# How Accurate are Global Temperatures?



## IanC (Sep 24, 2010)

First off- global temps are difficult to measure, adding up readings from different areas of the land and sea is a complex job.

Second- it doesn't matter that much what the number actually is (accuracy) as long as we can measure how much it is changing (precision).

My problem with totally believing the figures that we are getting about global warming is the adjustments that are being made to the measurements. These adjustments are made for many reasons, such as changing from one type of instrument to another or filling in missing areas. But they almost always step up. By step up I mean that the accuracy figure (actual temperature) is raised step and then precision measurements are based on that new increased baseline. But the new higher baseline is compared to older lower baselines.

Why does this matter and how are biases introduced? Take satellites, when one generation is replaced by the next there is an overlap and they try to calibrate them together but often the first satellite is badly degraded. The people who manage the satellites often disagree with the adjustments made to their instruments' readings but they can't really do anything about it. And the baseline always goes up. The diving buoys for measuring ocean temps originally produced data that showed substantial cooling for the early 00's. They were checked, scrutinized and recalibrated until the readings were more in line. Would this have happened if the data had shown higher temps? The surface station readings have been a total travesty. Poor placement, massive loss of individual stations, poor data collection methodologies and of course _temperature adjustments that often are the majority of the trend._ 

I am not saying there has been no temperature increase. But I am saying that biased adjustments in just about every area have had a significant effect on the overall trend of increasing temps.


----------



## konradv (Sep 25, 2010)

That's why GHGs concentrations are so important.  Given their ability to absorb infra-red radiation and their 25-30% increase over historical averages since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, logic tells us that warming is inevitable, if the trend continues.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 25, 2010)

IanC said:


> First off- global temps are difficult to measure, adding up readings from different areas of the land and sea is a complex job.
> 
> Second- it doesn't matter that much what the number actually is (accuracy)* as long as we can measure how much it is changing* (precision).
> 
> ...


That's why ANOMALIES are used to measure the TREND!!!

And the buoys were found to have faulty depth gauges. They were deeper than their gauges recorded giving colder temps. Of course, deniers want faulty data if it supports their global cooling hoax and call eliminating faulty data a conspiracy.


----------



## IanC (Sep 25, 2010)

Ed- you are making my point for me. Those buoys would not have got the same scrutiny if they were reading higher instead. Why isn't the same effort put into other areas? No one gives a shit if a land temp station is on an airport tarmac or under an airconditioning vent. No one (in climate science peer review) gives a shit if statistical methods are wrong or the data is used upside down, as long as the results are pleasing to them. And there is always the easy fix of making 'adjustments' to the raw data, because until lately skeptics were powerless to get their questions answered.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 25, 2010)

IanC said:


> Ed- you are making my point for me. *Those buoys would not have got the same scrutiny if they were reading higher instead.* Why isn't the same effort put into other areas? No one gives a shit if a land temp station is on an airport tarmac or under an airconditioning vent. No one (in climate science peer review) gives a shit if statistical methods are wrong or the data is used upside down, as long as the results are pleasing to them. And there is always the easy fix of making 'adjustments' to the raw data, because until lately skeptics were powerless to get their questions answered.


PURE BULLSHIT!!!!!

Again, that is why ANOMALIES are used to show the trend and not the direct temperature reading like you deniers mislead the gullible with.

If a temp station is near a heat source, the 30 year average the anomaly is measured against for that station will be higher so the TREND will be accurate. 
You know it, I know it and your dishonest sources know it.


----------



## IanC (Sep 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Ed- you are making my point for me. *Those buoys would not have got the same scrutiny if they were reading higher instead.* Why isn't the same effort put into other areas? No one gives a shit if a land temp station is on an airport tarmac or under an airconditioning vent. No one (in climate science peer review) gives a shit if statistical methods are wrong or the data is used upside down, as long as the results are pleasing to them. And there is always the easy fix of making 'adjustments' to the raw data, because until lately skeptics were powerless to get their questions answered.
> ...



I have already posted quite a few examples of both urban heat effects and bizarre 'corrections' that should give any thinking person more than enough information to question whether the trend is even upward in many cases, and whether the size of the trend is from data readings or from the large manipulations the raw data go through before being presented to the public. Do you know that NASA GISS made an error at year 2000? And when it was found by a skeptic, NASA went back and changed all the pre-2000 figures instead of correcting the few post-2000 years. Why?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2010)

OK. So you want a gauge that will not reflect 'heat island affect' of modern cities. There is one that is readily available. They are called glaciers. And the majority, worldwide, are in an accelerating retreat.

http://www.igsd.org/documents/TibetanPlateauGlaciersNote_10August2010.pdf


Summary
According to the IPCC, the global average surface temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C ± 0.19°C. V. Ramanathan and Y. Feng from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, calculate that greenhouse gas emissions as of 2005 have committed the planet to warming of &#8220;2.4ºC (1.4º-4.3º) above the preindustrial surface temperatures.&#8221; The Tibetan Plateau is warming about three times the global average. Since the 1950&#8217;s, warming in excess of 1ºC on the Tibetan side of the Himalayas has contributed to retreat of more than 80% of the glaciers. Melting glaciers endangers the fresh water supply and food security of billions of people in Asia. The warming also contributes to the land use changes, especially melting of permafrost, which could result in significant carbon loss. Black carbon (soot) may have a significant effect on melting snow and glaciers equaling the impact of increased atmospheric CO2. Therefore, in addition to a central reduction of CO2, it is imperative to implement fast-action strategies to reduce non-CO2 warming agents, including black carbon, hydrofluorocarbons, methane and tropospheric ozone precursors, as well as expand bio-sequestration and enhance urban albedo which together can reduce committed warming and associated abrupt climate changes on a decadal timescale.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2010)

An overview of glacier trends

Both approaches show consistent results (with all glaciers showing a slightly faster drop in mass compared to the 30 reference glaciers). There is strong mass loss in the first decade from 1945. Note that at this time, there were only several glaciers monitored - not quite a global sample. The mass loss slows down in the second decade so that around 1970, global mass balance was close to zero. Glaciers were in near equilbrium which indicates glacier shrinkage in the late 20th Century is essentially a response to post-1970 global warming (Greene 2005).

After 1975, glacier shrinkage continues to accelerate until present. The mass loss from 1996 to 2005 is more than double the mass loss rate in the previous decade of 1986 to 1995 and over four times the mass loss rate over 1976 to 1985. When you narrowly focus on a few cherry picked glaciers, you can be misled into an incorrect view of global glacier trends. When you take in the broader picture, you see that globally, glaciers are shrinking at an accelerating rate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2010)

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Abstract
Worldwide glacier mass changes are considered to represent natural key variables within global climate-related monitoring programmes, especially with respect to strategies concerning early detection of enhanced greenhouse effects on climate. This is due to the fact that glacier mass changes provide important quantitative information on rates of change, acceleration tendencies and pre-industrial variability relating to energy exchange at the earth/athmosphere interface. During the coming decades, excess radiation income and sensible heat (a few watts per square metre) as calculated with numerical climate models are both estimated to increase by a factor of about two to four as compared to the mean of the 20th century. The rate of average annual mass loss (a few decimetres per year) measured today on mountain glaciers in various parts of the world now appears to accelerate accordingly, even though detailed interpretation of the complex processes involved remains difficult. Within the framework of secular glacier retreat and Holocene glacier fluctuations, similar rates of change and acceleration must have taken place before, i.e. during times of weak anthropogenic forcing. However, the anthropogenic influences on the atmosphere could now and for the first time represent a major contributing factor to the observed glacier shrinkage at a global scale. Problems with such assessments mainly concern aspects of statistical averaging, regional climate variability, strong differences in glacier sensitivity and relations between mass balance and cumulative glacier length change over decadal to secular time scales. Considerable progress has recently been achieved in these fields of research.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2010)

I can post a lot more studies from real scientists concerning the accelerating loss of glacial ice worldwide.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 25, 2010)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


That, of course, is not an accurate summary of what happened, but I would never expect a denier to be accurate.

It was the POST 2000 US data that was corrected, as you well know, but keep your tinfoil conspiracy hat on, it suits you.


----------



## IanC (Sep 27, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I couldn't figure out how to put the blink comparison directly into this post. Perhaps someone more skillful than I can repost it so that others need not follow this link to see it

&#8220;The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained&#8230;&#8221; | Watts Up With That?





It is easy to see by comparing the 1999 GISS US temperature anomalies to the 2008 GISS that there has been significant change to the pre-1999 data. It is not me wearing a tinfoil hat, but you wearing blinders that make it impossible for you to believe that your heroes could 'adjust' the data to make the case for exaggerated warming.


----------



## IanC (Sep 27, 2010)

another blink comparison. this time NOAA US temps, raw and 'adjusted'


----------



## IanC (Sep 27, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> It was the POST 2000 US data that was corrected, as you well know, but keep your tinfoil conspiracy hat on, it suits you.



here you go Ed- a nice big helping of crow for you to eat. tell me again how the pre-1999 data wasn't changed.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 27, 2010)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


When deniers, just like CON$, get caught lying they never admit the truth and just change the subject.

Originally you said that when an error was found in 2000, the pre 2000 data was changed rather than the post 2000 data. Caught lying you dishonestly post a blink chart that compares completely different data than the data from the 2000 error. 

Here is the data from the 2000 error correction. The only place where you see the old erroneus green data diverge from the new corrected red data is from 2000 on.

It takes a far better liar than you to deceive a CYNIC!!!

Data.GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis: August 2007 Update and Effects

August 2007 Update and Effects
Recently it was realized that the monthly more-or-less-automatic updates of our global temperature analysis had a flaw in the U.S. data. We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that this flaw might be present.

In the 2001 update (described in Hansen et al. [2001]) of the analysis method (originally published in Hansen et al. [1981]), we included improvements that NOAA had made in station records in the U.S., their corrections being based mainly on station-by-station information about station movement, change of time-of-day at which max-min are recorded, etc.

Unfortunately, we didn't realize that these corrections would not continue to be readily available in the near-real-time data streams. The same stations are in the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data stream, however, and thus what our analysis picked up in subsequent years was station data without the NOAA correction. Obviously, combining the uncorrected GHCN with the NOAA-corrected records for earlier years caused jumps in 2000 in the records at those stations, some up, some down (over U.S. only). This problem is easy to fix, by matching the 1990s decadal-mean temperatures for the NOAA-corrected and GHCN records, and we have made that correction.






