backtop


Print 119 comment(s) - last by Andy35W.. on Nov 27 at 6:30 AM


GISS's October Data. The large reddish-brown area in Russia is actually September readings.
Amateur team finds NASA error similar to one they discovered a year ago.

NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is one of the world's primary sources for climate data. GISS issues regular updates on world temperatures based on their analysis of temperature readings from thousands of monitoring stations over the globe.

GISS’ most recent data release originally reported last October as being extraordinarily warm-- a full 0.78C above normal. This would have made it the warmest October on record; a huge increase over the previous month's data.

Those results set off alarm bells with Steve McIntyre and his gang of Baker Street irregulars at Climateaudit.org. They noted that NASA's data didn't agree at all with the satellite temperature record, which showed October to be very mild, continuing the same trend of slight cooling that has persisted since 1998. So they dug a little deeper.

McIntyre, the same man who found errors last year in GISS's US temperature record, quickly noted that most of the temperature increase was coming from Russia. A chart of world temperatures showed that in October, most of Russia, the largest nation on Earth, was not only registering hot, but literally off the scale. Yet anecdotal reports were suggesting that worldwide, October was actually slightly colder than normal. Could there be another error in GISS's data?

An alert reader on McIntyre's blog revealed that there was a very large problem. Looking at the actual readings from individual stations in Russia showed a curious anomaly. The locations had all been assigned the exact temperatures from a month earlier-- the much warmer month of September. Russia cools very rapidly in the fall months, so recycling the data from the earlier month had led to a massive temperature increase.

A few locations in Ireland were also found to be using September data.

Steve McIntyre informed GISS of the error by email. According to McIntyre, there was no response, but within "about an hour", GISS pulled down the erroneous data, citing a "mishap" and pointing the finger of blame upstream to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration (NOAA).

NOAA's Deputy Director of Communications, Scott Smullens, tells DailyTech that NOAA is responsible only for temperature readings in the US, not those in other nations.

The error not only affected October data, but due to the complex algorithm GISS uses to convert actual temperature readings into their output results, altered the previously published values for several other months as well. The values for August 2008, for instance, changed by 0.11C and the global anomaly as far back as 2005 increased by a hundredth of a degree.

GISS is run by Dr. James Hansen, a strident global warming advocate who has accused oil companies of "crimes against humanity".  Hansen recently made headlines when he travelled to London to testify on behalf of a group of environmentalists who had damaged a coal plant in protest against global warming. Hansen also serves as science advisor to Al Gore.

Dr. Hansen could not be reached for comment.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By PitViper007 on 11/11/2008 4:11:57 PM , Rating: 5
I bet Dr. Hansen was so ecstatic about the October readings that he didn't even bother to verify them or have them verified. This is the problem that I see with the proponents of AGW, they believe in it so ardently, that nothing else matters, much less facts. There's a term for belief that strong. Know what it is? RELIGION!

By the way Michael, I think there is an error in your story.
quote:
A few locations in Ireland were also found to be using October data.

Shouldn't that be September data? Anyway, great post.




By masher2 (blog) on 11/11/2008 4:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "Shouldn't that be September data? "

Corrected; thanks for the heads up.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By slash196 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By AWeav09 on 11/11/2008 9:23:29 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, Michael Crichton held quite the opposite stance on global warming...


By jgvandemeer on 11/12/2008 11:40:42 AM , Rating: 2
I could be wrong, but I think that was his point.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By lucasb on 11/11/2008 4:56:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There's a term for belief that strong. Know what it is? RELIGION!

Some intellectually challenged people claim that adherence to the scientific method is a sort of religion.
Also, some people are quick to claim partisanship when the facts and mainstream opinion doesn't agree with their beliefs.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By porkpie on 11/11/2008 5:08:06 PM , Rating: 5
Michael Crichton has words of wisdom on the topic of "mainstream opinion".
quote:
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics....

Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 5:38:59 PM , Rating: 3
Um, I think you mean had words of wisdom. I mean, come on, are we supposed to pay attention to a guy who couldn't even stay alive?

Enough irreverence about death. Of course consensus is what you have before something becomes more or less universally accepted. E=mc2 was only a consensus for a while. There were plenty of theoretical physicists who didn't think it was the way the world worked at first. But the evidence piled up, and they eventually had to accept it. Einstein himself was against quantum physics when it was just a consensus viewpoint. He eventually came around, but not before spending a good while as a naysayer and discovering weird quirks about the theory in an attempt to disprove it.

In the same vein, to all those global warming naysayers, I say bravo! Good work spotting errors in data, calculation, modeling, etc. You help to improve the science.

Of course, the ether model of physics was a consensus model for a good while, too. Until eventually the evidence was sufficient to refute it. Only time will tell which type of theory GW, and especially AGW, is.

As for consensus being the business of politics, you're absolutely right. But in the world of advanced science, there's only so much money to be had to advance human knowledge. At some point, decisions have to be made, and those decisions are about what the most fruitful uses of research moneys are. They are, at their heart, political decisions based on pragmatics and values.

On a total tangent, don't the consensus of scientists agree that many dinosaurs had feathers, and especially the compy's in Jurassic Park? I can't remember in the book if the dinosaurs were feathered. They certainly weren't in the movie.


By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 5:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I should have previewed that - noticed the missed closing element


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By MattCoz on 11/11/2008 11:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Feathered dinosaurs is a more recently accepted idea, which is why proto-feathers were added to the design of the raptors in JPIII. This was Jack Horner's influence though, not Michael's, so I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, heh.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By mmntech on 11/11/2008 10:51:32 PM , Rating: 5
The man was a genius. Basic scientific method clearly states that consensus can never exist in the scientific community. That's what they teach you in first year university science courses. It's a scam. Say the sky is falling and governments become more than willing to hand out fat research grants.

It also appears that the IPCC is loosing the propaganda battle. The Register had a thing on global warming a couple of weeks ago. They cited an Ipsos poll that said that 60% of Britons don't think global warming is man made. A number which has been increasing. I think the UK has been hit the hardest economically by AGW hysteria. Parliament (not just Labour) has been carbon taxing them to death. With the most recent climate bill, which would severely hurt British shipping and global trade, there were only five dissenters. They're certainly not reflecting public opinion. The only consensus that exists on AGW is a consensus of elitists. (I define elitists as people with a paternalistic, "holier than thou" attitude. In other words, "only I know what's best for you".)


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2008 8:23:38 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
"only I know what's best for you, but what I say doesn't apply to me".


Fixed it.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By The0ne on 11/12/2008 11:05:07 AM , Rating: 2
ahuh. I really hate it when government funds a company. It just wreaks of deception.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By dever on 11/12/2008 4:47:18 PM , Rating: 3
...like schools?


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By BBeltrami on 11/12/2008 6:43:48 PM , Rating: 4
...or the entire banking industry?


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Ringold on 11/11/2008 5:20:53 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Some intellectually challenged people claim that adherence to the scientific method is a sort of religion.


Who attacked the scientific method? I'd say it was GISS themselves who have failed to do their job as scientists. They pulled in outrageous data and instead of verifying it, they pushed it out the door until someone called them on their shoddy work. Peer review by blogs ftw, though.

The attacks are more directed at the arrogance that would allow GISS to publish crazy data and the self-assured way that they conduct themselves; they're so certain that they are right about their theory and predictions that they are beyond reproach, and everyone who apparently calls them on it is "intellectually challenged?"


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By lucasb on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By porkpie on 11/11/2008 5:55:12 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Curently, there's no better theory than AGW and there's no mounting evidence against it.
You mean, other than the fact that the earth has been cooling the past 10 years?


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 6:12:20 PM , Rating: 4
That's a little disingenuous. The Earth is cooler than it was in 1998. But that doesn't mean the Earth has been getting cooler for the past 10 years. Temperatures cooled between 1998 and 2002. They plateaued in '02, and have been pretty much constant since then. What is more, some models predict that temperatures will stay cooler for the next decade or so due to natural cooling phenomena, and then bounce back up due to the combined effects of natural warming and human activities.

