
1990.672358 377.47*
1990.672358 369.77

Are they ALL bad values?

The wild outliers probably are. But I don't know the measurement method and its sensitivity to environmental issues so I can't provide a justification for that guess.

But again note that many values close to the expected norm are also marked bad. Take for example the following from SPO (South Pole)

SPO 53 5 591117 1200 HR 600309 316.16* 0 103 313.79* 1 1 316.16 (reincl sglt) <-----------------
SPO 56 5 591118 0730 HR 600309 316.16* 0 103 313.79* 1 1 316.16 (reincl sglt) <------------------
SPO 57 5 591125 0900 HR 600309 316.09 0 103 313.71 1 1 316.09
SPO 58 5 591125 0920 HR 600309 316.04 0 103 313.67 1 1 316.04
SPO 59 5 591125 0935 HR 600309 316.12 0 103 313.75 1 1 316.12
SPO 60 5 591125 1000 HR 600309 316.32 0 103 313.94 1 1 316.32
SPO 97 5 600315 1200 HT 610523 378.17* 0 170 370.99* 1 4 378.17
SPO 100 5 600315 1200 HT 610530 317.31* 0 172 314.33* 1 4 317.31 <------------------------
SPO 98 5 600330 1200 HT 610530 317.47* 0 172 314.44* 1 4 317.47 <------------------------
SPO 101 5 600330 1200 HT 610523 386.23* 0 170 378.02* 1 4 386.23
SPO 99 5 600404 1200 HT 610530 317.77* 0 172 314.78* 1 4 317.77 <------------------------
SPO 104 5 600404 1200 HT 610530 318.26* 0 172 315.26* 1 4 318.26 <-----------------------
SPO 102 5 600430 1200 HT 610523 320.03* 0 170 317.08* 1 4 320.03 <-----------------------
SPO 103 5 600430 1200 HT 610530 317.83* 0 172 314.84* 1 4 317.83 <----------------------
SPO 105 5 600519 1200 HT 610530 318.41* 0 172 315.40* 1 4 318.41 <----------------------
SPO 108 5 600519 1200 HT 610519 319.46* 0 169 316.52* 1 4 319.46 <----------------------
SPO 106 5 600601 1200 HT 610519 336.23* 0 169 332.70* 1 4 336.23
SPO 107 5 600601 1200 HT 610519 319.36* 0 169 316.42* 1 4 319.36 <----------------------
SPO 73 5 600615 1200 HT 610517 322.43* 0 167 319.42* 1 4 322.43 <-----------------------
SPO 74 5 600615 1200 HT 610517 326.84* 0 167 323.71* 1 4 326.84
SPO 77 5 600702 1200 HT 610518 334.32* 0 168 330.89* 1 4 334.32
SPO 79 5 600702 1200 HT 610530 327.63* 0 172 324.39* 1 4 327.63
SPO 80 5 600715 1200 HT 610530 335.62* 0 172 331.99* 1 4 335.62
SPO 83 5 600715 1200 HT 610530 325.04* 0 172 321.87* 1 4 325.04

All the values I have marked are close to or in line with expected values, yet they are marked 'questionable'. It makes me think 'questionable' is based on something other that 'expected'. These folks should be sent to work at McDonalds otherwise.

Should these values be thrown out because they don't fit the concept in the mind of the researchers? Is that what science is to become? I fear that is precisely what happens with AGW.

I seriously doubt that is what is going on.

edited to add: Jim, why do you think the AGW crowd only publishes in the press the oh-too-perfect-to-be-believed Keeling Curve from Mauna Loa? Why do you never see in their propaganda, touted as a danger, the data from Christmas Island ? Do you think people might think that the data is far too noisy? They don't publish Christmas Is. or other data sets just like it because they want to give a false sense of accuracy to the public. AGW is politics, not science.