*The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies*, as much as 0.15°C, as shown in the right hand side of the figure above (*for years 2001 and later, and 5 year mean for 1999 and later*). That half of the figure can also be viewed in a larger GIF. (Complete figure also available as PDF.)






The effect on global temperature (the left side of the figure; see larger GIF) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.


----------



## IanC (Sep 28, 2010)

edthecynic said-





> When deniers, just like CON$, get caught lying they never admit the truth and just change the subject.
> 
> Originally you said that when an error was found in 2000, the pre 2000 data was changed rather than the post 2000 data. Caught lying you dishonestly post a blink chart that compares completely different data than the data from the 2000 error.
> 
> ...



are you saying that the 1999 GISS US temp chart is a fake? there are obvious differences in most of the 1900-1999 measurements! why is that? why does correcting a Y2K code error (found by a outsider years after the fact) entail going back and changing data from decades before? you must be a true believer because no evidence seems capable of shaking your faith. I could somewhat understand if you replied that the revised code did indeed make changes going back 100 years but the differences were small but you are saying that no changes were made. unbelievable!

I wonder if the present data for 1900-1999 will be different in 2020? Do peer reviewed papers have to state what year their temperature data is from so that other researchers can synch up the results?


----------



## IanC (Sep 28, 2010)

and here are the 1999 temps compared to the 2007 temps, global

are you still saying that the pre-1999 temperature readings were not 'adjusted'? or should I say 'corrected'? perhaps 'manipulated' is a better word. and you can bet your ass there is significantly more of an increased warming trend in these graphs than there would be in a graph of raw data.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 29, 2010)

> Originally Posted by IanC
> 
> I have already posted quite a few examples of both urban heat effects and bizarre 'corrections' that should give any thinking person more than enough information to question whether the trend is even upward in many cases, and whether the size of the trend is from data readings or from the large manipulations the raw data go through before being presented to the public.* Do you know that NASA GISS made an error at year 2000? And when it was found by a skeptic, NASA went back and changed all the pre-2000 figures instead of correcting the few post-2000 years. *Why?





edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





IanC said:


> are you saying that the 1999 GISS US temp chart is a fake? there are obvious differences in most of the 1900-1999 measurements! why is that?* why does correcting a Y2K code error (found by a outsider years after the fact) entail going back and changing data from decades before?* you must be a true believer because no evidence seems capable of shaking your faith. I could somewhat understand if you replied that the revised code did indeed make changes going back 100 years but the differences were small but you are saying that no changes were made. unbelievable!
> 
> I wonder if the present data for 1900-1999 will be different in 2020? *Do peer reviewed papers have to state what year their temperature data is from so that other researchers can synch up the results?*


You know exactly what I'm saying so don't play dumb!

Repeating your lie does not make it true!

And peer reviewed papers always indicate the standard used for the data, like "Smith et al., 2008."






http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/SEA.temps08.pdf


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 29, 2010)

IanC said:


> First off- global temps are difficult to measure, adding up readings from different areas of the land and sea is a complex job.
> 
> Second- it doesn't matter that much what the number actually is (accuracy) as long as we can measure how much it is changing (precision).
> 
> ...





common sense FTW..................

Gotta understand where the k00ks are coming from though. These people have little meaningful shit going on in their lives so they've chosen to embrace this hysterical science stuff. Its not unlike your neighbor who cant get off the computer and when they have to take a dump, its high anxiety. Alot of these science junkies who shit, eat and breathe hysterical science..........we all knew them is school. The poindexters of society........the oddballs who stand around at social events with their thumbs up their asses. Always tend to gravitate to hysterical "causes" which provides a measure of something meaningful in their lives, even if it means being an oddball.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 29, 2010)

LMAO........see what I mean?

This Edcynic guy.........he posts up the same graphs every ten days or so. You can set your watch by it!! Guy like him and Chris and Old Rocks sit around on the PC all day frantic that their shit might get pwned. Indeed..........like West always says.........this is a religion for them. They completely ignore alternative data as if it were made up!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 29, 2010)

IanC.........and another thing not to be overlooked in terms of this global warming stuff...........

INVARIABLY.........all of these global warming crusaders are hyper-anticapitalist guys so the whole global warming crap is just a means to an end: destruction of the free market with the goals being government control of everything. These people are personally miserable and always look to blame somebody else for thier lousy lot in life.........so they blame the capitalist. They stay up nights trying to figure out ways to fcukk over successful people. Thats why they are 100% behind Cap and Trade legislation = a step towards government takeover of our energy, thus, their hyper-support of fake science has little to do with the environment. It is a political strategy.......originally a brilliant one at that........

Go check out the ONE NATION site..........the people behind this huge rally in Washington this weekend. Most of the notable people and organizations are Marxist.........100% certainty. Many contributers and attendee's are these green energy organizations. They want change..........indeed...........destruction of capitalism in America.


But dont take my word for it..............go check the site ( I think its "One Nation-Working together".) LOL.......even their flag representation is cryptic.


----------



## IanC (Sep 29, 2010)

thanks skookerasbil. sometimes I don't think anyone read this stuff anyways

did anyone notice that edthecynic refused to acknowledge that the temperature anomalies were different pre-1999 on the GISS graphs from 1999 and 2007? or am I wasting my time pointing out these things?


----------



## fyrenza (Sep 29, 2010)

IanC said:


> Ed- you are making my point for me. Those buoys would not have got the same scrutiny if they were reading higher instead. Why isn't the same effort put into other areas? No one gives a shit if a land temp station is on an airport tarmac or under an airconditioning vent. No one (in climate science peer review) gives a shit if statistical methods are wrong or the data is used upside down, as long as the results are pleasing to them. And there is always the easy fix of making 'adjustments' to the raw data, because until lately skeptics were powerless to get their questions answered.



Wasn't it MORE a matter of comparison with other readings?

If MOST of the readings are going UP, wouldn't you be suspicious of any that were trending in the opposite direction?  If the lower readings were happening in sporadic placements, or in a group, wouldn't you start wEndering?

Those readings, once investigated and found inaccurate, should have been DELETED from the database, not "accommodated" by recalibration of any equipment.  REPLACEMENT of equipment, sure, but one presumes that it would be state-of-the-art, NOT just haphazardly monkeyed around with.

What was the question, again?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 29, 2010)

IanC said:


> thanks skookerasbil. sometimes I don't think anyone read this stuff anyways
> 
> did anyone notice that edthecynic refused to acknowledge that the temperature anomalies were different pre-1999 on the GISS graphs from 1999 and 2007? or am I wasting my time pointing out these things?


I noticed you refused to acknowledge that the temperature anomalies you posted had NOTHING to do with the error found in 2000!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 29, 2010)

fyrenza said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Ed- you are making my point for me. Those buoys would not have got the same scrutiny if they were reading higher instead. Why isn't the same effort put into other areas? No one gives a shit if a land temp station is on an airport tarmac or under an airconditioning vent. No one (in climate science peer review) gives a shit if statistical methods are wrong or the data is used upside down, as long as the results are pleasing to them. And there is always the easy fix of making 'adjustments' to the raw data, because until lately skeptics were powerless to get their questions answered.
> ...


That's exactly what they did with the data from the faulty ARGE floats, they tossed it out!!!!


----------



## IanC (Sep 30, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > thanks skookerasbil. sometimes I don't think anyone read this stuff anyways
> ...



hahaha, switching directions again? 

I specifically showed that the pre-1999 temperature anomalies were changed after NASA GISS 'fixed' their code. Both in the US temps and the global temps. Also the error wasn't caught until 2006-2007, and it wasn't found by NASA but by an outsider. 

I am still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why fixing a Y2K bug entails going back and altering results from 1900 to 1999. Since edthecynic can't answer, maybe one of the other AGW alarmists can enlighten the rest of us.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 30, 2010)

> Originally Posted by IanC
> 
> I have already posted quite a few examples of both urban heat effects and bizarre 'corrections' that should give any thinking person more than enough information to question whether the trend is even upward in many cases, and whether the size of the trend is from data readings or from the large manipulations the raw data go through before being presented to the public.* Do you know that NASA GISS made an error at year 2000? And when it was found by a skeptic, NASA went back and changed all the pre-2000 figures instead of correcting the few post-2000 years.* Why?





IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I have switched nothing! you have. See the first quote in my sig.

No matter how many times you repeat your lie it still remains a lie! Nothing before 1999 was changed in 2007 as these two 2007 charts of the error correction clearly show.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 30, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> > Originally Posted by IanC
> >
> > I have already posted quite a few examples of both urban heat effects and bizarre 'corrections' that should give any thinking person more than enough information to question whether the trend is even upward in many cases, and whether the size of the trend is from data readings or from the large manipulations the raw data go through before being presented to the public.* Do you know that NASA GISS made an error at year 2000? And when it was found by a skeptic, NASA went back and changed all the pre-2000 figures instead of correcting the few post-2000 years.* Why?
> 
> ...





lmao.......what did I tell you about these OCD k00ks..........post up the same crap for years!!!


Ian bro.........guys like this have started their own ark projects in their backyards............

Here is Ed's ptototype!!!....................








He's not taking ANY chances when the big flood hits..............


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 30, 2010)

Ian man...........heres the botom line poop..............

Cap and Trade is so fcukking dead in this land its not real..........nobody in congress is talking about it except the candidates in the very few hyper-left districts. So essentially..........these threads are nothing but a pissing contest or, as I prefer to call it, exercises in navel contemplation. In fact, the k00ks have gone back to the drawing board in an attempt to find a new name for "Cap and Trade" it has become so radioactive politically. They have to find another clever way to package a bill which will double our electric rates!!! Most of the middle class pays $200-$300 a month for electricity and are already getting their asses taxed to death. Only a k00k would think a photo of a polar bear is going to encourage voters to want to shell out $600/month in electric bills!!!

This green economy crap is just another special interest group thing..........keep an eye on GE's efforts in making contributions to perpetuate this global warming hoax..........they have lots and lots to lose..............as in tens of billions wihout a green economy. All of their money for these efforts is funneled through proxy entities............and the funniest thing about it is that these environmental k00ks are mostly motivated by wanting to screw over big oil. And its not about the environment.........its about fcukking over the capitalist. Meanwhile, their efforts are just helping make a different category of fat cats and they dont even realize it!!!