Still, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Global warming or no global warming, I think we should be taking the same steps to reduce our impact on the environment. To reasonable levels - I'm not suggesting we all run into the woods and wear ferns.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By wookie1 on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
By foolsgambit11 on 11/12/2008 7:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny. I actually do have a windmill and a 65W solar panel, plus I eat bugs (lobster - they count right?). But none of it is to reduce my 'carbon footprint.' I live on a boat at anchor. It would cost too much to live at a dock where I could be hooked up to the grid, so I make do with alternative energy sources. But these are just my lifestyle choices, for my reasons. That doesn't necessarily invalidate your basic point.

But what about this argument: it's called democracy.

We put things to a vote, and the majority gets to set the agenda, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of the minority opinion. And the last time I checked, there wasn't anything in the Constitution about the basic human right of cheap electricity. Not even in the penumbras and emanations. So you may not have a choice but to spend more money to maintain the same carbon footprint you have.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Yawgm0th on 11/11/2008 10:32:36 PM , Rating: 5
Give this man a 6 for taking a reasonable standpoint -- rather than working toward the extreme of his preference.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By ikkeman2 on 11/12/2008 2:26:44 AM , Rating: 5
just a small point - the origin of the predicted global heat-up in many models is the in-build assumption that hte earth will heat up.
Just like in this article, where errors in the october 2008 data has an effect back to 2005. global climate models are very much like the stock market. Based on assumptions that can't be proven, fed with data manipulated to fit the assumptions and financed by poeple with a vested interest in the outcome.

I do not say they are wrong - but their validity is very hard, if not impossible do verify.
Also, there is nothing wrong with taking resposibility for your impact on anything. There is something wrong with trying to force or fake others to your way of thinking.


By foolsgambit11 on 11/12/2008 7:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
I don't need to fake anybody into my way of thinking. I don't need to force them into my way of thinking. Eventually, the government will probably force them into certain actions. Actions with both environmental and economic impacts. Actions that I freely admit I don't currently practice.

As for the models, yes, there are lots of models out there that predict lots of different outcomes predicated on the same data but lots of different assumptions about the effects of different climatological phenomena. Which points out that there is no consensus among climatologists about the exact extent of global warming. The exact forcing that CO2 exerts isn't clear, even.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2008 8:28:40 AM , Rating: 5
If by "reducing your environmental impact" you mean driving a hybrid, not eating meat, switching to 100% solar and wind, buy carbon offset, etc. then no.

If you mean try to recycle, use more energy efficient appliances, try to carpool, buy a sedan instead of a Suburban, etc. then ok. But I should have the choice. And I shouldn't be punished for choosing the choice you don't agree with.


By jgvandemeer on 11/12/2008 11:43:17 AM , Rating: 3
The problem is that the false god of Global Warming distracts us from what's really important: reducing pollution. Now there are a lot of people driving diesels which a) reduce CO2, but b) increase particulate pollution. They've been told they're "saving the planet" but really they're just making it dirtier.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By lucasb on 11/11/2008 6:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean, other than the fact that the earth has been cooling the past 10 years?

Even supposing that this is completely right (it is partially accurate), where is the pile of evidence against AGW? Is there a new and improved theory which explains better the behaviour changes in climate and fits better in the body of evidence?


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By masher2 (blog) on 11/11/2008 6:52:44 PM , Rating: 4
> "where is the pile of evidence against AGW? "

A. Substantial research indicating our current warming trend began well before man began generating significant levels of CO2.
B. Research indicating the climate sensitivity of CO2 has been overstated by at least a factor of 3.
C. Zero statistically-significant warming of the Earth since 1995 (and a slight cooling trend since 2002).
D. Inability of models to explain any of the known past climate shifts, some of which were more rapid and severe than the warming we're experiencing today.
E. Basic AGW theory predicts a vertical structure to warming most prevalent in the troposphere (about 1.3X surface warming). Yet satellite data demonstrates the troposphere is actually warming slightly less than the surface.
F. The paleoclimatic record, which clearly demonstrates the Earth's climate system is governed by negative feedbacks. Were the positive feedbacks postulated by CAGW modelers truly in existence, the Earth would have long ago experienced runaway warming.
G. The inability of current models to properly account for clouds, the full hydrologic cycle, or other factors with forcing effects substantially greater than CO2's forcing.
H. The cooling of Antarctica, whereas original models predict polar amplification of warming. (and yes, while some *current* models do predict Antarctic cooling, that is due to adjustments made after the warming trend was already determined experimentally, i.e. it is essentially a fudge factor, not a prediction)

There are several other problems, but the above is a few of the more serious objections.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By wookie1 on 11/11/2008 9:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that solar activity is mostly ignored in the models. They focus on irradiance and that it doesn't change large amounts but don't want us to think about other solar activity that could affect cloud formation, ozone hole size, etc.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By kbehrens on 11/11/2008 10:09:28 PM , Rating: 5
Nice list! I guess we understand now why Al Gore is still burning 100X as much energy as the rest of us. He didn't really believe his own stories either.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By dever on 11/12/2008 4:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
Wow! Is the EPA actually admitting the heat island effect skews readings?

While I wouldn't believe anything on a government site, I'm surprised there's a wee bit of temperance to the usual fear mongering done by those who stand to profit the most.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 5:59:16 PM , Rating: 4
You said it.

Look at economics, a set of theories that doesn't get it right all of the time, and never has very accurate data. But they still do a pretty good job in normal conditions. They also have to go back and revise their initial numbers after they've been published. They do it every time, so it doesn't make news. But those jobs numbers for October, or the consumer spending numbers, or manufacturing, or imports/exports, or any set of numbers they've compiled will be adjusted in the coming couple of months. Because collecting huge amounts of data is a difficult and error-prone process in any field.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Ringold on 11/11/2008 9:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite what I was getting at, but you're close. Lets say you're working with an equation, and you plug in numbers. You should have a vague idea of what should pop out, right? For example, if you're trying to model household income, and out pops a value of a trillion dollars, or even 200k, you know something has been screwed up. For all of Russia, temperatures spiked huge versus what they should've been for October, a similar red flag.

Difference is, when I do my own work and get silly results, I painstakingly double check every step. GISS, apparently, says "Yay, it got warmer! PUBLISH!" As for economic data in general, do you ever see wildly incorrect data get published in the US only to later suffer massive revision? Not really. You cite the job numbers for October, but it was September that got a sizable revision in the Oct jobs report. The revision was still in the same ball park however, and not even entirely unexpected. Russia showing up as a giant fireball in that picture in the article? A little unexpected, I'd say.

Maybe they're not entirely to blame, but I'm a little surprised at their incompetence in not catching it immediately, unless they're so under staffed that they automatically kick out data and charts with very little human interaction beforehand.


By foolsgambit11 on 11/12/2008 8:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I was referring to the fact that when the November numbers come out, they'll also revise October. Because they revise the numbers every time.

But you're absolutely right, they should have been curious when they got such a striking anomaly.

UPDATE: They released the October data again. See

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap....

Notice, there's still a big heating area over Russia. I don't know what that's about, but the anomaly number has come down. It's at .65 instead of, what was it, .78? Something like that. It looks like parts of Russia are slightly cooler than the previous map displayed at the top of this article, but most of it is still pretty hot, versus the average for October.


By sigilscience on 11/11/2008 6:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can find pollution in almost any dataset.
I think the point is that THIS pollution was incredibly blatant and easy to find. Russia heating up 10C (that's almost 20 degrees Fahrenheit) in a single month? And these "experts" didn't catch it? What other problems are they missing?

You can bet if the data had suddenly showed a massive cooling, they would have caught it. But when you want to believe, you're willing to let a lot of things slide.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/12/2008 12:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
The term is actually "rational constructionism," or arguing from one's conclusions. This is very common in religion and politics. A person embraces a conclusion for whatever reason, and then only finds evidence that supports their position, and shows why evidence that does not support their position is wrong. Even the best scientists engage in this logical fallacy sometimes. And the funny thing is, these people think they are engaging in scientific discussion.

However, since this was pointed out to the creationism crowd, they thus started accusing scientists of having an agenda, or reasoning from a conclusion as well. I think they hope that by engaging in this ad hominem fallacy, they hope to put themselves on equal footing with the scientists - its okay that we have an agenda now that we have accused you of having one as well. Ever heard of the atheist agenda? Ever hear of a global warming agenda? An anti-global warming agenda? Whenever someone accuses you of having an agenda, it is more than likely because they have one.