Oh - they publish 'washed' data for the public to be sure. That in itself is not so bad. The public doesn't understand noisy data or statistical smoothing. But what has been a problem in past is the lack of openness about the raw data. But the fact we are having this conversation I hope means that is changing. And I agree with you that something has gone wrong in this process, it has become far too political, far to motivated by ideology. And those motivations are muddying up the science - and have the potential to mask the truth. But that does not mean the science itself is lacking - that is where we as skeptical parties must maintain high standards both in analysis and criticism. Just because the data has been smoothed for public consumption in a politically biased media and funding environment does not, by itself, mean that smoothing was not justifiable scientifically/mathematically.

It certainly makes sense to ask and get answers to what the criteria are for 'questionable'. However, just looking at the data itself, I don't think you can justify the assumption 'questionable' means 'unexpected'.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I do not understand your point.
The AGW is supposedly caused by the rise in CO2.

I think it is GW that is supposedly caused by the rise in CO2. That is the first argument. If you already accept that argument as fact (increasing CO2 => increasing temperature), then noting human beings are the primarily contributor of CO2 in the last 50 years will tend to focus the debate over the 'A' in AGW on the last 50 years of CO2 data.

Just having a rise in CO2 is not significant in itself.

I think that part of the argument is viewed by most as sort of like arguing that the world might be 6000 years old. That view may not be legitimate in this case, but part of where this breaks down is that almost the entire climatalogical community views rising CO2 correlated with rising temperature as established fact. So unless you are trying to claim the CO2 isn't rising, unless Glenn in this case can show the trend itself is invalidated by the raw data vs. the 'Keeling curve', then he's wasting his time. He'd be better served to try to show the CO2 --> warming link isn't real, if he has solid data to support that conclusion.

If it is not causing global warming, then I can see nothing but good coming from increased CO2 levels.

Well yes, but arguing about noisy data that still all supports the overall trend in rising CO2 is kind of a moot point. The trend is still there. If CO2 doesn't drive temperature, then we should be focussing on why it doesn't drive temperature, not the fact the publically presented data has been smoothed (unless that smoothing somehow alters the real implications of the data).

It is peanuts to begin with and the plants really love what little there is.

Well, see that would be a point worth making if it can be made. If the reality is CO2 does not contribute much in forcing average global temperature higher, then the AGW community focussing on rising CO2 is a red herring. But that is not the point Glenn is making.

What is your point?

sm

My point is and has always been that the fact the keeling curve data is smoothed is inconsequential. The trend is there in the raw data.

Jim

[Augustine2004]

Oxmixy, we have to be careful that the cause is not aCO2 => warming, when it's pretty well established that warming tends to cause a rise in CO2, ya?

[oxmixmudd]

Oxmixy, we have to be careful that the cause is not aCO2 => warming, when it's pretty well established that warming tends to cause a rise in CO2, ya?

Yes. I have no problem with debating the CO2 -> warming dogma. Remember my recent sequence of posts in this thread began simply by asking Glenn how noisy data that agrees with the Keeling curve supports his assertion the keeling curve is somehow flawed data. I don't think there is any indication this raw data would yield any conclusion other than that CO2 is rising. And if the change in co2 level equals or is even relatively close to the known human CO2 input into the environment, then a good case can be made for ACO2R (Anthropogenic CO2 Rise)

So I don't see how fussing about the smoothed nature of the keeling curve helps argue against AGW. The raw data supports the assertion CO2 has risen dramatically in the last 50 years. If the A in AGW is a myth, then we need to show the rise in CO2 is not the direct cause of the warming - as is generally believed. Or we need to show the majority of the rise in not human sourced. We do not need to argue about some wild points in the data that are of no real consequence to the final results. At least, that has been my point.

Jim

[shadowmaster]

I think it is GW that is supposedly caused by the rise in CO2. That is the first argument. If you already accept that argument as fact (increasing CO2 => increasing temperature), then noting human beings are the primarily contributor of CO2 in the last 50 years will tend to focus the debate over the 'A' in AGW on the last 50 years of CO2 data.