----------



## IanC (Sep 30, 2010)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > It was the POST 2000 US data that was corrected, as you well know, but keep your tinfoil conspiracy hat on, it suits you.
> ...



I realize I am just driving my self insane by expecting edthecynic to respond rationally but I have to try once more.

This blink comparer of graphs of 1900-1999 US land temp anomalies from both 1999 and 2007 shows different values and (more importantly) different trend lines before and after the Y2K error was corrected in 2007.

My specific question to edthecynic is:
   "Can you not see that the graphs show changes in pre-1999 values that affect the trend line?"

I don't want to see the GISS graph you posted where NASA 'says' there is no change. I want you to look at the two graphs and categorically state that there is no change, or explain why data from decades ago was 'adjusted', some points up and others down.

The ball is in your court but I don't expect much from you. My prediction is that you will call me a liar and ignore my question.


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2010)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...






You are correct, ed is not capable of rational thought.  He does love to call people liars however!


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Again, no matter how many times you repeat the same lie it will never become the truth no matter how many other liars agree with you.

Your blink chart is not comparing the 2006 data with the data that was corrected in 2007, get that through your thick head!!!!

As the link I gave earlier showed, in 2001 the analysis method was updated improving accuracy, something deniers hate, but when the data was updated it was not carried forward from that point. Then that error was found and in 2007 the data from the last update was corrected. They did not go back and change the data before 1999 as you claim when they made the 2007 correction.

What you and your blink chart dishonestly did was take the data from BEFORE the 2001 update, and use that as the pre 2007 error correction data. Mind you McIntyre did not find an error in the 2001 update, only that the update was not applied to the future data. So your blink chart takes the pre 2001 update data and the post 2007 error corrected data and compares the two instead of comparing the 2006 chart to the 2007 chart as my charts do.

Got it now????

Data.GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis: August 2007 Update and Effects

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
August 2007 Update and Effects
Recently it was realized that the monthly more-or-less-automatic updates of our global temperature analysis had a flaw in the U.S. data. We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that this flaw might be present.

*In the 2001 update (described in Hansen et al. [2001]) of the analysis method (originally published in Hansen et al. [1981]), we included improvements that NOAA had made in station records in the U.S.,* their corrections being based mainly on station-by-station information about station movement, change of time-of-day at which max-min are recorded, etc.

*Unfortunately, we didn't realize that these corrections would not continue to be readily available in the near-real-time data streams. The same stations are in the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data stream, however, and thus what our analysis picked up in subsequent years was station data without the NOAA correction. *


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...






I hate to tell you but the only folks provably lying are on your side.   But go ahead and think whatever you wish because it no longer matters.  Your side has lost and I say good riddance to them.


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Your blink chart is not comparing the 2006 data with the data that was corrected in 2007, get that through your thick head!!!!
> 
> As the link I gave earlier showed, in 2001 the analysis method was updated improving accuracy, something deniers hate, but when the data was updated it was not carried forward from that point. Then that error was found and in 2007 the data from the last update was corrected. They did not go back and change the data before 1999 as you claim when they made the 2007 correction.
> 
> ...



After giving it much thought I have come to the conclusion that you are partially correct. I was overstating my case. I apologize for lumping 2001 adjustments in with the 2007 adjustments. It is one type of the misdirections used by climate science that cause me to be distrustful of their results.

I would also like to apologize for the reason I made that error. I was pissed off because I was falsely called a liar, and I was more interested in being right than understanding all the areas of this issue. I would like to thank edthecynic for his role in bringing me to the self realization that the search for knowledge is more important than the petty pride of 'winning an argument' through biased restatement of the facts. I will try to do better in the future.


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2010)

with my mea culpa out of the way...



> The cause of the error, they say, was a switch to a new data-collection system in 2000 and a faulty assumption that the old and new methods matched, which last week led to a recalculation of the figures.
> 
> Now 1934 is the hottest year on record in the US at an average of 1.25C higher than normal; 1998 is second at 1.23C, and 1921 in third place at 1.15C. Under the old system, 1998 was the hottest at 1.24C above normal, with 1934 at 1.23C. 2006, newly relegated to fourth place, was also at 1.23C.


Blogger gets hot and bothered over Nasa's climate data error | Environment | The Guardian








> Burnett challenged that assertion, saying the correction made it clear that NASA's conclusion -- that the majority of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 1990 -- is false.
> 
> "Time after time, Hansen and other global warming alarmists present their data as 'the facts,' and [say that] 'you can't argue with data,' " he said. "Well, it turns out their data is just wrong. And when it's wrong, they want to say it's not important."
> ...
> ...


Jeff Samano On Today's Issues: NASA: 1934 Hottest Year on Record

any reasonable person would admit that pre-1999 data have indeed been changed.

the emphasised portion above is for you edthecynic. it relates to your smear of Christie and Spencer

and for anyone who wants the actual data in numerical form-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt 1999vs2005
http://www.john-daly.com/GISSUSAT.708after Y2K corrections


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 1, 2010)

IanC said:


> . It is one type of the misdirections used by climate science *that cause me to be distrustful of their results.*





IanC said:


> with my mea culpa out of the way...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You would think that after your sources burned you with the misdirection of their blink chart you would be at least as distrustful of them as you are of climate scientists, but no you swallow their BS whole in your defense of Christy and Spencer. 

The error from using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift, an error that cannot be made by accident by an "expert" on satellite calculations as the pair bill themselves, was much greater than their error noted above. The numbers went from +.047 degrees C/decade to +.138 degrees C/decade.


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > . It is one type of the misdirections used by climate science *that cause me to be distrustful of their results.*
> ...



I notice that you still haven't admitted that pre-1999 data were changed when the Y2K bug was fixed. Do you still deny that they were? I mean come on now. Even Gavin Schmidt says they were.

As to Spencer and Christie-  start a thread, state your case, put up a few links and then we can debate it a while.


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2010)

I wonder who gets to decide what adjustments get made, and why they always make the temperature trend higher. How much would you bet that the adjustments are 50% of the total trend? Actually better yet, how many of you think under/over 50%? A quick poll.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 1, 2010)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Why should I admit to something YOU know is not true!

And Gavin Schmidt said no such thing!
The pre 1999 data was changed long before the year 2000 error was found in 2007.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

Some improvements in the analysis were made several years ago (Hansen et al. 1999; Hansen et al. 2001), including use of satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations in the United States are located in urban and peri-urban areas, the long-term trends of those stations being adjusted to agree with long-term trends of nearby rural stations.

*Current Analysis Method*

The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations. *The basic analysis method is described by Hansen et al. (1999), with several modifications described by Hansen et al. (2001) also included. Modifications to the analysis since 2001 are described on the separate Updates to Analysis.*

Graphs and tables are updated around the 10th of every month using the current GHCN and SCAR files. The new files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months. NOAA updates the USHCN data at a slower, less regular frequency; we switch to a later version as soon as a new complete year is available.

The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. *Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.*

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) -- Updates to Analysis

Several minor updates to the analysis have been made since its last published description by Hansen et al. (2001). After a testing period they were incorporated at the time of the next routine update.* The only change having a detectable influence on analyzed temperature was the 7 August 2007 change to correct a discontinuity in 2000 at many stations in the United States. This flaw affected temperatures in 2000 and later years by ~0.15°C averaged over the United States and ~0.003°C on global average.* Contrary to reports in the media, this minor flaw did not alter the years of record temperature, as shown by comparison here of results with the data flaw ('old analysis') and with the correction ('new analysis').

RealClimate: 1934 and all that

*1934 and all that*
Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record  gavin @ 10 August 2007

Another week, another ado over nothing.

Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP analysis,* there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000.* On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear.

This was duly done by Tuesday, an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis (which had been due in any case for the processing of the July numbers) was updated accordingly along with an acknowledgment to McIntyre and update of the methodology.

The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC* for the years 2000-2006.* There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).


More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC  the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC).


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2010)

IanC said:


> > The cause of the error, they say, was a switch to a new data-collection system in 2000 and a faulty assumption that the old and new methods matched, which last week led to a recalculation of the figures.
> >
> > Now 1934 is the hottest year on record in the US at an average of 1.25C higher than normal; 1998 is second at 1.23C, and 1921 in third place at 1.15C. Under the old system, 1998 was the hottest at 1.24C above normal, with 1934 at 1.23C. 2006, newly relegated to fourth place, was also at 1.23C.
> 
> ...



I hate to seem obstinant over this point edthecynic, but how did 1934 and 1998 change places as the hottest year in the US if there were no adjustments in pre-1999 data?

And for Schmidt, he said it right in your post.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 1, 2010)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > > The cause of the error, they say, was a switch to a new data-collection system in 2000 and a faulty assumption that the old and new methods matched, which last week led to a recalculation of the figures.
> ...


This is the third time I've posted this link regarding the error corrected in 2007. The correction you say was made in 2007 was made in 2001. Please read it this time.

Data.GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis: August 2007 Update and Effects

*Contrary to some statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures.* However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.


----------



## IanC (Oct 2, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Just so I have this straight. The main correction was in 2000-2001 when the pre-1999 data was massively changed and the trend lines twisted upwards. You are OK with that. The second correction was in 2007 after an outsider found the Y2K bug and the 2000's data was dropped .15 degrees and pre-1999 data was changed again. You are saying that I can't bring up pre-1999 changes in data because they were all supposed to be made the first time. Hmmm. Seems like you and NASA are playing a game of 'heads we win, tails you lose'. Perhaps if reasons and methodologies for all of these corrections were out in the open there wouldn't be so much suspicion. 

Anyways, pre-1999 data was changed when the Y2K correction was made and until it can be established that the temperature series couldn't be fixed by better manipulation of the 2000's series, I am sticking with my contention that NASA is playing a shell game by reconstructing historic data to get the resulting temperature trends and reconciliation with other temperature data sets that it wants.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 2, 2010)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Damn you are pigheaded!!!!!

How many times do you have to be shown that the pre 1999 data was NOT changed in 2007?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the methodology for all the changes including the 2001 changes were made quite public and I have already linked to them and posted pull quotes that explain the improvements in the accuracy of the data, such as using satellite data to locate and adjust for urban heat islands, averaging urban heat islands with neighboring rural stations and dropping urban heat island stations that do not have rural stations nearby.