Well, the fact is, that if the science is peer-reviewed (and sometimes even that is wrong) we have to give the scientists the benefit of the doubt. Let that peer review process come to the correct scientific conclusions, not a bunch of flamers engaging in ad hominem and rational constructionist fallacies.

Science is done by gathering data, and then creating hypothoses that do two things: explain appearances, and make predictions about the future. If either of those two fail, then the anomoly has to be explained, which sometimes means creating a new hypothesis.

Science is not done anecdotally, as when a friend saw something flying around that he doesn't know what it it was, ergo it was beings from another planet. Likewise, we weren't capable of taking so many temperature readings at any time in the past, and when compared to ancient temperature readings, ours seem to be warmer, therefore the planet is frying.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Denigrate on 11/12/2008 2:15:23 PM , Rating: 1
Atheists are funny little people. They say they do not believe in any higher/lower power, but they go to great lengths to silence any public displays of other poeple's faith. Seems a bit desparate to me.

So, I don't believe in fairies, but I know people who do. Do I tell them they are crazy and that there is no way fairies exist? No, I chuckle to myself and move on. Shouldn't this be the approach of the atheist? Fairie believers insist that fairies exist, and try to convert/convince others that fairies exist, same a those who believe a higher power exists.

No, the atheist would rather trample on everyone else's rights to make themselves feel better.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Surak on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By sigilscience on 11/11/2008 6:24:43 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
releasing 27 BILLION TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere every year might change the atmosphere
That sounds impressive until you find out nature releases 40 times as much as we do, and has been doing it for millions of years.

And before you say something about a "delicate balance", there isn't any. Some times Mama Nature releases a lot more, sometimes a lot less. CO2 levels are constantly going up and down. They've been 20 times higher than they are now before, and the planet didn't suffer any bad effects from it.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Surak on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By masher2 (blog) on 11/11/2008 9:14:17 PM , Rating: 3
> "The atmosphere contains plenty of carbon 14 due to natural nuclear reactions caused by cosmic rays. Plants, soil, etc, and the oceans contain carbon 14 "

Oops-- dissolved CO2 in the ocean does not contain carbon 14, except for small amounts in the epipelagic layer. C14 analysis tells us one thing only, that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is abiotic: a release of stored carbon of some sort, rather than due to biological processes.

But of course, the paleoclimatic record implies that already. When temperatures rise, CO2 levels do as well, as a result of the higher temperature favoring processes which release stored CO2.

> "If CO2 was ever that high, it wasn't last week, it was before multicellular life evolved. "

Eh? CO2 levels in the Devonian were well over 3,000 ppm. That's closer to 10X than the 20X the OP claimed...but it was also the most fertile period the planet has ever known.

The notion that our current, abnormally low level of atmospheric CO2 is somehow "ideal" for life is devoid of all factual basis. In fact, a great deal of recent research indicates the post-industrial increase in CO2 has led to large increases in plant growth, and a corresponding increase in total biomass of the planet.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Surak on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By ikkeman2 on 11/12/2008 3:05:49 AM , Rating: 5
Surak, take a chill pill, suck some O2 and relax!!
You sound like the kind of person that'll burn books and scientists alike if they don't support your point of view. I hope your not...

from wikipedia (go change that if it's wrong)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the...
"Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution, with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[20][21]"

from the same article - atmospheric CO2 is approx 3E15 tonnes, US production is about 2.2E9 tonnes - let the global human production be 10 times that, it is still only 0.000067% of the free carbon in the atmo.

explain to me if you will how our influence increased co2 levels from 320ppm in 1960 to 380ppm now. that's an 8.5% increase as a result of 50 years of 0.000067%. My math may be wron, but doesn't the human contribution to the carbon icrease amount to 50*0.000067%=0.0033%?
global co2 increase is a natural phenomanon to which humans add, maybe to our detriment - but that cannot be proven in any statistical way!


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By masher2 (blog) on 11/12/2008 7:45:28 AM , Rating: 4
> "Dissolved CO2 in the ocean absolutely contains 14C throughout. It isn't isolated from the atmosphere long enough for it all to decay."

Sorry, but you couldn't be further from the truth. The ocean contains many orders of mangnitude more CO2 than the atmosphere; much of it stored for hundreds of thousands of years.

Here's a study that proves this conclusively, based on CO2 "burps" at the end of the last ice age:
quote:
They found the carbon 14 "age" of the upper ocean water was basically constant over the past 40,000 years, except during the interval following the most recent ice age, when atmospheric CO2 increased dramatically. The study shows the carbon added to the upper ocean and atmosphere at the end of the last ice age was "very old," suggesting it had been stored in the deep ocean and isolated from the atmosphere for thousands of years , said Marchitto
http://www.physorg.com/news98033767.html

The researchers found massive, natural increases in atmospheric CO2 -- CO2 that had very little C14...due to it being stored in the deep sea for so long. In other words, a situation identical to what we see today.

QED.

> "So go ahead, pick 4 or 5 BILLION of your closest friends to sacrifice in the geopolitical anarchy "

Stuff and nonsense. Even the IPCC is only predicting a few centimeters of sea level rise, and no serious hurricanologist predicts an increase in storm intensity (Emannauel Kerry, the only such researcher to ever do so, switched his opinion just this year).

A moderate level of warming, if it continues at all, is more likely to be beneficial for mankind and society than harmful. The average temperature of the globe is roughly 54F. Man-- and the species we depend upon-- prefer a temperature closer to 70F. A small increase means longer growing seasons, more abundant crops, fewer crop-killing frosts, and generally a more mild climate. In short, an identical situation to that of the Medieval Climate Optimum, a period in which civilization flourished. (That's why they called it a climate "optimum", afer all).


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By paydirt on 11/12/2008 8:53:05 AM , Rating: 3
Interesting stuff folks. I would like to add that even if you accept that the Earth had only 10X CO2 "back in the day," there wasn't a case of a "runaway" greenhouse situation. For those truly frightened about "runaway" greenhouse and GW, I want you to really, really think on that.


RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By MonkeyPaw on 11/11/2008 7:21:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:

By the way Michael, I think there is an error in your story.

quote:
A few locations in Ireland were also found to be using October data.

Shouldn't that be September data? Anyway, great post.


It's too late, I already published this article to the world as proof that Ireland has 2 Octobers and no Septembers. It's a scientific fact, I tell you!


By otispunkmeyer on 11/12/2008 5:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
yeah

they really shouldnt have people like this in charge of such things. like wise we shouldnt have some one who believes climate change isnt happeneing. we need impartial people


In Other Words
By porkpie on 11/11/2008 4:48:04 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
due to the complex algorithm GISS uses to convert actual temperature readings into their output results
Translation: the complex algorithm GISS uses to lie about what the actual temperature is. I've read about Hansen before. This guy is a real piece of work. He's on a mission to save the world and get famous doing it, no matter what the real facts are.




RE: In Other Words
By lucasb on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: In Other Words
By porkpie on 11/11/2008 5:18:41 PM , Rating: 4
Other people have analyzed them and found all sorts of funny behavior. GISS artificially lowers the temperature at thousands of sites for data from the early 1900s, then raises it for recent data. Their source code to "correct" the data is tens of thousands of lines of code. It has hundreds of other unjustified and unexplained adjustments. Lots of sites are left out entirely, or even worse, left only for certain periods, then reincluded when their readings start showing warming again.

The ClimateAudit website has exposed dozens of GISS's little tricks to inflate temperature data. This story is just the tip of the ice berg.


RE: In Other Words
By lucasb on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: In Other Words
By porkpie on 11/11/2008 5:35:06 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
GISS isn't the only major source of temperature records
Right, and GISS ALWAYS show a lot hotter than the others.

As this story tells, Hansen is working with Al Gore and testifying in court that eco-terrorists have the right to tear up power plants. He gave up being an objective scientist a long time ago.


RE: In Other Words
By Ringold on 11/11/2008 5:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, Argentina, bastion of morality in government? Your government last I heard planned to confiscate private pension funds in a desperate measure to shore up government finances, and may still be heading towards a debt default. Moody's, a bond rating agency, was not at all impressed.

Not sure what Argentina had to do with any of this anyway.


RE: In Other Words
By lucasb on 11/11/2008 6:16:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not sure what Argentina had to do with any of this anyway.