I think that part of the argument is viewed by most as sort of like arguing that the world might be 6000 years old. That view may not be legitimate in this case, but part of where this breaks down is that almost the entire climatalogical community views rising CO2 correlated with rising temperature as established fact. So unless you are trying to claim the CO2 isn't rising, unless Glenn in this case can show the trend itself is invalidated by the raw data vs. the 'Keeling curve', then he's wasting his time. He'd be better served to try to show the CO2 --> warming link isn't real, if he has solid data to support that conclusion.



Well yes, but arguing about noisy data that still all supports the overall trend in rising CO2 is kind of a moot point. The trend is still there. If CO2 doesn't drive temperature, then we should be focussing on why it doesn't drive temperature, not the fact the publically presented data has been smoothed (unless that smoothing somehow alters the real implications of the data).



Well, see that would be a point worth making if it can be made. If the reality is CO2 does not contribute much in forcing average global temperature higher, then the AGW community focussing on rising CO2 is a red herring. But that is not the point Glenn is making.




My point is and has always been that the fact the keeling curve data is smoothed is inconsequential. The trend is there in the raw data.

Jim

O.K. I thought you were also defending the notion that CO2 is causing the rise in temperatures during the last 50 years even though the data shows that the same rise in temperature in the 50 previous ones clearly were not.

[Augustine2004]

Yeah, the temperature graph from around 1908 to around 1934 does look like a hockey stick blade. Then we have the graph from around 1958 to present. However, the more recent rise is more pronounced.

[grmorton]

The data itself gives one example - bad atmospheric conditions - but it does not give an exhaustive list.

Would you care to speculate what 'bad atmospheric conditions' would lead to an approximate 33% increase in CO2 in a flask? I can't think of anything. Such an increase due to 'natural fluctuations of concentration" would seem to violate thermodynamics. This is what is so bizarre about these spikes. No one has a real understanding of why suddenly too much CO2 decides to congregate in that dang flask.

I get the impression that they have criteria for what conditions and sample parameters are required to generate trustworthy data, and that 'questionable data' is data for which they know there was an issue with how the measurement was taken or the state of the sample itself.

that is exactly the 'impression' they want you to have. But are you aware that up until 1997 only 4 stations had been studied for which wind direction gave better results?

Daniell E. Haas-Laursen, "Consistent sampling methods for comparing models to CO2 flask data, JGR,1997, p. 19059-19071

Since a ``clean air sector'' has only been determined for four sites, we compute a statistical analysis of the wind direction when samples are collected at 38 NOAA/CMDL CO2 collection sites operational from 1993-1995. We compare this to the wind directions from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) assimilated wind fields for the same 3 year time period. From this analysis, we deduce which of the sites are selecting for wind direction.

© source where applicable

This is scientific mal-practice, just like putting thermometers next to air conditioner exhaust vents. Jim, you wonder why I distrust those guys. Just a question. Until I posted those pictures comparing Mauna Loa with other stations, were you even aware that there were any stations showing bad data? My bet is you weren't.

It's not just the out of range data that is flagged as questionable. Some data, a good bit of the data actually, that is flagged 'questionable' but is in line with the expected results. That is why I think the criteria for 'questionable' is not 'something other than what we like'. However, it does make sense that obvious wild points would be excluded, for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post.

Why? Have you looked at the several thousand measurements of CO2 made by the quite excellent german chemists over the past 200 years? Some times for long times, they measured much higher CO2 contents. See picture below

This would be consistent with needing certain atmospheric conditions to be good results.

Again, please explain precisely what conditions can concentrate CO2. Jim this is the problem without giving a fart of a mechanism to concentrate the CO2, you contend it is quite possible for atmospheric conditions to accomplish this miracle. That is not science, that is hope, a wish, a lick and a promise. If you can't think of a plausible mechanism by which the atmospheric conditions can increase CO2 concentrations by a third or more, then I would suggest that you strongly think about withdrawing your support for such an idea, an idea which I find nonsensical if there is no plausible mechanism.