Just because you can't face the truth does not make it any less truthful, just as repeating the lie that data before 1999 was changed in 2007 does not make it any less of a lie.


----------



## IanC (Oct 2, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Damn you are pigheaded!!!!!
> 
> How many times do you have to be shown that the pre 1999 data was NOT changed in 2007?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...



I really like it when you put your thoughts down in your own words rather than C&P. It helps me figure out where you are coming from.

You seem to think your guys are forthright and next to infallible. I just looked at the temp numbers for GISS US, unfortunately I haven't found a pre-1999 set that I trust, but the 2006(pre fix), 2007(post fix), 2007(post post fix) paint an odd story. Pre-1999 figures started low, corrected higher, then decreased again. Post-2000 figures started high, corrected lower, then increased again. Pretty much back to where they started from. I'll give actual figures when I can find a pre-1999 data set, unfortunately the Way Back machine only goes back to 2006 (or the name has been changed). 


e said 





> explain the improvements in the accuracy of the data, such as using satellite data to locate and adjust for urban heat islands, averaging urban heat islands with neighboring rural stations and dropping urban heat island stations that do not have rural stations nearby.



you really haven't looked into those improvements much, have you? hahaha. It is hard to even know where to start on that subject. its another case of ineptitude being pointed out by outsiders and then climate science saying they found it and corrected the problem when it hasn't been fixed at all.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 3, 2010)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Damn you are pigheaded!!!!!
> ...


If only you had a thought of your own instead of parroting the crap from CON$ervative pundits.

A perfect example is your claim that "pre 1999 figures started low, corrected higher" and then you admitted you could find no pre 1999 figures so how could you possibly know where they started from or what direction they corrected to except by parroting what others fed you and you swallowed whole.
Thank you.


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Actually, I said 'a pre-1999 data set that I trust'. I have found several graphs that show visual rather than numerical figures. 

The story of the Y2K bug and subsequent fixes is much more complex and interesting than I thought. It certainly is not the story of NASA making a simple fix after being informed of the error. And it involves NASA going back and recalculating (pre-1999)data at least twice during 2007. 

And the really strange part is that this year's GISS figures seem to have erased most of the post-2000 decreases and dropped early 1900's as well.

More later


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 3, 2010)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Don't you deniers ever get tired of repeating the same lies over and over?????

There was only one change in August 2007 due to the error McIntyre found. A later update had nothing to do with McIntyre, and YOU know it!!!!!

Here again is the correction made for the error McIntyre found and the BS you deniers fabricated.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2007/20070816_realdeal.pdf

This discontinuity can be removed by comparing USHCN and GHCN records just before 2000, and this correction was made to the GISS computer program on 7 August 2007 with a note to that effect made on the GISTEMP web page.]

How big an error did this flaw cause? That is shown by the before and after results in Figure 1. The effect on the global temperature record is invisible. The effect on U.S. average temperature is about 0.15°C beginning in 2000. Does this change have any affect whatsoever on the global warming issue? Certainly not, as discussed below.

What we have here is a case of dogged contrarians who present results in ways intended to deceive the public into believing that the changes have greater significance than reality. They aim to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I believe that these people are not stupid, instead they seek to create a brouhaha and muddy the waters in the climate change story. They seem to know exactly what they are doing and believe they can get away with it, because the public does not have the time, inclination, and training to discern what is a significant change with regard to the global warming issue.

The proclamations of the contrarians are a deceit, but their story raises a more important matter, usufruct. It is the most important issue in the entire global warming story, in my opinion. The players in the present U.S. temperature story, we scientists included, are just bit players. The characters in the main drama are big fish, really big fish. But before we get to that matter, I need to expose how the deceit works.

Instead of showing the impact of the flaw in our analysis program via a graph such as Figure 1, as a scientist would do (and as would immediately reveal how significant the flaw was), they instead discuss ranking of temperature in different years, including many false statements. We have thus been besieged by journalists saying they say that correcting your error caused the warmest year to become 1934 rather than a recent year, is that right!?

Hardly. First of all, many journalists had the impression that they were talking about global temperature. As you can see from Figure 1a, global warming is unaffected by the flaw. This realization should be enough to make most journalists lose interest, as global warming refers to global temperature.

But what if you are a chauvinist and only care about temperature in the United States? Did correcting the flaw in the program change the time of calculated maximum temperature to 1934? No. If you look at our 2001 paper, and get out your micrometer, you will see that we found 1934 to be the warmest year in the United States, by a hair, of the order of 0.01°C warmer than 1998, the same as the result that we find now. Of course the difference in the 1934 and 1998 temperatures is not significant, and we made clear in our paper that such years have to be declared as being practically a dead-heat.


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2010)

Google cached a version on Jul 23, 2007 1508 GMT. Here it is:    (PRE Y2K FIX)
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)                                      
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;

1921 1.12 .14



1990 .88 .41
1991 .70 .26
1992 .31 .39
1993 -.43 .28
1994 .47 .11                         
1995 .35 .06
1996 -.17 .39
1997 .05 .48
1998 1.24 .54
1999 .94 .76
2000 .65 .88
2001 .90 .76
2002 .68 .69
2003 .65 .73
2004 .60 .80
2005 .85 *
2006 1.23 *


Sept 14 2007
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)         (AFTER FIX)
------------------------------------------------------
year    Annual_Mean  5-year_Mean
---------------------------------

 1921      1.15       .1



 1990       .87       .40
 1991       .69       .25
 1992       .30       .38
 1993      -.44       .27
 1994       .46       .10
 1995       .34       .05
 1996      -.17       .38
 1997       .03       .47
 1998      1.23       .51
 1999       .93       .69
 2000       .52       .79
 2001       .76       .65
 2002       .53       .55
 2003       .50       .58
 2004       .44       .66
 2005       .69       * 
 2006      1.13       * 
---------------------------------

Oct 11 2007
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)            
------------------------------------------------------
year    Annual_Mean  5-year_Mean
---------------------------------

 1921      1.13       .13



 1990       .88       .41
 1991       .70       .26
 1992       .31       .39
 1993      -.43       .28
 1994       .47       .11
 1995       .36       .06
 1996      -.16       .39
 1997       .04       .48
 1998      1.24       .52
 1999       .94       .71
 2000       .54       .81
 2001       .78       .67
 2002       .55       .57
 2003       .53       .61
 2004       .46       .68
 2005       .71         *
 2006      1.15         *


 (from today)
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year    Annual_Mean  5-year_Mean
---------------------------------

1921        1.08        0.09



1990        0.92        0.46
1991        0.71        0.31
1992        0.37        0.44
1993       -0.35        0.34
1994        0.55        0.19
1995        0.43        0.14
1996       -0.06        0.48
1997        0.15        0.58
1998        1.32        0.63
1999        1.07        0.83
2000        0.69        0.94
2001        0.92        0.81
2002        0.68        0.72
2003        0.69        0.76
2004        0.61        0.84
2005        0.92        0.88
2006        1.30        0.76
2007        0.87        0.69
2008        0.11           *
2009        0.24           *





I left 1921 in because it was considered a top ten warmest year after the initial fix. These tables pretty much prove that NASA did change, and continue to change pre-1999 data. It would be very interesting to see the actual raw data but that is pretty much a state secret. But I do wonder how much of the warming trend is solely due to their 'adjustments'.


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2010)

On March 29 I downloaded the GLB.Ts.txt file from GISS and compared it to a copy I had from late August 2007. I was surprised to find several hundred differences in monthly temperature. Intrigued, I decided to take a trip back in time via the Way Back Machine.

Here I found 32 versions of GLB.Ts.txt going back to September 24, 2005. I was a bit disappointed the record did not go back further, but was later surprised at how many historical changes can occur in a brief 2 1/2 years.The first thing I did was eliminate versions where no changes to the data were made. I then compared the number of monthly differences between the remaining sequential records and built the following table. Here I show the Prior record compared to the next sequential record (referred to as Current). The number of changes made to the monthly record between Prior and Current is shown in the Updates column (this column does not count additions to the record  only changes to existing data are counted). The number of valid months contained in the Prior record is in the Months column. Change is simply the percent Updates made to Months.






On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years. The largest single jump was 0.27 C. This occurred between the Oct 13, 2006 and Jan 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomoly of +0.43C to +0.70C, a change of nearly 68%.

Wow.

The next question I had was how often are the months within specific years modified? As can be seen in the next chart, a surprising number of the earliest monthly averages are modified time and again.






I was surprised at how much of the pre-Y2K temperature record changed! My personal favorite change was between the August 16, 2007 file and the March 29, 2008 file. Suddenly, in the later file, the J-D annual temperature for 1880 could now be calculated. In all previous versions the temperature could not be determined.

from Climate Audit, the guys that found the Y2K bug    Rewriting History, Time and Time Again  Climate Audit

Edit- sorry, I did not realize that I left out the quote box


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 3, 2010)




----------



## edthecynic (Oct 3, 2010)

IanC said:


> Google cached a version on* Jul 23, 2007* 1508 GMT. Here it is:    (PRE Y2K FIX)
> Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
> 
> year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
> ...


Those tables prove that the lies are PREMEDITATED!

As I said, the correction for the error McIntyre found was made on August 7, 2007. Conspicuously absent from your tables is the August 7 update data!!!!

Another update was made on Sept 10, 2007, but it had nothing to do with the McIntyre error and low and behold the table you and your dishonest source use is from AFTER that update.

Like I said before, it takes a better liar than you and your programmer to deceive a Cynic.
But do try again.


----------



## Chris (Oct 3, 2010)

Record Events for Sun Sep 26, 2010 through Sat Oct 2, 2010 
Total Records: 2671 
Rainfall: 807 
Snowfall: 6 
High Temperatures: 1180 
Low Temperatures: 46 
Lowest Max Temperatures: 67 
Highest Min Temperatures: 565 

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2010)

from Aug 8 2007. I used the Sep graph because it was very similar and directly off the Way Back machine
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year    Annual_Mean  5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
 1880      -.26      *  
 1881       .29      *  
 1882       .07      -.24
 1883      -.68      -.30
 1884      -.63      -.41
 1885      -.54      -.46
 1886      -.28      -.39
 1887      -.17      -.21
 1888      -.32      -.06
 1889       .28      -.04
 1890       .20      -.11
 1891      -.20      -.19
 1892      -.51      -.21
 1893      -.72      -.38
 1894       .17      -.30
 1895      -.66      -.22
 1896       .19      -.10
 1897      -.08      -.22
 1898      -.15       .03
 1899      -.41       .00
 1900       .57      -.01
 1901       .05      -.11
 1902      -.13      -.13
 1903      -.65      -.34
 1904      -.48      -.35
 1905      -.47      -.37
 1906      -.02      -.21
 1907      -.24      -.17
 1908       .14      -.02
 1909      -.27       .02
 1910       .28      -.11
 1911       .17      -.15
 1912      -.88      -.08
 1913      -.03      -.16
 1914       .09      -.29
 1915      -.15      -.33
 1916      -.50      -.31
 1917     -1.06      -.35
 1918       .06      -.40
 1919      -.10      -.07
 1920      -.41       .17
 1921      1.15       .15
 1922       .18       .02
 1923      -.07       .17
 1924      -.74      -.05
 1925       .36      -.05
 1926       .04      -.02
 1927       .15       .01
 1928       .07      -.03
 1929      -.58       .18
 1930       .16       .15
 1931      1.08       .27
 1932       .00       .63
 1933       .68       .61
 1934      1.25       .44
 1935       .04       .41
 1936       .21       .45
 1937      -.13       .37
 1938       .86       .36
 1939       .85       .45
 1940       .03       .49
 1941       .61       .35
 1942       .09       .21
 1943       .17       .19
 1944       .14       .22
 1945      -.03       .22
 1946       .72       .17
 1947       .10       .18
 1948      -.08       .13
 1949       .20      -.10
 1950      -.28      -.05
 1951      -.42       .14
 1952       .32       .27
 1953       .90       .32
 1954       .85       .47
 1955      -.03       .43
 1956       .29       .26
 1957       .14       .13
 1958       .06       .08
 1959       .17       .02
 1960      -.24      -.01
 1961      -.02       .02
 1962      -.02      -.03
 1963       .19      -.01
 1964      -.07      -.05
 1965      -.11      -.07
 1966      -.24      -.16
 1967      -.10      -.19
 1968      -.28      -.19
 1969      -.23      -.16
 1970      -.11      -.21
 1971      -.10      -.11
 1972      -.35      -.03
 1973       .24      -.05
 1974       .15      -.08
 1975      -.20       .06
 1976      -.25      -.09
 1977       .37      -.24
 1978      -.52      -.16
 1979      -.60       .02
 1980       .22      -.12
 1981       .64      -.02
 1982      -.36       .10
 1983      -.01      -.03
 1984       .00      -.01
 1985      -.42       .22
 1986       .73       .29
 1987       .83       .25
 1988       .32       .51
 1989      -.19       .50
 1990       .87       .40
 1991       .69       .25
 1992       .30       .38
 1993      -.44       .27
 1994       .46       .10
 1995       .34       .05
 1996      -.17       .38
 1997       .03       .47
 1998      1.23       .51
 1999       .93       .69
 2000       .52       .79
 2001       .76       .65
 2002       .53       .55
 2003       .50       .58
 2004       .44       .66
 2005       .69       * 
 2006      1.13       * 

anything else? when are you going to break down and admit that your heroes lied to you?


----------



## Chris (Oct 3, 2010)

IanC said:


> from Aug 8 2007. I used the Sep graph because it was very similar and directly off the Way Back machine
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
> 
> Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
> ...



Record Events for Sun Sep 26, 2010 through Sat Oct 2, 2010
Total Records: 2671 
Rainfall: 807 
Snowfall: 6 
High Temperatures: 1180 
Low Temperatures: 46 
Lowest Max Temperatures: 67 
Highest Min Temperatures: 565 

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2010)

Chris- give it a rest. this sandbox is for me and edthecynic


----------



## Chris (Oct 3, 2010)

IanC said:


> Chris- give it a rest. this sandbox is for me and edthecynic



What will be the effect of adding 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere?


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2010)

Chris said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Chris- give it a rest. this sandbox is for me and edthecynic
> ...



thats what, 31 times you have plunked that off topic comment into a thread discussing something else?


----------



## Chris (Oct 3, 2010)

IanC said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Sorry, Buckaroo, but this is the central question you are ignoring.

Now answer the question.

What will be the effect of adding 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere?


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2010)

IanC said:


> from Aug 8 2007. I used the Sep graph because it was very similar and directly off the Way Back machine
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
> 
> Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
> ...






Never.   Ed is not a cynic.   He's a delusional follower of a failed religion.


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2010)

Chris said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Chris- give it a rest. this sandbox is for me and edthecynic
> ...






Based on empirical evidence not much.


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2010)

> Never. Ed is not a cynic. He's a delusional follower of a failed religion.



you are correct sir.

unfortunately I am stupid enough to get pissed off at being called a liar.


----------



## Chris (Oct 3, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. 

Climate change odds much worse than thought


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2010)

IanC said:


> > Never. Ed is not a cynic. He's a delusional follower of a failed religion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Ahhhh don't get pissed off.  All they can do is call people liars.  I was reading on Joe Romms blog or some other one where a woman calls the alarmists "petulant children"
who are striking out in a blind rage because their little secret got found out.  She was referring to the video of the exploding sceptics and from her tone I think she was a "believer" in AGW but based on the revelations she seems to be coming around to the sceptic side.


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2010)

Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...







   THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE MODELING CARRIED OUT BY THE ALARMISTS CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAPPENED 10 DAYS AGO YOU FOOL!  GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND TRY LEARNING SOMETHING FACTUAL!  COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT DATA!  COMPUTER MODELS ARE THE CLIMATOLOGISTS VERSION OF A DOCTORAL THESIS.  THEIR THESIS HAVE ALL FAILED.  YOU ARE A COMPLETE AND UTTER FOOL TO CONTINUOUSLY RELY ON COMPUTER MODELS THAT CAN'T RECREATE WHAT HAS ALLREADY OCCURED!

THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF EPIC FAIL BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN FAILING FOR 20 YEARS NOW!


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2010)

That 1010 video was quite the eye opener for a lot of people. It scares the crap out of me that some people contemplate that sort of action even if it was just a 'joke'.


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2010)

IanC said:


> That 1010 video was quite the eye opener for a lot of people. It scares the crap out of me that some people contemplate that sort of action even if it was just a 'joke'.






It wasn't a joke.  If you look in a few places you will see where the true kooks have been calling for sceptic gulags and execution for a few years now.  They mean it.


----------



## Chris (Oct 3, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The only one that is failing is you.

We have melted 40% of the North polar ice cap in the last 50 years, and we have just had the hottest year on record in the middle of a grand solar minimum.

Wake up, dude.


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2010)

Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...







I woke up 20 years ago and it came to fruition 5 years ago when I finally started looking at the evidence.  You are the one who needs to wake up.

The evidence is against you.  The public is against you. The politicians are against you.  And now big business is pulling the plug on you as well.  The science was found to be fabricated and soon (though not soon enough) it will all be a bad memory.


----------



## Chris (Oct 3, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Bullshit.

I just told you the evidence, and you couldn't even dispute it.


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2010)

Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...







Ahhh poor Chrissy getting mad?  You havn't presented a single legitimate fact you fool.  Computer models are not facts.  I can generate a computer model that will tell you the Earth will drop into a deep freeze in 10 years if you don't pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than is available on the planet.  Computer models that are incapable of reproducing that which is known are useless.  Intelligent people realise that.  Religious fanatics such as yourself refuse to acknowledge that.

Have fun posting your false religious dogma and I will have just as much fun bopping it back down the rat hole from whence it came.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 4, 2010)

IanC said:


> from Aug 8 2007. I used the Sep graph because it was very similar and directly off the Way Back machine
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
> 
> Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
> ...


If your data is from 2007 why does your link go to 2009?????
2006        1.30        0.76
2007        0.87        0.69
2008        0.11           *
2009        0.24           *


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > from Aug 8 2007. I used the Sep graph because it was very similar and directly off the Way Back machine
> ...



That link goes to the current GISS table, just like it did Aug 8 2007


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 4, 2010)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


So why did you post that wrong link with the 2007 table????
Where is the correct link???


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open  Climate Audit  comment 31

I suggest that you read the article as well.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2010)

Actually I did make a mistake. That table is from july 23 2007. My apologies.


----------



## konradv (Oct 4, 2010)

It's about the gases.  If they keep going up, warming is inevitable, regardless of whether we can see any temperature rise at the present time.  The computer models predict 1-4.5 degree rises.  None I've seen predict a decline.  Why would that be?  The only logical answer seems to be Conservation of Energy.  If GHGs are 25-30% above historical averages, where's that extra trapped energy going?  Statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, so the other half must be warming the earth.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2010)

IanC said:


> Google cached a version on Jul 23, 2007 1508 GMT. Here it is:    (PRE Y2K FIX)
> Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
> 
> year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
> ...



Obviously I had previously posted it correctly. A few too many wobbly pops last night.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2010)

konradv said:


> It's about the gases.  If they keep going up, warming is inevitable, regardless of whether we can see any temperature rise at the present time.  The computer models predict 1-4.5 degree rises.  None I've seen predict a decline.  Why would that be?  The only logical answer seems to be Conservation of Energy.  If GHGs are 25-30% above historical averages, where's that extra trapped energy going?  Statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, so the other half must be warming the earth.



An easy solution to that question is clouds. Depending on available heat the cloud systems vary from negative to positive feedbacks. Ocean currents, same thing. The earth has had a lot of shocks to the system and always made corrections, there is no reason to believe that the earth won't continue to adjust.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 4, 2010)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Still no link!!!

From your linked article:


> I had the old data active in my R-session but* I cant give a link to it*



He can't give a link because he knows he is lying!!!

Below is the 2007 link I posted before which you ignored and below that is the link to the 2001 paper referred to in the 2007 link.

Why can't you face the fact that you've been HAD by your dishonest sources???

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2007/20070816_realdeal.pdf

*Did correcting the flaw in the program change the time of calculated maximum temperature to 1934? No. If you look at our 2001 paper, and get out your micrometer, you will see that we found 1934 to be the warmest year in the United States, by a hair, of the order of 0.01°C warmer than 1998, the same as the result that we find now.* Of course the difference in the 1934 and 1998 temperatures is not significant, and we made clear in our paper that such years have to be declared as being practically a dead-heat.

Indeed, when we receive new data each month, which often adds in new stations, or modifies the results at a small number of stations, the results for a given year can fluctuate as much as a few hundredths of a degree. Also the GISS ranking of years is commonly different than that obtained from the NOAA or British analyses. This is expected, as there are significant differences in the methods. For example, the urban warming that we estimate (and remove) is larger than that used by the other groups (as discussed in 2001 Hansen et al. reference above).

Lets look (Figure 2) at the temperature anomalies in the four years that yield the warmest U.S. in our analysis. The U.S. mean temperature anomalies that we obtain range from 1.25°C in 1934 to 1.13°C in 2006. Thus the total range among these four years is just over a tenth of a degree. The uncertainty in the U.S. temperature is at least that large (see our published papers), so we can only say that these four years were comparably warm and the warmest year was probably either 1934 or 1998.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf

The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature* is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998* in theGISS analysis (Plate 6).


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 4, 2010)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Google cached a version on Jul 23, 2007 1508 GMT. Here it is:    (PRE Y2K FIX)
> ...


Again no link.


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> According to the IPCC, the global average surface temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C ± 0.19°C.


I use to laugh at those of us who argued that, "Of course we are warming!  An Ice Age just ended!"

But I don't laugh at them anymore.  Michael Mann's discredited Hockey Stick be damned, there are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that global warming advocates completely ignore.  The only ones they accept are ones with the IPCC stamp of approval or from known scientists who are warming advocates.

The world WAS colder - from 1600 to 1850 - and no denying that fact can make our 160-year warming trend mean anything more than that there used to be an ice age, and now there isn't.  BIG SURPRISE.

Warmers always pull the same shenanigans like that: Pick a REALLY COOL period and then compare today to that.  Well, of course, when you start your curve at the lowest point EVERYTHING looks like it is on the upswing.

As to the latest upswing - since 1980 - that slope is the same as it was from 1850-1880 and as it was from 1910-1940.  Notice those are both 30 years long?  So was THIS period of increase.  And who among the warmers is going to claim that it was CO2 in 1850-1880 or from 1910-1040?  NONE of them.  So why should we believe it is CO2 this time?

The science is not settled.  There are swarms of studies that argue against the AGW hypothesis.  When there is that much disagreement in the data, the only thing certain is that the hypothesis is uncertain.  We've all been given the bum's rush by the warmers, and it is a good thing Climategate happened, to wake people up to the fact that the science is not settled AT ALL.


----------



## Bill Angel (Oct 4, 2010)

IanC said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > It's about the gases.  If they keep going up, warming is inevitable, regardless of whether we can see any temperature rise at the present time.  The computer models predict 1-4.5 degree rises.  None I've seen predict a decline.  Why would that be?  The only logical answer seems to be Conservation of Energy.  If GHGs are 25-30% above historical averages, where's that extra trapped energy going?  Statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, so the other half must be warming the earth.
> ...



There is an informative study presenting data for CO2 concentrations for the last 200,000 years.
See Global Average Temperature and CO2 Concentrations

To briefly summarize the results:
The current amount (as of 2008) is 387 ppm and it is rising at about 2 ppm per year
Over the previous 400,000 years, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere never exceeded 290 ppm. 

So while the earth has adjusted in the past for climate variations that are reflected the historical record of CO2 concentrations, the earth has not in its recent history had to deal with climate variations as significant as are reflected in the current CO2 levels, levels which are continuing to increase.


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> The Tibetan Plateau is warming about three times the global average. Since the 1950s, warming in excess of 1ºC on the Tibetan side of the Himalayas has contributed to retreat of more than 80% of the glaciers. Melting glaciers endangers the fresh water supply and food security of billions of people in Asia.


Didn't these guys get the memo?

The Glaciergate memo?

The IPCC's claim that the Himalayan glaciers were all going to melt by the year 2035?

Haven't these guys - and you - wakened to the realization that the WWF brochure is not a peer-reviewed source?

ALL glaciers, BTW, have been retreating since the end of the Little Ice Age.

And the trend lines are not - as you assert - increasing.  The slope is all but identical to what it has been since 1850.  Was it AGW that caused it back in the late 1880s?  No. Not one AGW-er will assert that in good conscience.

If the AGW-ers can't explain the earlier two increases using the CO2 claim, then it is invalid for them to claim it for the present period.  And that includes glaciers in retreat.

The Himalayan glaciers have been found to be in greatest danger due to coal dust settling on the ice.  At least that is what at least one study has shown.  But that study isn't acceptable to you, I would imagine - it is too contrary.

The funny thing is that there wouldn't even BE any "deniers" out here if the AGW-ers had claimed that it was land use underlying the warming.  But the CO2 claim - well, that just turned out to be the wrong tack to take.  CO2 is just too small an atmospheric component.

Most people imagine that CO2 is something like 3% or 5% of the atmosphere.  But that 380ppm is not even 0.04% of the atmosphere - 1/100th of what most people imagine.

If you want to claim land use is warming the Earth, I will have little disagreement with that.  But I would then want to add: But we ARE just coming out of an ice age.  Maunder Minimum, Spörer Minimum and all that rot..  If you don't know what they are, stop posting until you educate yourself on anything other than Mann-IPCC post-1990 Götterdämerung end-of-the-world pap.  The sky is NOT falling.

Thank the gods for Climategate, that the world now has a much more skeptical view of claims by the warmers.  Whoever Deep Throat is, we owe him/her a debt of gratitude for outing his/her fellow climatologists.


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2010)

Bill Angel said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






I sugget you find a source that is not quite so blatantly biased.  It would help if they had used a more accurate graph.  This one was proven false long ago.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2010)

Bill Angel said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Myself, I wonder about ice core reconstructions of CO2 and other gases. Pressure makes the gases change form and it is very difficult to extract from the core. I think that could easily lead to both a change in the actual value and especially a lowering of the range of values.


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 4, 2010)

IanC said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > The earth has had a lot of shocks to the system and always made corrections, there is no reason to believe that the earth won't continue to adjust.
> ...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 4, 2010)

SteveGinIL said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > According to the IPCC, the global average surface temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C ± 0.19°C.
> ...




True, but 1850-1880 and 1910-1940 where mainly caused by increase of solar output. 1950 was the peak of the highest level of solar output in 2,000 years. Since then it has been going down, so how do you explain the fact that we are also warming now and warming within a period that has the lowest solar output since the late 19th century? 

Doesn't make much sense besides 1# Global warming or 2# they're screwing with the data. Here in Portland we've not gotten back to the 40-60 inches a winter we had in the 1880-1900 period and that tells me that our planet is much much much warmer today then it was at that time. So I'm not sure of either 1 or 2, but I lean towards something causing it and the question is what. The green house effect of some kind becoming more effective would be the most logical answer.


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2010)

Matthew said:


> SteveGinIL said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Why?  You jump to a conclusion with no evidence to support it.  There are many possible reasons for the trends.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 4, 2010)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > SteveGinIL said:
> ...



Solar is going down and going down even faster being that we're now within a respectable minimum. To cause the temperatures to stay the same against that lowering solar output takes some other positive forcing to counter it and the satellites show a slow warming trend, evenso not nearly as much as people like hansen predicted. That takes more energy to do then it would of in 1998. Kind of like a car trying to drive up the side of a mountain takes more energy then it takes to drive on flat ground.

ENSO, AMO, PDO, AO all don't add or take away heat but just do other things with that heat...ENSO when your in a nino has the cooler water normally beneath the surface with the hotter water close to the Atmosphere mixing into the lower levels, which gives us the record temperatures those years. While the opposite is true in nina's.

The only two other ways you can add or cap energy to cause the postive forcing is...
1# Green house effect
2# above avg venting and under water volcano's are going off, which are transferring heat from the layers beneath the crust into the oceans and then into the Atmosphere. Since there is no signs of increase venting or under water volcano's 1# would make more sense, but I'm assuming that the whole scientific world is not lieing to me and trying to inslave me into a world government either.

What is your theory westwall?


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 4, 2010)

...I need to build up to 15 comments so I can post links...

What kind of site makes people do that??!!!

What a handicap!


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 4, 2010)

...I need to build up to 15 comments so I can post links...

What kind of site makes people do that??!!!

What a handicap!


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 4, 2010)

...I need to build up to 15 comments so I can post links...

What kind of site makes people do that??!!!

What a handicap!

Oy vey!


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 4, 2010)

...I need to build up to 15 comments so I can post links...

What kind of site makes people do that??!!!

What a handicap!

Oy vey!

And I mean it!


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 4, 2010)

...I need to build up to 15 comments so I can post links...

What kind of site makes people do that??!!!

What a handicap!

A story:


> When Satchel Paige was with the Cleveland Indians, one day another pitcher started for the Tribe.  While pitching to the leadoff hitter in the first inning, the pitcher got so pissed at the umpire's strike zone that the ump threw him out of the game, for questioning ball and strike calls.  The Indians' manager brought in Satchel Paige, then well over 40 years of age.  Ole Satch started to warm up,m but the ump was still fuming so much at the other pitcher that he refused to let Satch warm up.
> 
> Paige didn't even break into a sweat.  He'd pitched in podunk towns all over America, with some of the most god-forsaken umpires ever known to man.  He'd dealt with them, and he could deal with that one temporarily insane man in blue.
> 
> ...



So, I am warming up by throwing to first base here, until I can deliver my pitch properly...


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 4, 2010)

This should be 9 comments now. . .


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 4, 2010)

This should be 10 comments now. . .


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 4, 2010)

This should be 11 comments now. . . 

Getting loosened up now. . .


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 4, 2010)

This should be 12 comments now. . .


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 4, 2010)

This should be 13 comments now. . . 

Almost there.  .   .


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 4, 2010)

And, if I counted right, this should be #14 for me...

Aren't you all glad to see it get over with?

I have a comment to post, that I put time into, and an important part of it is two links, one an image.  So, rather than wait and post it later, I chose this route.  I don't mean to be cute.

But could they not have just had something in the User's Agreement?  I've never seen a 15-comment rule before.

The next one should be #15.


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 5, 2010)

Crap! I have to post one more...


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 5, 2010)

Matthew said:


> True, but 1850-1880 and 1910-1940 where mainly caused by increase of solar output. 1950 was the peak of the highest level of solar output in 2,000 years. Since then it has been going down, so how do you explain the fact that we are also warming now and warming within a period that has the lowest solar output since the late 19th century?
> 
> Doesn't make much sense besides 1# Global warming or 2# they're screwing with the data. Here in Portland we've not gotten back to the 40-60 inches a winter we had in the 1880-1900 period and that tells me that our planet is much much much warmer today then it was at that time. So I'm not sure of either 1 or 2, but I lean towards something causing it and the question is what. The green house effect of some kind becoming more effective would be the most logical answer.


It is completely valid to think that SOMETHING is causing it.  It is also human nature to trust that the climatologist are the experts, so they must know what is going on.  Just in case you don't know about it, there are a LOT of climatologists and meteorologists who disagree with AGW.  They didn't happen to be in the majority - before Climategate.  The numbers since then have changed, but I wouldn't say it has switched.  But even if only 30% or 40% disagreed - would that not mean there is a _prima facie_ case that the science is not settled?

*The Sun:*  I have always understood that the climatologists have ruled out solar irradiance as even POSSIBLE to cause warming, because the most it varies by is like 0.1%, total, from high to low, in the frequencies they say are important.  So I am very surprised to hear you assert that someone has come up with that conclusion.  The lack of solar irradiance being a potential "forcing" is EXACTLY why they say, "Oh the Sun's output can't possible be the reason for today's warming - therefore it is certainly human activity.  If it ain't the Sun, what else can it be?"  Just like you are asking.

I've said for a long time that I don't disagree that it is human activity - _I just happen to think that it is something other than CO2._  I think _*land use*_ (paving parking lots for example, and air conditioners throwing the heat out of our buildings and out where the weather stations are, the HEAT exhausting from our internal combustion engines, buildings absorbing heat all day and holding it long into the night*, etc.) is the real culprit, if anything is.  But that is only IF the warming is not merely a result of the adjustments being made.  

[_*It is mostly the nighttime temps that drive up the global averages, not the daytime temps..._]

But at the same time, none of the warmers are arguing we should stop developing LAND, and stop our urban sprawl.  They just say, "Shut down your factories and stop driving your cars!"

The thing that startles me about the adjustments is that they do it GLOBALLY, or at least globally within each dataset.  That is beyond belief to me.  The one guy on here EdtheCynic or whatever his name is, can deny it all he wants.  It is WRITTEN IN THE CODE, there for all to see (since the release of the files).  I saw the code myself in the Climategate files.  I got in and looked carefully at it, and by Jove, they had the adjustments STEPPED UP in recent decades and STEPPED DOWN in past decades.  So there are two issues about the adjustments - that they do it globally and that they step it intentionally higher in recent time and even NEGATIVE in more remote times.

[_They don't even CARE if individual stations are actually showing DECLINES.  And MANY DO.  And, no, this is NOT what "Hide the decline was about - but it SHOULD be, too._]

It isn't science if each station's data isn't treated uniquely.  Global adjustments are the EASY WAY to do it - but it sure as hell ain't science.  It is just slapping something together.  I LEARNED A LONG TIME AGO: YOU DON"T ROUND TILL THEN END.  Every piece of data is unique.  Throwing them all into one garbage bag is not science.  Yeah, I know - compiling them all is a HUGE job.  But if they were going to take it on, don't you think they should have done it RIGHT?  This point really pisses me off.

And I don't care WHAT their reasons are for those recent adjustments up and up and up, and the older ones down and down and down - if they don't spell out why they are doing it and why they are using the values being used, well who in HELL would call that science?  

Oh??  Excuse ME?!  They've got some VAGUE and undocumented adjustments?!  And they want us to believe them?  To trust them?  NO.  How did that get past the peer reviewers?  (_My guess?  LAZINESS on the part of the reviewers._)

As to Portland not getting the snow anymore - do you consider that a negative?  Or a positive?  I know that growing up in and around St Louis, that there were legends of people walking across the Mississippi in the 1880s.  Is it a positive or a negative that it doesn't do that anymore?  You tell me.  But around Chicago in the 1975-1984 period, our winters were absolutely BRUTAL - blizzards every year and temps below 0°F as often as not.  People who want us to go back to that - they can kiss my arse.

If you are wondering WHAT the cause is, I suggest you look into something called the _Pacific Decadal Oscillation_, especially - but also the _Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation_.  Check out this URL: _AMO+PDO= temperature variation  one graph says it all | Watts Up With That?_.  

And look at this chart from that:





*Figure 18: With 22 point smoothing, the correlation of US temperatures and
the ocean multidecadal oscillations is clear with an r-squared of 0.85*

Now THAT is cause and effect.  and that r-squared of 85%?  WOW.  Very good.

...I notice that on the upswing, the PDO-AMO leads, and on the downswing, the continent leads.  I find that interesting, to say the least,since oceans warm up and cool down slowly.  But it is a sight better than the CO2 charts Al Gore showed, which actually had the CO2 TRAILING the warm times BY 800 YEARS.  (I personally have no problem with Al Gore, in general.  But I think he is dead wrong on this issue.)

I am certain the *PDO* is the main driver, since the Pacific covers nearly all of one hemisphere, so it is the bull in the china shop.  It is like Babe Ruth in baseball in the mid-1920s - hitting more home runs than entire teams were hitting.  THAT is how big the PDO is.  FAR bigger than the _El Niño Southern Oscillation_.  Also, the average length of a full PDO cycle is just about right on what the cyclicity is of the climate swings.  (But then, the adjustments they've been applying make me not even trust that the cycles we see are even real.)  

One thing about the PDO, is that at the time (~1990) the warmers had pronounced the science "settled," NO ONE HAD EVEN HEARD OF THE PDO, because it wasn't discovered until 1997 or so.  And - to rub salt in their wounds - IT WAS DISCOVERED BY A BIOLOGIST, not a climatologist or meteorologist.  The single biggest factor on Earth - the heat sink that is the Pacific Ocean - and the climatologists missed it.  But their climate models in 1990 didn't include it, either - so HOW could they say that the models could POSSIBLY be correct then?  The short answer is that the models were wrong.  And they surreptitiously added the PDO into the code since then, while not happening to mention that it wasn't there before.  That would have been too embarrassing.

So, were the models correct?  In 1990?  No.  In 1995?  No.  In 2000?  No.  They did not start to see its importance until about 2005, perhaps a bit earlier. but certainly not by 2000.  I was aware of it before 2000, and there wasn't a PEEP out of the warmers about it until at least 2003.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 5, 2010)

SteveGinIL said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > True, but 1850-1880 and 1910-1940 where mainly caused by increase of solar output. 1950 was the peak of the highest level of solar output in 2,000 years. Since then it has been going down, so how do you explain the fact that we are also warming now and warming within a period that has the lowest solar output since the late 19th century?
> ...



You make some very good points, but PDO doesn't add energy into the climate system. All it does is it shifts weather patterns and storm tracks around. Only Solar, which caused the little ice age and the well known cycles that allow for the ice ages through orbit changes from more cyclular to more oval around the sun, which helps increase or decrease the amount of out put from our sun as the earth maybe closer to the sun for part of the year or further away. 

*Orbital forcing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Orbital forcing is the effect on climate of slow changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis and shape of the orbit (see Milankovitch cycles). These orbital changes change the total amount of sunlight reaching the Earth by up to 25% at mid-latitudes (from 400 to 500 Wm-2 at latitudes of 60 degrees). In this context, the term "forcing" signifies a physical process that affects the Earth's climate.

This mechanism is believed to be responsible for the timing of the ice age cycles. A strict application of the Milankovitch theory does not allow the prediction of a "sudden" ice age (rapid being anything under a century or two), since the fastest orbital period is about 20,000 years. The timing of past glacial periods coincides very well with the predictions of the Milankovitch theory, and these effects can be calculated into the future.*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing

Unless the PDO can add clouds, which would work as a negative or cooling agent on earth's atmosphere through deflecting solar output back into space that is.  which I'm not saying can or can't because I don't know the answer to this one.

Like I said; Solar up to 1950 was likely the cause for us getting out of the little ice age. You think PDO and AMO didn't happen 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 1,000 years ago.  I'd bet on it. In its effects just as likely caused the storm tracks and weather to change then just as today.

Our stars solar output caused the warm periods like the roman, med evil warm period and the climatic maximum of 5,000 years ago. Now our stars solar output is slowly drifting downwards.  
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg

The funny thing is unless you think the satellites are full of shit and they maybe are! but they hint at some warming; yes climate gate and the scientist where wrong to fuck with the code and to fudge the fucking numbers to a high bias...But there is no way in hell we're colder today then we where 80 years ago, 100 years ago and sure as hell not 300 years ago. Anyone that says we're as cold as the height of the little ice age don't know a thing about how cold it was in thoses days.  It was cold in the US, Europe ect...World wide hell.






Also your map shows the United states, which is greatly effected by the PDO and favors more cold air moving down from the arctic into the US instead of the more zonal flow pattern of the PDO+, which may promote warmer weather over the US. This is not the world my friend in which we're avging to get global temps. In yes the PDO is a good tool to use for the US. The US makes up a small percentage of the world...

Of course within that small part of the world the jet stream had more ridging within the gulf of Alaska, which drove the cold air down into the central United states more often. In 2008 to today we appear to be going into more of a negative pdo, which favors more snow for portland..But anyways it is not the whole world and is only a small factor in the puzzle. 

Robert Felix at ice age now believes under water volcano's, which heats the ocean with the warmth of the earth....But outside of that there is not to many ways to get a positive energy balance without our star or green house gasses.

*If you disagree please tell me how the PDO increases clouds to reflect the on coming solar energy away back into space*.  Sure it models closely with the US because it has a direct effect on storm tracks and the jet stream...Within the negative PDO as said above means colder winters within the US.


----------



## SteveGinIL (Oct 13, 2010)

Matthew said:


> You make some very good points, but PDO doesn't add energy into the climate system. All it does is it shifts weather patterns and storm tracks around.


Matthew, you make good points on the Milankovitch cycles.  I agree that these are part of the forcings that affect climate.

You say the PDO does not add energy into the system.  Well and good.  That only the Sun's output is of any consequence.  Yet solar irradiance varies so slightly that climatologists on both sides of the aisle agree that the Sun's output is not a significant factor in the recent warming trends.

I would only say that we don't yet know squat about how the PDO works.  (That is part of my curiosity as to how they've incorporated them into the GCMs.)  My speculation is that the oceans sequester heat energy, and how the oceans give it up later will tell us what they do and how - when we learn enough about the PDO and AMO.  Right now both of them - like the ENSO - are only intermediate transporters of energy.  I might even call it "focusers of energy."  

Yet it is a fact that during El Niño years the global average temperature DOES go up.  That being the case, where that extra energy comes from?  It obviously isn't sending a message to the Sun to send more energy, right?  So we have to believe that if only the Sun's energy counts, then the energy it is releasing has been stored and somehow is being released later.

But my I think also includes that some of the energy is coming from below the ocean.  My understanding of hydrothermal vents and undersea volcanoes tells me we have much to learn from them.  One vent was just discovered in the Indian Ocean that puts out 200 times what we thought was average for them.  Given that there are only 220 known vents (so far), that one vent essentially doubles the known total heat output of these vents.

Some of those vents are propitiously located right where they might affect the El Niño - along the equator near Ecuador.  DO they have an effect?  I don't know.  I suspect they do, but I don't have a university budget with which to go study it.  It is probably #1 on my list of things I would check out.



> This [_orbital forcing_] mechanism is believed to be responsible for the timing of the ice age cycles. A strict application of the Milankovitch theory does not allow the prediction of a "sudden" ice age (rapid being anything under a century or two), since the fastest orbital period is about 20,000 years. The timing of past glacial periods coincides very well with the predictions of the Milankovitch theory, and these effects can be calculated into the future.[/B]


I've never understood why anyone really even brings the Milankovitch cycles into the AGW discussion.  Those cycles being such long term and slow - as you point out - what difference do they make when we are talking about something here on the scale of a few decades?



> Unless the PDO can add clouds, which would work as a negative or cooling agent on earth's atmosphere through deflecting solar output back into space that is.  which I'm not saying can or can't because I don't know the answer to this one.


You and everybody else.  None of the climatologists knows, either.  It is the one thing they should all be putting energy into, because until we know what is going on with water vapor and clouds, we don't claim to understand ANY of it.  Water vapor is far and away the biggest greenhouse gas.  Yet all the predictions from the future come from GCMs that have fudge factors - literally - to substitute for water vapor.

I have little respect for scientists who fudge anything, much less fudging the major greenhouse gas. I would, of course, think they had something IF the models even were remotely reliable at replicating the known recent climate history.

[quoet]Like I said; Solar up to 1950 was likely the cause for us getting out of the little ice age.[/quote]
Of course that is the case.  I agree completely.  The Maunder Minimum, having to do with sunspots, and the Spörer Minimum are documented in hundreds of papers as having some correlation with the Little Ice Age and the subsequent warming.  I would disagree with your date - 1950 - however.   The end of that heating was right around 1940, not 1950.  And the heating came in TWO waves - one from 1850 (considered to be the end of the LIA) to 1880 and the other from 1910 to 1940.  The third wave - the one called "global warming" - was from about 1977 to around 2000.



> You think PDO and AMO didn't happen 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 1,000 years ago.


You are putting words in my mouth here.  First off, I have been keeping up with news on the PDO for over 10 years - specifically because I saw it as a long-term mechanism.  As far as I can see, the PDO has been with us as long as the geography of the Earth has been in its present configuration.  At no point did I say or imply that I thought the PDO was some recent phenomenon.



> Our star's solar output caused the warm periods like the Roman, medieval warm period and the climatic maximum of 5,000 years ago.


That is pretty much what I think, too.  I disagree with those who say that the small amount of solar irradiance flux is too small to cause the recent warming.  I think they are either looking at the wrong outputs or the affect is stronger than they suspect.  They THINK they understand the mechanisms, on the Sun and Earth, but I think there is far more to be learned than our grand total at this time.

***BTW, I would advise you to go to other sources than Wikipedia for your climate information.  See Wikipedia climate revisionism by William Connolley continues  Connolley pathetically deletes anything except the AGW point of view, and he apparently does it on a daily basis.  It is not possible for the Wikipedia reader to tell what is AGW spin and what is objective fact, if they haven't read up on the subject elsewhere.  But if they've read elsewhere, why go to Wikipedia, anyway?

At least so you get some of the other side of the story, I suggest WattsUpWithThat.com and ClimateAudit.org.  Both of them are at the nexus of the anti-AGW skepticism.  That makes them something you should read discerningly - but then I am saying to read EVERYTHING about AGW discerningly.  Read both sides of the issue - and the sides in between, too.



> The funny thing is unless you think the satellites are full of shit and they maybe are!


Actually, I DID trust them - up until about 2005.  All through the 1990s the pro-AGW side was bitching about how the satellites must be wrong! since they didn't show any warming.  The people at UAH kept running diagnostics and determining that the satelites were doing just fine, thank you. Then in about 2005, the pro-AGW folks finally whined enough to get them to recalibrate the satellites.  Ever since, the satellites have shown MORE warming than the land-based instruments showed.

I believe they tweaked the satellites too much - but since being off in THAT direction was okay with them, the pro-AGWers let it go.  I am actually upset at the UAH people for allowing themselves to be bullied.



> but they hint at some warming


But I don't believe the numbers, no.  I think in time they will find errors and have to go and back-adjust the readings.



> [...]yes climate gate and the scientist where wrong to fuck with the code and to fudge the fucking numbers to a high bias...


All I can say is that such "science" isn't science.



> But there is no way in hell we're colder today then we where 80 years ago, 100 years ago and sure as hell not 300 years ago.


I grew up in and around St Louis, in the 1950s and 1960s.  I can tell you, it was HOT there then.  I think people's anecdotal memories aren't worth a lot, because people tend to forget a LOT of what weather was like decades ago.  But I do know that the asphalt in the streets would form waves near any stop signs, due to the cars' braking.  And we could scrunch up the asphalt with our bare feet, ti was so soft.  (We had to be careful - and have tough feet.)

I now live near Chicago.  In the 1975-1985 period here, the winters were freaking BRUTAL - temps often WELL below zero F, with near blizzards a few times every winter.  I saw "whiteouts" several times every winter.  I haven't seen ONE in this area since 1984.  We are warmer here than THEN.

[quote[Anyone that says we're as cold as the height of the little ice age don't know a thing about how cold it was in those days.  It was cold in the US, Europe ect...World wide hell.[/quote]
EXACTLY.  It is Michael Mann of Hockey Stick fame who is the one driving the idea that the LIA didn't exist except in one little corner of the world.

But I also look at the global averages for that time and dispute them.  They seem to show that the temps were only several tenths of a degree C colder.  I challenge ANYONE to go outside when the temp has dropped 0.7C and tell me they can even notice it, unless someone points it out - and even then they will only sense a TINY difference.  The LIA was more severe than that.



> Also your map shows the United states, which is greatly effected by the PDO and favors more cold air moving down from the arctic into the US instead of the more zonal flow pattern of the PDO+, which may promote warmer weather over the US. This is not the world my friend in which we're avging to get global temps. In yes the PDO is a good tool to use for the US. The US makes up a small percentage of the world...


Map???  You mean the graph?

A large % of the weather stations in the GHCN database are in the U.S.  It is the best-recorded area in the world.  (It ALSO has not shown warming since 1970.) It is also the SOURCE of the most CO2, so one would think that the US weather trend IS the best indicator.

If global warming IS global, it should be showing up EVERYWHERE.  Not everywhere equally, but in rural locations, in the mountains (where the glaciers are melting), and especially where the CO@ is being released.

Yet, somehow, whenever the US record of recent years is brought up, the first argument against it is, "Well, the US is only 5% of the land mass and 1% of the total area." (or something like that.)  That is a b.s. argument, IMHO, BECAUSE if the warming isn't happening where the CO2 is concentrated the most, then where ELSE could it be happening?  And WHY would it show up elsewhere and not here?  And it is NOT showing up here.  Yes, you can point at SOME stations that show it - and so can I.

So: I mistrust the post-adjustment CRU/GISS/NASA/NOAA/GHCN data.  Far too many stations out there are showing warming ONLY in the post-adjustment data, not in the raw data.  I know all the reasons for making adjustments, and I agree with them in principle.  However, as they are currently constituted, I see them as GIGO.



> Of course within that small part of the world the jet stream had more ridging within the gulf of Alaska, which drove the cold air down into the central United states more often. In 2008 to today we appear to be going into more of a negative pdo, which favors more snow for portland..But anyways it is not the whole world and is only a small factor in the puzzle.


The people in the know have been predicting since about 2003 that the PDO would go negative any day now.  The length of the PDO cycle is more variable than the sunspot cycle, from what I've read, and we are just now beginning to learn about it, so in 2003 they didn't know exactly when it would go cool.  They only knew that it was due any time.  (By comparison, look at SC24, the new sunspot cycle:  The predictions of its beginning have been screwed up royally.  It has them ALL confused. Due about 18 months ago or more, it still has barely begun.)



> Robert Felix at ice age now believes under water volcano's, which heats the ocean with the warmth of the earth....But outside of that there is not to many ways to get a positive energy balance without our star or green house gasses.


See above.  I've been thinking this for a VERY long time.  I believe the undersea sources are the CAUSE of El Niño.  But like I said, I don't have the means by which to study it.



> *If you disagree please tell me how the PDO increases clouds to reflect the on coming solar energy away back into space*.  Sure it models closely with the US because it has a direct effect on storm tracks and the jet stream...Within the negative PDO as said above means colder winters within the US.


I am not certain I would say the PDO itself increases clouds or decreases clouds.  I have lately begun to learn that the clouds are the self-regulators of the climate - they increase as needed and decrease as needed.  With the main solar input arriving in the tropics around the Equator, that is also the area where there are clouds more constantly.

I think one of the main reasons the warmer GCM modelers can't get a handle on water vapor as a forcing is because the clouds are always self-adjusting as a response to other factors - increasing when it gets too hot, and vice versa.  No wonder they can't figure it out - the water vapor is a RESULT feeding back.  They need to first look at what is triggering the clouds.

Thanks for the discussion.


----------