I was saying that the law system which I'm subjected to operates with the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.
quote:
Moody's, a bond rating agency, was not at all impressed.

What, one of rating agencies who gave investment grades to mortgage-backed securities and derivatives? They must be very professional and trustworthy.
quote:
Your government last I heard planned to confiscate private pension funds in a desperate measure to shore up government finances, and may still be heading towards a debt default.

Yes, I am ashamed of that and I (as an opositor) am fighting to prevent that. Another confiscation of savings to serve our inmoral, ilicit and overpaid debt and the thirst of a somewhat populist administration in an electoral year. But since I presume that you are not very knowledgeable about the economy of Argentina (why would you be interested in it?), I will give you the benefit of doubt and offer a little advice:
- AFAIK, in the USA, Social Security is still managed by the government. 401(k)s and IRAs are tax favored saving accounts which supplement SS. Even if you do not save a dime (a very bad decision), you can count on SS until it becomes completely unfunded.
- Do some research on Latin America before taking at face value the news, opinions and advice presented by US media, which is overly critic of Latin American leftists, even the moderate ones.


RE: In Other Words
By Ringold on 11/11/2008 9:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What, one of rating agencies who gave investment grades to mortgage-backed securities and derivatives?


Ouch. Good point. But still, you know the debt load is concerning to say the least.

As for US media bias, they rarely mention S.A. if it's not Chavez saying something silly. I have to get most of my news on the region from other sources.

I shouldn't of made it sound too harsh on Argentina as a whole. Government doesn't necessarily reflect on the people governed. Good luck in your opposition.


RE: In Other Words
By Ringold on 11/11/2008 5:34:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
How do you know that the GISS' algorithms lie/are flawed? Have you analyzed them? Or you're simply trying to be funny while you don't have a clue about what you're trying to make fun of?


I have to wonder why they can't give the straight data. In economics, which uses similar statistical tools, we open ourselves to exactly the same type of criticism due to the way inflation and real GDP are calculated. They're extremely complex, and some times lead to 'curious', shall we say, results. I for one often prefer to look at the raw data along with the modified data; in the process of smoothing things out, attempting to correct for error or adjust out seasonal changes, incorrect assumptions can even inadvertently be included. It can also hide or magnify short-term but important fluctuations in data; I'd be looking at unadjusted unemployment right now, for ex., not seasonally adjusted.

If the Federal Reserve, with who knows how many hundreds of veteran PhD's working for it and the thousands of economists and statisticians working for related agencies, look critically at their own data and admit its not perfect I see no harm in assuming tiny GISS might also screw up their algorithms.


Libertarianism and Anti-Environmentalism
By Catalyst on 11/12/2008 4:56:24 PM , Rating: 1
I hit the daily tech blogs like DailyTech to get my fix on the latest and greatest next gen news, but I have always been puzzled by the segment of the tech world that is almost rabidly anti-environmental.

It doesn't make much sense to me since it seems that tech and environmentalism dove tail together almost perfectly. Near as I can deduce, the anti-green movement comes from the strong strain of libertarianism that also quixotically permeates the tech industry. Is it fair to say that most people that would consider themselves climate skeptics would also consider themselves to be libertarians? And if you are in a tech or startup field, would you say that my anecdotal linking of tech and libertarianism is vaild?

As to the content of the piece, I find it hard to gain any real sense of the validity or implications of the findings by the blog posters as there doesn't seem to be any sort of scale for measuring the impact of the result. Is this "discovery" game changing or just a distinction without a difference? Like "You said the remote was on the cushion of the sofa, but it was actually on the floor by the sofa!" It seems as if it is just an attempt to cloud the water, and not a meaningful critique of anything.




RE: Libertarianism and Anti-Environmentalism
By jgvandemeer on 11/12/2008 7:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see why you are puzzled? Since environmentalists are rabidly anti-tech, a lot of techies are rabidly anti-enviromentalist.

All the major environmental groups are against genetic engineering, biotech, nuclear power, and the industrial revolution in general. Hell, a lot of them are even against nanotech and fusion power. With that kind of backwards thinking, its no big surprise that so many people are against them.


By Catalyst on 11/13/2008 5:30:32 AM , Rating: 2
I would say that environmentalists are anti-tech is either a mischaracterization or misunderstanding of their position. To be clear their are some Deep Greens that want to live by candle light in a cabin on the shores on Walden Pond, but they are hardly mainstream.

Most environmentalist are for anything that improves quality of life, but adhere to something known as Precautionary Principle. There is a technical definition you can look up, but basically it means look before you leap and unleash something onto the world. It is hardly backwards thinking, it is a clear step forward that shows we learned from the industrial and technological mistakes made by those who came before us. We don't use asbestos, we don't use lead in paint anymore, and we are moving away from any number of "duh" things that would poison and or kill us. Learn from your mistakes, a Environmentalist non-Luddite mentality.

All the technologies you mentioned have potentially serious and difficult-to-remediate drawbacks to them so proving that (at the very least) the obvious problems are accounted for is a no-brainer since tech is supposed to solve problems not create them. I think that is a position that all techies would support.


RE: Libertarianism and Anti-Environmentalism
By werepossum on 11/12/2008 7:41:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
by Catalyst on November 12, 2008 at 4:56 PM
SNIP
As to the content of the piece, I find it hard to gain any real sense of the validity or implications of the findings by the blog posters as there doesn't seem to be any sort of scale for measuring the impact of the result. Is this "discovery" game changing or just a distinction without a difference? Like "You said the remote was on the cushion of the sofa, but it was actually on the floor by the sofa!" It seems as if it is just an attempt to cloud the water, and not a meaningful critique of anything.

Surely you jest. Hansen's announcement was that October was the hottest October ever recorded globally. From that the logical conclusion would be that CAGW is accelerating much faster than even he predicted. Translation: It's even more important to make drastic changes to society very quickly or we'll all die.

The actual numbers are more than a bit different. This was a mild October, meaning the global warming trend is halted for the moment even though atmospheric CO2 is steadily increasing and our models predict warming. Translation: There's plenty of time to make absolutely sure our collective ass is on fire before we leap off the bluff into the river.

Your point about libertarianism within the techie community is valid, but that applies to any group that is reasonably successful AND thinks they earn their success. Techfolk are not adverse to sensible environmentalism. We are more skeptical of Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming than the average bear because we are more tech and science literate.

Most of us use some sort of predictive modeling in our work at some level. These models have to tell us in advance what is going to happen with a given set of inputs. A model that cannot reliably predict near-future events is a useless model, even if it can be tweaked to beautifully match past observations. Put more simply, say I have a model of a building that predicts that building will use 3,400 KW on a given day at a given temperature. If that building actually uses 3,000 KW at that time, I can conclude that either I don't have a correct model, or that I don't have enough information. Either way, that model does not help me accurately predict future performance, and it certainly doesn't allow me to explain it. This is the current state of climate science, which explains why science-literate and tech-literate people are more skeptical about CAGW than are others.


RE: Libertarianism and Anti-Environmentalism
By Catalyst on 11/13/2008 6:31:48 AM , Rating: 2
I think the main issue is that there seems to be much confusion about the state of the natural sciences and the application of the scientific method in general. While I think the thrust of you position is valid, some of the conclusions drawn seem dubious.

A problem that often occurs, though I am not ascribing it to anything you said directly, is the confusion generated about the distinctions between climate and weather. Many skeptics throw out "well, it is cold right now, so where is global warming?" A single event, and even a warm month like October, is a weather event, where long term average temperatures or weather conditions represent climate. So Hansen's statement about October temperatures as well as the statement you made are insignificant on their own; a single event does not indicate a trend or lack thereof . Only by comparing it to a broader dataset can context be ascertained.

Which leads to the criticisms of the models. Your point (which is, I assume, echoed by others) that a model that cannot reliably predict conditions is useless is quite valid on an academic level but not really at a practical one. Your explanation of the model that predicts building power usage is excellent. A model that should have predicted the 3,000KW per day usage that but came up with 3,400KW instead would be an inaccurate and clumsy tool. However, if the previous model only predicted energy use with an error range of plus or minus 55,000KW, you would say that your new tool was quite accurate and a step forward.