Well, if these folks are all involved in a vast conspiracy to fool the public, I suppose so. But anyone involved in science knows that such a criteira is a bad idea - not science.

Jim you entirely missed my point about the two samples on the same day showing much higher concentrations. I didn't say they were in a conspiracy about them. If that is what they measured, then it should be reported. But one can't then, like you are doing, claim that they are outliers and must be thrown out so we can get back down to where we (a priori) know the CO2 level to be. My point is that on that day, they VERIFIED a higher CO2 level. Yet, Mauna Loa NEVER has a bad CO2 day. ALL other stations show bad data EXCEPT Mauna Loa.

I am, or course, curious to see the magic decoder ring for those comments ...

I would be happy if you would merely question your own belief that atmospheric conditions could explain the high values. I know you didn't start that suggestion, buy you are believing them even though they give you no mechanism nor reason to believe that such a thing is possible.

I seriously doubt that is what is going on.

You missed that my questions were rhetorical in nature, implicitly expecting a 'no', that they shouldn't be thrown out.

Oh - they publish 'washed' data for the public to be sure. That in itself is not so bad. The public doesn't understand noisy data or statistical smoothing. But what has been a problem in past is the lack of openness about the raw data.

Sorry, Jim, but it is bad. It is dishonest and arrogant to think that we must give the public, who funds them, white-washed data so that they can understand what the scientist (who will next week ask for more funding from that gullible public) wants them to understand, not necessarily what they NEED to understand. If scientists justify whitewashing data in order to get the public to fund them, that would be called fraud if I did it in an investment situation in the oil industry. I would go to jail--quite literally.

But the fact we are having this conversation I hope means that is changing. And I agree with you that something has gone wrong in this process, it has become far too political, far to motivated by ideology. And those motivations are muddying up the science - and have the potential to mask the truth. But that does not mean the science itself is lacking - that is where we as skeptical parties must maintain high standards both in analysis and criticism. Just because the data has been smoothed for public consumption in a politically biased media and funding environment does not, by itself, mean that smoothing was not justifiable scientifically/mathematically.

We agree here. Look at the current political situation. Everyone knows there is pressure on Washington to cut spending. Scientists who live off the back of the workers, bleeding them of their earnings so they can get better pensions than those stupid workers who must be fed whitewashed data, know good and well that they need to keep the funding ball rolling. What do you think that does to their motivation? If they come out and say, "Gee, there really isn't a problem" do you think they well get congress to fund them? This whole government funding of science destroys free thought, destroys honesty and makes everyone march in lockstep. Not marching in lockstep threatens the funding.

Ever notice how right before funding time, NASA finds something 'interesting about life in the universe?

It certainly makes sense to ask and get answers to what the criteria are for 'questionable'. However, just looking at the data itself, I don't think you can justify the assumption 'questionable' means 'unexpected'.


Jim

There are of course various reasons for 'questionable' Some might be because the guy flubbed the measurement and really knows it but doesn't want to admit it (fraud in science is far more prevelent than scientists want to admit and no one wants to release their raw data to the public which also makes one wonder how secure are the conclusions presented to us, the unwashed funders of this game). Other reasons for the questionable status are quite likely that they are way too high. The word is 'outlier' But outlier is based upon the mental expectation of the researcher.

[grmorton]

Yes. I have no problem with debating the CO2 -> warming dogma. Remember my recent sequence of posts in this thread began simply by asking Glenn how noisy data that agrees with the Keeling curve supports his assertion the keeling curve is somehow flawed data.

It is too perfect. That is the flaw. No other station can duplicate their perfection which tells me that the Keeling group is doing something that is not kosher

[grmorton]

O.K. I thought you were also defending the notion that CO2 is causing the rise in temperatures during the last 50 years even though the data shows that the same rise in temperature in the 50 previous ones clearly were not.