The argument is really about whether or not the degree of certainty justifies action. From what I understand (in my limited capacity) the formerly wide-ranging and rough tools used to predict climate are getting better and better as the decades wear on, and that each additional degree of certainty generally backs the conclusion that the trend is getting worse, not better.

More importantly, this coupled with the indications that the longer we wait the more expensive fixing the problem becomes, as well as the more damaging and disruptive the effects will be, suggests that logically we should act now and "leap our asses into the river" rather than wait. Our models may be imperfect, but may be accurate enough to say it is just more cost-effective at this point to make the mistake at this end than to wait and be wrong at the other.

Skepticism the twin to discovery, so clearly you can't have science without both, I just worry that the techies seem to be skeptical in only one direction when it comes to the environment.


RE: Libertarianism and Anti-Environmentalism
By werepossum on 11/14/2008 2:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by Catalyst on November 13, 2008 at 6:31 AM
I think the main issue is that there seems to be much confusion about the state of the natural sciences and the application of the scientific method in general. While I think the thrust of you position is valid, some of the conclusions drawn seem dubious.

A problem that often occurs, though I am not ascribing it to anything you said directly, is the confusion generated about the distinctions between climate and weather. Many skeptics throw out "well, it is cold right now, so where is global warming?" A single event, and even a warm month like October, is a weather event, where long term average temperatures or weather conditions represent climate. So Hansen's statement about October temperatures as well as the statement you made are insignificant on their own; a single event does not indicate a trend or lack thereof . Only by comparing it to a broader dataset can context be ascertained.

Which leads to the criticisms of the models. Your point (which is, I assume, echoed by others) that a model that cannot reliably predict conditions is useless is quite valid on an academic level but not really at a practical one. Your explanation of the model that predicts building power usage is excellent. A model that should have predicted the 3,000KW per day usage that but came up with 3,400KW instead would be an inaccurate and clumsy tool. However, if the previous model only predicted energy use with an error range of plus or minus 55,000KW, you would say that your new tool was quite accurate and a step forward.

The argument is really about whether or not the degree of certainty justifies action. From what I understand (in my limited capacity) the formerly wide-ranging and rough tools used to predict climate are getting better and better as the decades wear on, and that each additional degree of certainty generally backs the conclusion that the trend is getting worse, not better.

More importantly, this coupled with the indications that the longer we wait the more expensive fixing the problem becomes, as well as the more damaging and disruptive the effects will be, suggests that logically we should act now and "leap our asses into the river" rather than wait. Our models may be imperfect, but may be accurate enough to say it is just more cost-effective at this point to make the mistake at this end than to wait and be wrong at the other.

Skepticism the twin to discovery, so clearly you can't have science without both, I just worry that the techies seem to be skeptical in only one direction when it comes to the environment.

All true and reasonable comments, but - consider my model example. Suppose my model, devised twenty years ago, looked at similar buildings over the last two hundred years and concluded that the proposed building - let's say a convention center - would draw 3,400 KW based on historic trends, even though similar convention centers built over the last ten years used markably less energy, perhaps 3,000 KW. My point would be that my model was accurate and the last ten years were aberrations, too small a trend to consider in the face of my model which is hugely successful at predicting things that have already happened (other than, obviously, the last ten years.)

Now suppose that, based on my model, I'm demanding that your new convention center be only 100,000 square feet, that it be completely underground, and that it be lighted only with bio-luminescent fungus because my model clearly shows that convention centers are destroying the Earth. Remember that my model, while accurately modeling earlier times, has been a miserable failure in predicting energy usage in the twenty years I've been using it. I think most reasonable people would say I'm not going to radically change my proposed convention center until your model can do a better job at predicting new buildings. In other words, I'm not convinced there IS a problem to fix vis-a-vis climate (although I agree that reductions in CO2 would be good for many things, from acid rain to ocean acidification, and that research in that direction should be solid.)

Also, climate is nothing more than weather integrated over time. The CAGW crowd would like us to believe that climate and weather are totally unrelated, yet still point to any severe or unusual weather event - even localized, even colder - as proof that they are right. You can't have it both ways, obviously. If the present ten years of cooling must be considered insignificant, how then can the previous thirty years of warming be considered definitive?

The Earth will gradually increase in temperature until the next ice age, with or without mankind. That's just what happens.


RE: Libertarianism and Anti-Environmentalism
By Catalyst on 11/16/2008 2:35:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
“Now suppose that, based on my model, I'm demanding that your new convention center be only 100,000 square feet, that it be completely underground, and that it be lighted only with bio-luminescent fungus because my model clearly shows that convention centers are destroying the Earth. Remember that my model, while accurately modeling earlier times, has been a miserable failure in predicting energy usage in the twenty years I've been using it.”


Mr. Possum

I don’t want to put to fine a point on it, but again I would say that there may be a problem in your perception of the about the state of the science. As I understand the current climate models(again limitedly), to imply that they are “miserable failures” would be a stretch. It’s not as if the majority of climate scientists from around the world input all the climate data and the computer model output the word “Cheese” as a result. The results from most of the models seem to generally track with one another and show an increase in global average temperatures, and also with some field observations hinting the same as well. Significant also is that those who are creating separate models from other data (like ice cores, tree rings, etc) are obtaining results that also seem to corroborate the general finding of increasing global temperatures. But I think the science debate is not really at issue here.

quote:
“I think most reasonable people would say I'm not going to radically change my proposed convention center until your model can do a better job at predicting new buildings. In other words, I'm not convinced there IS a problem to fix vis-a-vis climate (although I agree that reductions in CO2 would be good for many things, from acid rain to ocean acidification, and that research in that direction should be solid.)”


This statement reflects the heart of what I am interested in. Built into the first part of the argument (and most like it) is the false assumption that the status quo unquestionably represents best practices, and paradoxically that the burden of proof of no harm falls upon those who want to avert pollution. If you are undertaking an action that you know is damaging (polluting), clearly the burden of proof falls on you to demonstrate that doing so would not have deleterious effects. If there is evidence that there is significant impact, the burden is again on you to remediate or eliminate that impact. This is the logical position, but not the one taken by most climate skeptics when arguing the conclusions they draw from the matter. It seems to indicate that the issue for them is ideological or dogmatic and not with the science portion of the equation. The tone also seems to indicate that even if the science were irrefutable, they would take issue with having to change their stance. This seeming inflexibility is what I find odd in the normally future forward tech community. I wonder does this come from the business side or are there specific influential leaders in the tech crowd that shape the community view?


RE: Libertarianism and Anti-Environmentalism
By werepossum on 11/16/2008 4:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by Catalyst on November 16, 2008 at 2:35 AM
SNIP
quote:
“I think most reasonable people would say I'm not going to radically change my proposed convention center until your model can do a better job at predicting new buildings. In other words, I'm not convinced there IS a problem to fix vis-a-vis climate (although I agree that reductions in CO2 would be good for many things, from acid rain to ocean acidification, and that research in that direction should be solid.)”

This statement reflects the heart of what I am interested in. Built into the first part of the argument (and most like it) is the false assumption that the status quo unquestionably represents best practices, and paradoxically that the burden of proof of no harm falls upon those who want to avert pollution. If you are undertaking an action that you know is damaging (polluting), clearly the burden of proof falls on you to demonstrate that doing so would not have deleterious effects. If there is evidence that there is significant impact, the burden is again on you to remediate or eliminate that impact. This is the logical position, but not the one taken by most climate skeptics when arguing the conclusions they draw from the matter. It seems to indicate that the issue for them is ideological or dogmatic and not with the science portion of the equation. The tone also seems to indicate that even if the science were irrefutable, they would take issue with having to change their stance. This seeming inflexibility is what I find odd in the normally future forward tech community. I wonder does this come from the business side or are there specific influential leaders in the tech crowd that shape the community view?

Speaking only for myself, my "seeming inflexibility" stems both from common sense and from good business practices. If you want me to add cost on myself or on my clients, I need a good reason why. (By that I mean cost beyond payback; I've no problem using more efficient lighting, etc. when it will pay back within a reasonable period.) So far, I've not found one to justify the drastic reduction in lifestyle that would be required by the CAGW crowd who, remember, admit that things like Kyoto won't actually help and are "only a first step", that massive further reductions are required. There is currently no technology available which would allow us (the USA) to enjoy anything like the current standard of living and meet the CO2 reductions they say are necessary. Certainly widespread nuclear power would go a long way, as would improved battery tech, but the energy differentials are too great at present to allow those kinds of reductions without devolving into a high-density society reliant on public transportation in the short term, and drastic population reduction in the long term. I support reductions on most sorts of pollutants, but I remain unconvinced that the CO2 scare is anything more than the usual suspects wanting more power. Remember than man-made CO2 from all human activity, throughout history, is between 1% and 4% of total atmospheric CO2, depending on whose numbers you use.

As to the science, I have a big problem with it, beginning with the previous "coming man-made ice age" scare I bought into in the late 70s. (Ain't it funny how the required solution to catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling - high-density housing, loss of private transportation, government-controlled command economy - is exactly the same as the required solution to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Funny how that works...) Mann et al's famous hockey stick model pretty much sealed it for me, requiring as it did a denial of all mankind's climate records. If the scientists pushing a certain viewpoint are blatantly dishonest, which has been the case time and again, and attempt to crush any dissenting views, then I demand an extraordinary level of proof that they are correct. That is, I demand demonstrable proof - not by marching in lockstep, but by demonstrated long-term predictive ability. Science must be, to use the new buzz phrase, falsifiable. As it stands, any contrary evidence is immediately attacked as being propaganda, and any short-term climate phenomena, including those indicating colder weather, are put forward as proof. Therein lies the problem. If you can't disprove something, neither can you prove it.


By Catalyst on 11/17/2008 5:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
I take your explanation of how you perceive the issues as the real crux of the matter for the skeptics crowd, and I’d like to just reiterate two observations of the average skeptic’s underlying argument that seem pertinent to your position.

1.The holding of the erroneous perception that burden of proof falls on the opposing side to show no harm

2.The inadvertent or unconscious blending of whether something CAN be done with whether it SHOULD be done, which then apparently colors their perception of the validity of the issue.

Again on the first, if you are conducting an activity that is known to cause harm, it is YOUR responsibility to remediate that issue, whether it adds cost or not. Because of the costs, linking the difficulty or burden of the solutions with whether or not action should be taken I think lies behind most of the business-centric skeptics of the science of climate change. If the cost of changing behavior were free, I think you would see most of the calls about the “questionable” nature of the science disappear. Gathering from these two these points, I think it would be more appropriate to call them “objectionists” rather than skeptics. The arguments they make would not lose their stridency even if the evidence were irrefutable, which is not a science based skeptical position.

To illustrate this point more clearly, think of the person who is uninsured who is told that they have an aggressive but treatable form of cancer, but that treatment will cost them 500,000 dollars. When told they will have to pay the full amount for treatment and having no ability to do so, they would reasonably object. “I don’t have that kind of money and it would be impossible for me to get it, so treatment is not feasible.” The objection is wholly merited based on the facts of their financial situation, being uninsured they truly don’t have the money to pay for treatment. This does not, however, negate the diagnosis that they have cancer. Regardless of their ability to pay, they will die if they go untreated, objections or no, merit to their economic position or no. “Reality” reality trumps economic reality. However, if the patient were then to go one step further and call the doctor a money grubbing liar, we would be at the point where it seems most discussions of the climate problems devolve to.

The blending of Tech philosophy, which I agree is founded in science and is forward thinking, and business philosophy, which is more self interested and nebulous, seems to be the cause of the contradictory stances on science held by those in the tech community. Objectionists really take issue more with the perceived IMPLICATIONS of the observation rather than with the observation itself. Their energy would be better spent by working toward finding a profitable solution (as many are now are) than with determining with 100% certainty (which is neither necessary, wise, or possible)the state of the science.

PS. I didn’t directly address your issue about the nature of the science in the second part because I feel others have and are more qualified than I to do so. I think most of the lower tier misunderstandings can be handled by sites like Science Blogs

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_...

Check that posting to see if your some of your issues can be resolved there.


Climateaudit.org
By deeznuts on 11/11/2008 4:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, you mentioned the website climateaudit.org twice in a short period of time. Might want to remove it before you get accused of bias! :D




RE: Climateaudit.org
By lucasb on 11/11/2008 4:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hmm, you mentioned the website climateaudit.org twice in a short period of time. Might want to remove it before you get accused of bias! :D

Yet, when people quote Wikipedia, RealClimate or another "pro-AGW" source, denialists are quick to denounce bias. Go figure.
Anyway, Stephen McIntyre has done a nice work at finding corrupted data and resolving "statistical technicalities"
However, his findings haven't disproved a single word in the mainstream theory of climate change. Examples:
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/th...
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006...


RE: Climateaudit.org
By sigilscience on 11/11/2008 5:22:53 PM , Rating: 4
Stephen McKintyre is the guy who (with Ross McKittrick) discredited the "hockey stick" graph of world temperatures. That's quite an accomplishment.

Before their work a lot of people mistakenly believed that modern day temps were increasing faster than ever before in human history. Now we know better.


RE: Climateaudit.org
By SoCalBoomer on 11/11/2008 6:48:32 PM , Rating: 3
Hmmm - strange, your references point to a few things:

First is a blog entry (with comments STRONGLY criticizing the authors, including von Storch) actually validating McIntyre's point that von Storch's Hockey Stick is incorrect. I like the following summation:
quote:
I am somewhat astonished at your May 11 comment. You dismiss Steve McIntyre's contributions to the Hockystick debate not on the basis that his critisisms lack substance, rigor, or validity, but because his work has not published in journals to which you ascribe authority. This is a neat, if disingenuous, evasion of the issue. The issue regarding McIntyre's work is whether or not his conclusions are accurate, not whether some journal approves of his work. Both of you are aware of McIntyre's substantial body of work as documented on Climate Audit. McIntyre provides both the data and computer code which underlies his work on his website. It should be a simple matter for scientists of your standing to determine the merit of McIntyre's work independently (i.e. do your own peer review) without relying on "journals" to tell you what to think.


The third further shows how von Storch's analysis (the Hockey Stick) is wrong and von Storch screwed up.

The second. . .well, I didn't read the entire actual article and your link only led to the abstract anyway.

But your "examples" of McIntyre's not disproving a "single word" seem to actually show that he did bring to light a serious fault and actually did disprove (or led to the disproval of) von Storch's Hockey Stick (which is what the mainstream seems to use to prove the exponential increase in temps)

Hmmmm. . . . did you READ your examples?


RE: Climateaudit.org
By kbehrens on 11/11/2008 10:17:13 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Hmmmm. . . . did you READ your examples?
Don't confuse him with the facts. In debating a global warming fanatic, using your brain is an unfair tactic.


I have a question...
By Indianapolis on 11/11/2008 4:18:15 PM , Rating: 5
Is there a counter-prize to the Nobel Prize that could be awarded to people who make great strides in setting scientific achievements back?




RE: I have a question...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/11/2008 4:26:27 PM , Rating: 3
RE: I have a question...
By Jedi2155 on 11/11/2008 5:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
RE: I have a question...
By MozeeToby on 11/11/2008 5:33:59 PM , Rating: 3
Whoa whao, the IgNobel Prize is not at all about setting science back. If anything it is about moving science forward by making it interesting again. The IgNobel Prize rewards scientists who do the research that no one bothered to do because it was just a little too off the wall, a little too wacky.


RE: I have a question...
By amanojaku on 11/11/2008 6:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
Greed and stupidity are their own rewards, and he ain't doin' to bad from the looks of it.


Updated map
By Charmey Wilco on 11/11/2008 4:38:13 PM , Rating: 4
It would be very useful if someone created a second map using the correct colors for the actual data.

In all fairness, since their data set was incorrect, it is reasonable to take the actual data set, even if incomplete, and extrapolate it.




RE: Updated map
By PitViper007 on 11/11/2008 4:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know that you could use the existing map though. According to the article, because the October data were wrong, it threw off the data for previous months as well.
quote:
The error not only affected October data, but due to the complex algorithm GISS uses to convert actual temperature readings into their output results, altered the previously published values for several other months as well. The values for August 2008, for instance, changed by 0.11C and the global anomaly as far back as 2005 increased by a hundredth of a degree.

I don't begin to understand how something can affect what happened before, but there you go.