SM, the curve of CO2 you posted is from glacier data, not actual atmospheric measurement. Note how smooth it is. Not so the actual measurements taken from 1812-2000. The AGW crowd is ignoring actual atmospheric measurements. No doubt they will say it isn't good, but isn't that what one says about any data one wishes to ignore?

[Augustine2004]

Glenn said thousands of CO2 measurements were made by those Germans over a timespan of 96 years. That's about 4 per month, like once per week. There's no reason to doubt that the Germans were honest and competent. They had to know people would check their work. So, we have to accept this astounding yearly variability of 30% or so (especially in 1932 or 1933). Volcano? Shift of wind patterns? The ice core data from Antarctica matches fairly well with Maunu Loa data, though, so I suspect some mechanism is at play on or near the ground. I don't know what the Mauna Loa instruments measure. They are on a snowy mountain that is essentially ocean-girt.

[grmorton]

SM, and Jim, Attached is a continuous series of CO2 measurements taken by the Germans in WWII. Note that the level is much higher than modern expectations would say it should be. The estimated error bars on the method are 3%, which won't get the curve back to 300 ppm.


For Jim, Why I don't trust government science. In the case below, they kept the forecast quiet because it contradicts their general cheer-leading for global warming. 1. they aren't open and transparent 2. they are subject to political pressure, 3. almost nothing the government does is done well

Steven Swinford The Telegraph 6:00AM GMT 04 Jan 2011

In October the forecaster privately warned the Government - with whom it has a contract - that Britain was likely to face an extremely cold winter.
It kept the prediction secret, however, after facing severe criticism over the accuracy of its long-term forecasts.
The Met Office eventually issued a public warning about the early onset of winter a month later, just days before snow and ice covered much of Britain and temperatures plummeted to the lowest on record

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...om-public.html

© source where applicable

[grmorton]

Glenn said thousands of CO2 measurements were made by those Germans over a timespan of 96 years. That's about 4 per month, like once per week. There's no reason to doubt that the Germans were honest and competent. They had to know people would check their work. So, we have to accept this astounding yearly variability of 30% or so (especially in 1932 or 1933). Volcano? Shift of wind patterns? The ice core data from Antarctica matches fairly well with Maunu Loa data, though, so I suspect some mechanism is at play on or near the ground. I don't know what the Mauna Loa instruments measure. They are on a snowy mountain that is essentially ocean-girt.

if you look closely at that picture Aug, you will see that the older data also merges into the Mauna Loa data. The dots are the glacial data but one must be careful of that. Glacial ice is anything BUT a closed system. This starts with algae in the near subsurface of ice. There is all sorts of biological activity in glacial ice so the bubbles are not pristine as many claim. Below is a picture from my blog, one taken of algae in Antarctica. I took the picture when I was in Antarctica. The brown is algae, and it is altering the chemistry of the air as the snow is buried.

This activity continues deeper.

Robin E. Bell " Lake Vostok: Background Information" in Robin E. Bell, David M. Karl," LAKE VOSTOK WORKSHOP" National Science Foundation, Washington D.C. November 7 & 8, 1998, p. 11

"Finally, in terms of understanding microbes within the lake, the overlying Vostok ice core contains a diverse range of microbes including algae, diatoms, bacteria, fungi, yeasts and actiomycetes (Ellis-Evans and Wynn-Williams, 1996). These organisms have been demonstrated to be viable to depths as deep as 2400 m (Abyzov, 1993). "

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/vostok/Report.pdf

© source where applicable

Course the AGW crowd white washes this information as well and I bet not one in a hundred people know of this bacteriological activity in the supposedly pristine air bubbles. For Jim: I bet you never heard of this activity when the AGW crowd talks about glacial bubbles. This is why it is dishonest of them to sanitize the data for the public. The public CAN understand bacteria and algae.



For more info see http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2...-core-co2.html

Edited to add: Remember what photosynthetic algae does--it lives off of CO2 and will thus LOWER the CO2 content of the near subsurface in the ice.

[Augustine2004]

Ah, so perhaps the glacial microflora is responsible for smoothing out the data, at least in part. Indeed, there is a seasonal variation. Hawaii is some distance north of the equator.

The German graph must be different from the first one. There's an astounding variation of about 62% in late May 1940 to late July.

[grmorton]

Ah, so perhaps the glacial microflora is responsible for smoothing out the data, at least in part. Indeed, there is a seasonal variation. Hawaii is some distance north of the equator.

The German graph must be different from the first one. There's an astounding variation of about 62% in late May 1940 to late July.

The thing about this is that the data which disagrees with the IPCC crowd is not explained away, i.e. an explanation given for why it is all rubbish. It simply is ignored, not mentioned and the IPCC crowd goes on to implicitly act as if no one every measured atmospheric CO2 prior to when Keeling, peace be upon him,suddenly received enlightenment and started measuring CO2. Today, any value that looks like what the Germans measured is said to be an outlier and is never shown to the public. The data is always sanitized before being shown to the tax-payers who fund these scientific fundamentalists.

This data that the AGW crowd ignores was also published in the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/d...GnewsNov06.pdf

and in the peer-reviewed journal Energy and the Environment Volume 18, Number 2 / March 2007

A cached html copy of the article can be found at http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cach...10000000000000


Ralph Keeling, C.D. Keeling's devoted son who now runs the lab his father ran, tried to defend his beloved father.

Comment on "180 Years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods by"
by Ernst-Georg Beck,
Energy and Environment, Vol. 18(2), 259-282, 2007.

The modern era of CO2 measurements effectively began with work by C. D. Keeling, while he was a postdoc at the California Institute of Technology in the mid 1950's. Here he developed a novel CO2 measuring method based on liquid-nitrogen extraction and applied this to analyze samples along the west coast of North America. Summarizing this work, which predated his landmark measurements at Mauna Loa, he writes (2):

"Measurements of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide extend over a period of more than a hundred years. It is characteristic of all the published data that the concentration is not constant even for locations well removed from local sources or acceptors of carbon dioxide. Recent extensive measurements over Scandinavia, reported currently in Tellus, emphasize this variability: observations vary from 280 to 380 parts per million of air. These measurements are in sharp contrast to those obtained in the present study...."


http://www.biomind.de/treibhaus/180C...-Keeling-2.doc

© source where applicable

Note that Keeling is defending the smoothness of his father's curve. It is quite interesting that everyone except the Keeling father-son pair seem to have problems with wild variations of CO2. Christmas Island, the South Pole, Tellus in Scandinavia and all the other stations have wild spikes of CO2. But not the Keelings. One clearly must wonder why they are soooooooo good at their work that in 50 years they have had nary one day that the equipment didn't measure it correctly as happens often to all the other researchers.

One of the reasons people who fake their tax returns can be caught, is that they violate the rule that most numbers, if you examine them on a digit by digit probability, are to be found in the lower (0-4) half rather than in the 5-9 range. No one knows why but if your tax return violates this rule, it is probably faked. I forget the name of this law. It is bizarre. Smooth statistics are a sign of manufactured data. Keeling is far far too smooth. No one else can match their smoothness.


Nothing like defending dear old dad.

[Challenger Grim]

LOVE Briggs' post today:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3354

Nobody doubts that humans influence the climate, but there is a wide range of beliefs about how much. It is important to keep separate three things, which in this politically charged atmosphere even climatologists sometimes forget to do We have uncertainty in:
(1) the magnitude, timing, and location of changes;
(2) the changes to systems caused by climate change;
(3) and our ability to mitigate unwanted systems changes and to exploit desirable systems changes.