RE: Updated map
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 5:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
This is an oversimplification, but it should help explain:

Imagine you were drawing a line on a Cartesian coordinate system, starting at (0,0) and going to (10,10). If you were then to use that 'trend' line to determine y coordinate when x = 5, you'd get 5. But if you adjusted your end point to (10,8), then when x = 5, y = 4.

That's basically what he's trying to say, although the math is more complicated. The temperature data for August 2008 didn't change. But what did change was the trend line. (When Asher talks about GISS's 'published values' and 'output results', he's referring to the anomaly, I'm assuming). Because October's increase was lower, it was like reducing the y-part of the end-point of the line, which affects the y-parts of previous points on the line, too. (Really, it's way more complicated, I'm sure, based on weighted averages, moving baselines, blah blah, whatever.)


RE: Updated map
By PitViper007 on 11/12/2008 1:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
Ahhh..Thank you. I thought he was talking about the actual data. That makes more sense.


RE: Updated map
By masher2 (blog) on 11/12/2008 1:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I *was* referring to the actual data. GISS uses a "secret sauce" algorithm that highly massages the input data. Changes to temperatures in one month can affect the actual temperatures for months or even years both before and after the change.

GISS has been reticent to provide details on the process.


RE: Updated map
By Starcub on 11/12/2008 3:35:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Dailytech storytellers use a "secret sauce" algorithm that highly massages the input data.

There, fixed that for ya.


Global microwave
By DingieM on 11/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Global microwave
By prisoner881 on 11/12/2008 9:23:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe our planet is slowing down its rotation speed already...to eventually STOP spinning for 3 days around 2012...


Do you have any idea how fantastically idiotic of a concept that is? Do you have even the slightest grasp of the concept of inertia? Wait, why am I asking? You obviously don't, otherwise you wouldn't have posted something so freakishly stupid.

It's people like you that are supporting the AGW crowd. And you wonder why informed, rational people look at you and your kind with a total lack of confidence. You aren't into science, you're into voodoo.
Unhealthy radiation from radar? Cell towers? How about that huge frickin' thermonuclear ball in the sky? It showers you with harmful radiation all day long! Perhaps we should extinguish it! Yes, turn off the sun, that's the answer! It should be easy to do -- just about as easy as the Earth stopping its rotation.

quote:
Accusations are easily made, and that says more about the person themselves.
Accuse yourself first before pointing a finger to someone else...but that counts for me as well :-)


I accuse you of abject stupidity and pathological ignorance of anything remotely approaching a sensible understanding of science. But I'm sure you'll get your revenge when the Earth stops spinning in four years.

And you wonder why informed, rational people don't subscribe to your hysteria. You aren't looking for science, you're looking for voodoo.


RE: Global microwave
By prisoner881 on 11/12/2008 9:24:58 AM , Rating: 2
OK, bizarre editing error in the prior post. This is how it should've read:

quote:
Maybe our planet is slowing down its rotation speed already...to eventually STOP spinning for 3 days around 2012...


Do you have any idea how fantastically idiotic of a concept that is? Do you have even the slightest grasp of the concept of inertia? Wait, why am I asking? You obviously don't, otherwise you wouldn't have posted something so freakishly stupid.

Unhealthy radiation from radar? Cell towers? How about that huge frickin' thermonuclear ball in the sky? It showers you with harmful radiation all day long! Perhaps we should extinguish it! Yes, turn off the sun, that's the answer! It should be easy to do -- just about as easy as the Earth stopping its rotation.

quote:
Accusations are easily made, and that says more about the person themselves.
Accuse yourself first before pointing a finger to someone else...but that counts for me as well :-)


I accuse you of abject stupidity and pathological ignorance of anything remotely approaching a sensible understanding of science. But I'm sure you'll get your revenge when the Earth stops spinning in four years.

And you wonder why informed, rational people don't subscribe to your hysteria. You aren't looking for science, you're looking for voodoo.


RE: Global microwave
By DingieM on 11/12/2008 10:32:37 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, you appear to be one aggressive, short-sighted, short-minded, tiny hearted fellow.
And also you appear to be indoctrined with your so-called old generation of "science".
Are you afraid to look beyond what standard scientists are trying to let you believe?

As you call yourself informed and rational, you mention a thermonuclear ball in the sky.
I presume you mean the sun, which is actually not in the sky, but in the universe, in our solar system.
And I was hoping you already knew that the radiation is shielded by the atmosphere of our planet.
You do know that our planet is called earth?

Without knowing me for even 0.00000001% you accuse me of many things.

I'm perfectly sane and educated.

You talk about having my revenge?
I am not seeking revenge, I will be perfectly alright.
Its you that has to save yourself?

Maybe this world would be a better place without the kind of people like you?


RE: Global microwave
By werepossum on 11/12/2008 5:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by DingieM on November 12, 2008 at 6:14 AM
Increased CO2 isn't really the hart of the problem...

With all those unhealthy radiation generating hardware, like radar stations, GSM/GPRS antenna's, UMTS and equivalent antenna's, power lines in the air for transporting electricity etc. etc., the earth has become an increasingly bad and destructive microwave oven.
People are getting awfully sick because they live near or under power lines and/or in the near vincinity of antenna's. Even those computers on our desks slowly but steadily making us chronical ill...
We are bio-electrical creatures and these surroundings effects us greatly.
Even astrological sites to peek into space, makes forests in the neighborhood (very) ill.
Nature itself has all the ingredients to make as better again, but when we humans make our own healers ill...well...

Maybe our planet is slowing down its rotation speed already...to eventually STOP spinning for 3 days around 2012...

Think about this: try to imagine that our own planet could actually be a geo-magnetic living being?
A living being that is totally fed up with the self-destructive nature of humans that are ruled by greed, power and control over everything that lives...
And is taking action by itself (and friends whoever that may be...) to get rid of the most filthy humans but keep the better ones...

There are some people here that accuses Al-gore or some scientists about the actions they made.
Accusations are easily made, and that says more about the person themselves.
Accuse yourself first before pointing a finger to someone else...but that counts for me as well :-)


My friend, I sincerely hope you are an American citizen so that President Obama can send you a check, because you desperately need to purchase a clue. And a refill on the meds. And some more tin foil.


RE: Global microwave
By shank2001 on 11/12/2008 10:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
Wow there are some truly insane people on here. Where do people come up with this stuff? How can anyone think these things in this day and age?! I am truly flummoxed.


This is what I love about the scientific method
By randomly on 11/11/2008 5:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
Although the results may take awhile, this peer review process and global debate will eventually clarify what is really going on with the climate. There is nothing like people questioning the data, the models, the theory, the motives, and the impacts of something to eventually get closer to the truth.

Vive le Debate!




By lucasb on 11/11/2008 5:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vive le Debate!

Couldn't agree more. Unbiased discussion is very good. Spin machines are not.
quote:
Although the results may take awhile

If you want to apply the precautory principle, we might be in a hurry for results.


RE: This is what I love about the scientific method
By Surak on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
By SoCalBoomer on 11/11/2008 8:03:57 PM , Rating: 4
Yes lets.

But let's us also realize that this "minor" error of 1deg C is actually a significant percentage of the overall amount of warming that is being predicted - thus it's not minor.

That 95% probability that we are inducing global warming IS the issue and everything in the debate is specifically about that.

Are we contributing? Quite possibly, but the argument is really how much. I lean toward the lesser amount while those more extreme don't just lean, they jump to the greater.

When those who are in charge of providing data and analysis are acknowledged as on the more extreme side, AND their data shows both obvious and truly blatant errors it calls into question the data, his integrity, and thus the analysis.

Should we clean up after ourselves? DEFINITELY - which is one reason why I drive a high mileage (mpg. . .) car, as well as walk or ride to work, etc. I do not think that the two issue are one and the same. We take care of our home because it's getting gross and we need to do so.

However, I think saying we MUST because we're making our world into an oven and the day after tomorrow is going to kill us - I think that's not a true statement and is actually both disingenuous and hurtful to the environmental movement.

We should clean up the environment because we should be good stewards.

The climate has been warmer, has been colder, will get warmer, will get colder, and as a dynamic and, might I say, living entity, will not stay the same no matter what we do.

So we should plan for it, accommodate for it, but scare tactics about it? No. Manipulation of data to try to prove it? No.

And that's what this looks like - it looks like manipulation of data to prove warming that, if it actually IS happening, is not happening at the rate predicted.

vive sensibility.


RE: This is what I love about the scientific method
By Surak on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is what I love about the scientific method
By rhuarch on 11/12/2008 2:40:46 PM , Rating: 1
Your argument doesn't make any sense, you are just restating an argument you already made which was addressed (I think) very effectively by Mr. Asher. Why do you persist on this fixation with volcanoes? Volcanoes aren't a significant source of atmospheric carbon; c14 or otherwise.

ANY long term carbon sink that released it's stored carbon would be significantly depleted of C14. Some examples might include carbon burps from the ocean floor, thawed permafrost, maybe that "unknown sink" that AGWs are always speaking of so fearfully.

Certainly the burning of fossil fuels is one contributor of C14 depleted atmospheric carbon. The fact remains however, that we just haven't emitted anywhere near enough carbon to account for even a significant percentage of the increase, much less the total. And since the earth has not really warmed significantly you couldn't even claim (honestly) that the fraction of a percent of the increase that we can be blamed for was the forcing agent leading to the "warming" that released the rest of the carbon from other sinks.


RE: This is what I love about the scientific method
By mmatis on 11/11/2008 9:21:20 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, 10 degrees off in one month is "minor data entry error". All hail the One True Mick! Filthy maggot swill...


By overlandpark4me on 11/11/2008 10:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
I remember when I was a kid in the early 70's and they were scared to death of an impending ICE AGE. Next it was global warming. Now it's Global Climate Change, which is what you call it when you have to play both sides of the fence and your "science" can't stay consistent with the "message" you're trying to preach (ALgore). Not to mention making a nice living on. I don't recall the story about the Greenland ice increase making the NBC left wing news. When you take a manufactured issue and make it "the cause" with a fringe side of the left wing party, facts tend to go to into the fog. You wouldn't have your sheep to follow you otherwise. GW-GCC is the biggest boondoggle creating by idiots with political and monetary golas. L is for losers.............

P.S. Hey, Al, eat less, you're harming the planet.




By martinrichards23 on 11/12/2008 5:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
impending ICE AGE. Next it was global warming. Now it's Global Climate Change


I believe it has been renamed again to re-interest the media after they got distracted by our banks losing a few £'s, it is now "Global mega destructo human death kill".


By Kazairl2 on 11/12/2008 6:51:55 AM , Rating: 2
The theory behind changing the name from global warming to global climate change is very simple. Now, they can not only use "warm" anomalities to stir up fear and public support for their program, but "cold" ones, too. This lets them blame human industrial activity for EVERYTHING and keep their hot button in the news. A heat wave in the Northeast? Global climate change! A freeze in Florida that destroys the orange crop? THAT'S global climate change, too! Right now there's probably someone blaming "global climate change" for the early November blizzard in the Dakotas, just like "global climate change" was blamed for the snowstorm in Baghdad last winter.



By Comdrpopnfresh on 11/11/2008 8:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
Should there be an evaluation of past data sets called for?




By mmatis on 11/11/2008 9:31:28 PM , Rating: 3
Only if the data sets disprove AGW. You need to remember the AGW salute:

Cover ears with hands, then scream:
LA LA LA LA LA!!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! LA LA LA LA LA!!!
}:-]


LOL
By tarpon on 11/11/2008 6:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's obvious, they got the answer they wanted, who needs data quality auditing ... LOL. Isn't there a law that is supposed to guard against this type problem, dumping phoney data on the public? I think it goes by the moniker like "information data quality audit".




RE: LOL
By mmatis on 11/11/2008 9:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
Information Data Quality Audit by AGW believers? Yeah, right! What have YOU been smoking? By the way, what is the CO2 output of grass? Maybe we can really get it banned this time, since the pigs will obviously go out of their way to destroy anyone who pollutes...


The error started at NOAA
By steven mosher on 11/11/2008 7:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
Just a correction. The error appears to have occurred at NOAA. NOAA collects data from all over the world. Then they process this data and output a 'quality controlled' dataset. GISS then input this (GHCNv2) and process it further. John Goetz a climate audit and WattsUpWithThat regular has narrowed down the step at which the error appears to have occurred.

"The NOAA error seems to be with the processing of the .dly files. I did a spot check of a couple Russian sites that have the September / October twins at GISS. The NOAA .dly files show a clear difference in temperature. The resulting NOAA GHCN v2 file, however, contains the twins."

However, it would appear that GISS which claims to do its own quality control step, should probably have another look at it's code.




RE: The error started at NOAA
By jamral on 11/12/2008 2:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
Hadley Atmospheric Center in London released a report last year stating that weather stations in Russia and other parts of the world reporting temperatures were false or poorly reported.

An Exact temperature measurements are difficult due to the lack of proficient reporting.


Correction
By Spoogie on 11/11/2008 9:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GISS is run by Dr. James Hansen, a strident global warming advocate...


Should read:

"GISS is run by Dr. James Hansen, a strident global warming alarmist..."

nut jobs + science = bad mojo




RE: Correction
By kbehrens on 11/11/2008 10:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
nut jobs + science = bad mojo
That equation is obviously too complicated for Dr Hansen to understand.


*golf clap*
By fibreoptik on 11/12/2008 9:47:06 AM , Rating: 1
The one-sided "journalism" marches on... way to go masher...




RE: *golf clap*
By Jim28 on 11/12/2008 9:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
It is apparently only one-sided when it is not on your side. Did you call foul on all the stories that support AGW with no sources, or no balance to the story? Thought not? Not that we needed constant reminders of your ideology on this subject as well. Give your self a hand dude.


By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 5:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what that's all about - up to 9.8 degrees C higher than the 1951-1980 average. I wonder if it's just a problem with collecting data from the polar regions (the North Pole is up to 4 degrees C hotter than the average, too). I would assume that McIntyre would have checked on that data if it was inaccurate. If that is true, I'm curious to see this southern summer's ice minimum, if these temperatures continue. It also looks like there's a really hot spot and a really cold spot (relative to historical norms) on either side of the south pole.




Masher, you're my favorite.
By Ordr on 11/11/2008 8:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
See subject.




Huh?
By Chernobyl68 on 11/12/2008 4:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm trying to figure out what last month's temperature in russia has to do with the global temperature in 2005...




Temperatures are inconsistant
By jamral on 11/13/2008 1:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
Temperatures are inconsistant! Dr. Lindzen, MIT, has stated that there is no exacting temperatures.

Example: high temp. - 100 degrees F; low - 45F with an average of 75.5F; not exactly! It depends how long the temperature remains at 100F and 45F. If the temp. at 45F last two hours longer, this changes the average temp.

James Hansen is strictly an alarmist with his own agenda. Falsifing the data is well within his liberal mind-set. However, Hadley Atmospheric Center has stated that world temp. are totally misrepresented by the IPCC Report and GISS.




CO2 Experiment already done
By Charles Higley on 11/14/2008 12:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
Has anyone discussed the fact that a real life reduction of CO2 production has already be done and had no effect? Almost overnight, when the Great Depression hit, CO2 production dropped 30%. The rising temperature at the time and the rising CO2 did not even waver, not miss a beat, i.e., no effect.




Complex algorithm
By jamral on 11/14/2008 3:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
Due to a complex algorithm to convert actual temperature readings, the tendency is to place adjustments to the higher temps.(David Henderson and Ian Castle - A Swag Of Documents)

An on going criticism of the temperature records is poor geographic distribution and sampling. The number of stations have varied greatly over time and decreased markedly, especially in Siberia, affecting the homogeneity of the dataset.

Thus, the errors in the analysis of the GISS surface data. Only satellites provide a true global coverage and homogeneous dataset for Earth's atmosphere.




Her we go again!
By jamral on 11/19/2008 2:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
NOAA GHCN has released adjusted temperature figures for 2008. They have claimed that it is the second hottest October on record - NOT SO FAST!

After a review by a number of blog sites, October, 2008, is the tenth hottest. It is quite evident that GHCN is adjusting temp. datasets skewed toward the higher temperature averages.




Watts up with That
By Andy35W on 11/27/2008 6:30:22 AM , Rating: 2
Chris actually posted first on the Internet about this on the WUWT blog.

Regards

Andy




"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki