New Improved Hockey Stick?

[Decus]

"...using figures from the most prestigious of all official temperature records, compiled by the UK Met Office and its Hadley Centre."

"In recent months, even such fanatical proponents of the warmist orthodoxy as Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, James Hansen of Nasa, and the Met Office have all had to concede that since 1997, the warming trend has stalled virtually to a standstill."

Look at the graph to see the evidence of global warming - Telegraph

The claim is now that the heat is concealed in the ocean depths and will rise one day in the 'near' (??) future like Godzilla from the deep.

There is no global warming. However it is true that the climate changes

 

[RollingThunder]

"...using figures from the most prestigious of all official temperature records, compiled by the UK Met Office and its Hadley Centre."

"In recent months, even such fanatical proponents of the warmist orthodoxy as Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, James Hansen of Nasa, and the Met Office have all had to concede that since 1997, the warming trend has stalled virtually to a standstill."

Look at the graph to see the evidence of global warming - Telegraph

The claim is now that the heat is concealed in the ocean depths and will rise one day in the 'near' (??) future like Godzilla from the deep.

There is no global warming. However it is true that the climate changes

It's a shame that you're so gullible. Really, dude, an article by that notorious liar and AGW denier Christopher Booker? You'd have to be insane to believe anything that doofus says.

Christopher Booker's wilful climate change ignorance gathers pace
Telegraph hack piles on the pressure to remain the nation's foremost and most ill-informed climate change sceptic

The superhuman cock-ups of Christopher Booker
The journalist makes so many errors that you would be forgiven for thinking he did it deliberately to waste everyone's time

Christopher Booker
Rational Wiki
(For all RationalWiki original material, i.e., that material which was developed for release on RationalWiki, and did not expressly state other licensing, and hereafter referred to as "original content", the author(s) make the following license grant - “Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, Version 3.0 (CC-BY-SA 3.0) or any later version.&#8221
Christopher Booker is a columnist for the Sunday Telegraph in the UK. He also writes regular columns for the Spectator and is a long-standing contributor to Private Eye.

He is an anti-science crank with a range and depth quite astonishing for a journalist of such eminence. Possibly, his long association with Private Eye, which habitually pokes fun at The Great And Good has clouded his judgement. In seeing scientists as "establishment" figures, with their obscure language and ivory towers, he mistrusts them as a reflex reaction. While it is possible to hold plausible opinions on politics without much expert knowledge, the same is not true of science. Many deniers and cranks do not appear to appreciate this difference - Booker is certainly among them.

Climate change denial

Climate change is one of Booker's signature campaigns. He has written a book on the global warming "hoax" that a review in the Observer described as "the definitive climate sceptics' manual".[1]

The book is in fact well argued, well written and thoroughly referenced. It is also complete bollocks from start to finish. His favoured tactic is to misunderstand (being charitable) or misrepresent the sources he quotes. As with creationists, it's only if you check what the references say that the deceit becomes plain.

Creationism

Booker is a creationist of the Intelligent Design variety. He is not particularly interesting or original in his claims; he merely regurgitates a selection of favourite creationist tropes such as Darwin's "eye problem", the fossil record, etc. As usual, he reconciles this with his world view by blaming the scientific establishment that insists on the Darwinian orthodoxy and resists any challenges to its authority.

His hook for a story in the Spectator[2] was a conference that he attended on intelligent design. This was held at a secret location, with participants that were (seemingly) there by invitation only. The meeting was bankrolled by an unnamed billionaire.[3] Booker seemed unaware that the heroes of his article represented the kind of conspiracy that he habitually condemns. The scientific bodies that make up "the establishment" can at least be named and are not secretive (at least, not in the way he implies).

Asbestos

Denying the health risks posed by asbestos is a fringe activity, even for hardcore cranks. Booker rises to the occasion. Indeed, one of his most famous claims is that asbestos "is chemically identical to talcum powder".[4] It isn't, of course, but this information has not led him to a retraction or even an acknowledgement of his nonsense.

Most people would trust a professor of chemistry to know such things as chemical structure. As a member of the scientific establishment, professors are not to be trusted. Instead, Booker turns to John Bridle, who claims an honorary doctorate from the Russian National Academy of Science and a position at the University of Glamorgan, for his information. In reality, Bridle has no connection to either academic institution: he simply says he has, and he is a known fraudster.[5]

The dubious qualifications of his source have been pointed out to Booker. Facts appear to have little impact.[6] Presumably, he either thinks that a proven liar is a reliable source or he regards this as an attempt by the scientific establishment to discredit him and his source.

Second-hand smoke

Pretty much what you would expect. No evidence that it causes cancer, a cover up to hide the evidence, blah, blah.[7]

Oh, and he's a DDT nut as well.[8]

Crusading journalism

Booker is a persistent and tenacious campaigner for victims of stupidity caused by government and other forms of officialdom and bureaucracy. This is a very worthy aim and he ought to be applauded for it. However, it appears he is just as incompetent and oblivious to reality as with his anti-science crusades. In his summing up on a case where a child was taken into care, Judge Bellamy singled out Booker for criticism:[9]

Mr Booker's articles contain significant factual errors and omissions. [...] this underlines the dangers inherent in journalists relying on partisan and invariably tendentious reporting by family members and their supporters rather than being present in court to hear the evidence which the court itself hears.

Criticism

George Monbiot has been a persistent critic of Booker's nonsense.[5][10] In response, Booker has offered a robust defence of his claims, wheeling out a set of unreliable and discredited sources in his defence.[11]

Retraction

An article written by Booker with Richard North about the IPCC chief Rajendra K. Pachauri was retracted by the Sunday Telegraph on the grounds that it was a pack of lies.[12] This seems to be part of a general attack on Pachauri by climate change deniers.[13]

 

[Saigon]

Decus -

PLEASE try to understand. 2012was the 9th warmest year ever, and the hottest year in American history.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, SSoooDDuuumb, you are definitely "terribly misinformed" about everything concerning this topic. ['/quote]

Try actually reading thunder. You MIGHT not look so stupid. We were discussing thermometer records and you come up with proxy records. Do you know the difference? If not, just say so and I will try to explain in one or two syllable words.

 

[SSDD]

Decus -

PLEASE try to understand. 2012was the 9th warmest year ever, and the hottest year in American history.

According to which altered record? And ever is a very long time. Are you saying that 2012 was the 9th warmest year in the history of the earth? Or just that according to some altered temperature record is is the warmest since we have been keeping records which is a very short time compared to "ever"?

 

[Saigon]

According to which altered record?

It's always interesting when posters have to recite the same old myth - long after it has become clear that the myth has no value.

Again, SDD - there are AT LEAST 40 major sources on independent data. Take your pick.

 

[IanC]

According to which altered record?

It's always interesting when posters have to recite the same old myth - long after it has become clear that the myth has no value.

Again, SDD - there are AT LEAST 40 major sources on independent data. Take your pick.

the 'myth' has not been cleared up at all. and there are not 40 major sources of data.

there are thousands of individual station histories with raw data.

there are only a few places that collect and store that raw data. GHCN being the main one, UEA 'lost' theirs.

once collected, the raw data goes through a seemingly endless set of adjustments and corrections.

once adjusted, the agency producing a 'global temperature' decides which stations to use out of the many thousands. it also infills empty grid cells with 'estimates' from nearby or not so nearby stations.

the methodologies for adjusting, choosing sites, infilling, etc are in a constant flux but every new version seems to increase recent temps and decrease historic temps which adds to the trend.


I have brought up numerous examples of what I consider large weaknesses in these global temp networks but I seldom get a response from the warmist side of the message board.

 

[editec]

According to which altered record?

It's always interesting when posters have to recite the same old myth - long after it has become clear that the myth has no value.

Again, SDD - there are AT LEAST 40 major sources on independent data. Take your pick.

the 'myth' has not been cleared up at all. and there are not 40 major sources of data.

there are thousands of individual station histories with raw data.

there are only a few places that collect and store that raw data. GHCN being the main one, UEA 'lost' theirs.

once collected, the raw data goes through a seemingly endless set of adjustments and corrections.

once adjusted, the agency producing a 'global temperature' decides which stations to use out of the many thousands. it also infills empty grid cells with 'estimates' from nearby or not so nearby stations.

the methodologies for adjusting, choosing sites, infilling, etc are in a constant flux but every new version seems to increase recent temps and decrease historic temps which adds to the trend.


I have brought up numerous examples of what I consider large weaknesses in these global temp networks but I seldom get a response from the warmist side of the message board.

IanC,

Have you looked at the raw data and found problems with it?

Or is you complaint about the assumptions with the models created out of it?

Sincere questions.

I do not discount the possibility that science gets it wrong.

Can you show us where you think they've gotten it wrong using original data or the models developed with that data?

I'd love to see it.

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

Yes, there are at least 40 sources of data.

There may be only 3 who issue global results, but any poster can look at the research conducted by any of those 40 countries and see temperature charts for that country for the past century.

It's an interesting exercise - and not only because it so totally destroys this idea of "manipulated" data having been used as part of some massive global conspiracy.

 

[SSDD]

Ian C -

Yes, there are at least 40 sources of data.

No, there aren't. You keep telling yourself that and maybe you even believe your own lies...but there aren't that many sources.

The Big Coloring Book of Vaginas There may be only 3 who issue global results, but any poster can look at the research conducted by any of those 40 countries and see temperature charts for that country for the past century. [/quote]

Like those altered records in new zealand, and australia, and switzerland, and iceland, and brittan, and every where else you care to check. Show me a pristine temperature record.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Of course there are at least 40 sources of data - probably more, actually. But I can produce a list of 40 for you to look at if you like.

We both know you won't look at it, of course.

I've mentioned this a dozen times since Katzndoz posted some of the Norwegian material - so it's strange to see a poster as honest and well-informed as you keep posting as if you hadn't seen it and didn't know about it.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Of course there are at least 40 sources of data - probably more, actually. But I can produce a list of 40 for you to look at if you like.

No you can't. Last time you tried you coudn't even come up with 3. Two of those you listed were individuals...perhaps they have a thermometer in their yard and as such, you count them as independent sources.

 

[RollingThunder]

SSDD -

Of course there are at least 40 sources of data - probably more, actually. But I can produce a list of 40 for you to look at if you like.

No you can't. Last time you tried you coudn't even come up with 3. Two of those you listed were individuals...perhaps they have a thermometer in their yard and as such, you count them as independent sources.

Ignorant retards like you shouldn't try to debate topics you can't comprehend.

I'm not going to go through this and insert all of the links so you'll have to go to the linked source to get those.

Data Sources
RealClimate
27 November 2009

This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed.

Climate data (raw)
Climate data (processed)
Paleo-data
Auxiliary data
Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
Large-scale model (GCM) output
Model codes (GCMs)
Model codes (other)
Data Visualisation and Analysis
Master Repositories of climate and other Earth Science data

Climate data (raw)

GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
World Monthly Surface Station Climatology UCAR
Antarctic weather stations
European weather stations (ECA)
Italian Meterological Society IMS
Satellite feeds (AMSU, SORCE (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train, Ocean Color)
Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab)
World Glacier Monitoring Service
Argo float data
International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations)
AERONET Aerosol information
Arctic data from the Cooperative Arctic Data and Information Service (CADIS)

Climate data (processed)

Surface temperature anomalies (GISTEMP (see also Clear Climate Code), HadCRU (alternate site), NOAA NCDC, JMA, Berkeley Earth)
Satellite temperatures (MSU) (UAH, RSS, Zou et al)
Sea surface temperatures (Reynolds et al, OI)
Stratospheric temperature
Sea ice (Cryosphere Today, NSIDC, JAXA, Bremen, Arctic-Roos, DMI)
Radiosondes (RAOBCORE, HadAT, U. Wyoming, RATPAC, IUK, Sterin (CDIAC), Angell (CDIAC) )
Cloud and radiation products (ISCCP, CERES-ERBE)
Sea level (U. Colorado, NOAA)
Aerosols (AEROCOM, GACP)
Greenhouse Gases (AGGI at NOAA, CO2 Mauna Loa, World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases, AIRS CO2 data (2003+))
AHVRR data as used in Steig et al (2009)
Snow Cover (Rutgers)
GLIMS glacier database
Ocean Heat Content: NODC, PMEL
Ocean CO2 (CDIAC)
GCOS Essential Climate Variables Index
NOAA Climate Indicators State of the Climate 2009

Paleo-data

NOAA Paleoclimate
Pangaea
GRIP/NGRIP Ice cores (Denmark)
GISP2 (note that the age model has been updated)
National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)
Insolation (i.e. Milankovitch cycles): Lasker (2004), Berger and Loutre (1991), Huybers (2006)

Auxiliary data

Solar System Calculations (JPL Horizons)

Paleo Reconstructions (including code)

Reconstructions index and data (NOAA)
Mann et al (2008) (also here, Mann et al (2009))
Kaufmann et al (2009)
Wahl and Ammann (2006)
Mann et al (1998/1999)

Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output

These are weather models which have the real world observations assimilated into the solution to provide a ‘best guess’ of the evolution of weather over time (although pre-satellite era estimates (before 1979) are less accurate).

ERA40 (1957-2001, from ECMWF)
ERA-Interim (1989 – present, ECMWF’s latest project)
NCEP (1948-present, NOAA), NCEP-2
MERRA NASA GSFC
JRA-25 (1979-2004, Japanese Met. Agency)
North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR)
20th Century Reanalysis (1871-2008)

Large-scale model (GCM) output

These is output from the large scale global models used to assess climate change in the past, and make projections for the future. Some of this output is also available via the Data Visualisation tools linked below.

CMIP3 output (~20 models, as used by IPCC AR4) at PCMDI
GISS ModelE output (includes AR4 output as well as more specific experiments)
GFDL Model output

Model codes (GCMs)

Downloadable codes for some of the GCMs.

GISS ModelE (AR4 version, current snapshot)
NCAR CCSM(Version 3.0, CCM3 (older vintage))
EdGCM Windows based version of an older GISS model.
Uni. Hamburg (SAM, PUMA and PLASIM)
NEMO Ocean Model
GFDL Models
MIT GCM

Model codes (other)

This category include links to analysis tools, simpler models or models focussed on more specific issues.

Radiative Transfer models (AER RRTM)
Rahmstorf (2007) Sea Level Rise Code
Vermeer & Rahmstorf (2009) Sea Level Rise Code and Data
ModTran (atmospheric radiation calculations and visualisations)
Various climate-related online models (David Archer)
Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) (FUND, FAIR, DICE, RICE)
CliMT a Python-based software component toolkit
Pyclimate Python tools for climate analysis
CDAT Tools for analysing climate data in netcdf format (PCMDI)
RegEM (Tapio Schneider)
Time series analysis (MTM-SVD, SSA-MTM toolkit, Mann and Lees (1996))
MAGICC

Data Visualisation and Analysis

These sites include some of the above data (as well as other sources) in an easier to handle form.

ClimateExplorer (KNMI)
Dapper (PMEL, NOAA)
Ingrid (IRI/LDEO Climate data library)
Giovanni (GSFC)
Wood for Trees: Interactive graphics (temperatures)
IPCC Data Visualisations
Regional IPCC model output
Climate Wizard

Master Repositories of Climate Data

Much bigger indexes of data sources:

Global Change Master Directory (GSFC)
PAGES data portal
NCDC (National Climate Data Center)
IPCC Data
NCAR’s ClimateDataGuide
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Lab: Atmospheric trace gas concentrations, historical carbon emissions, and more
CRU Data holdings
Hadley Centre Observational holdings
UCAR Climate Data Guide

 

[SSDD]

[
Ignorant retards like you shouldn't try to debate topics you can't comprehend.

You idiot. Constantly jumping into conversations without knowing what they are about. We weren't talking about ways of collecting data...we were talking about who collects data.

You make less sense all the time. If you werent' wearing a clown suit over a monkey costume while doing cartwheels and getting pies in the face all at the same time, you would be worthless.

 

[RollingThunder]

[
Ignorant retards like you shouldn't try to debate topics you can't comprehend.

You idiot. Constantly jumping into conversations without knowing what they are about. We weren't talking about ways of collecting data...we were talking about who collects data.

I see you still are incapable of comprehending the material presented to you, assuming you even try.

"talking about who collects data"

You poor blind moron.

Climate data (raw)

GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
World Monthly Surface Station Climatology UCAR
Antarctic weather stations
European weather stations (ECA)
Italian Meterological Society IMS
Satellite feeds (AMSU, SORCE (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train, Ocean Color)
Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab)
World Glacier Monitoring Service
Argo float data
International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations)
AERONET Aerosol information
Arctic data from the Cooperative Arctic Data and Information Service (CADIS)

Climate data (processed)

Surface temperature anomalies (GISTEMP (see also Clear Climate Code), HadCRU (alternate site), NOAA NCDC, JMA, Berkeley Earth)
Satellite temperatures (MSU) (UAH, RSS, Zou et al)
Sea surface temperatures (Reynolds et al, OI)
Stratospheric temperature
Sea ice (Cryosphere Today, NSIDC, JAXA, Bremen, Arctic-Roos, DMI)
Radiosondes (RAOBCORE, HadAT, U. Wyoming, RATPAC, IUK, Sterin (CDIAC), Angell (CDIAC) )
Cloud and radiation products (ISCCP, CERES-ERBE)
Sea level (U. Colorado, NOAA)
Aerosols (AEROCOM, GACP)
Greenhouse Gases (AGGI at NOAA, CO2 Mauna Loa, World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases, AIRS CO2 data (2003+))
AHVRR data as used in Steig et al (2009)
Snow Cover (Rutgers)
GLIMS glacier database
Ocean Heat Content: NODC, PMEL
Ocean CO2 (CDIAC)
GCOS Essential Climate Variables Index
NOAA Climate Indicators State of the Climate 2009

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Very clearly there are DOZENS of source, but try the national climate centres of any major country. Every major country has one, and most are easy to find. I can link them for you if you are willing to commit to looking at them sensibly.

I want you to think about this - climate centres in Finland, Spain, Australia, Argentina, Canada, Singapore and South Africa....and they ALL show rises in temperature.

What could that mean?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Very clearly there are DOZENS of source, but try the national climate centres of any major country. Every major country has one, and most are easy to find. I can link them for you if you are willing to commit to looking at them sensibly.

Yeah, and you have been given evidence of tampering in those centers as well. Money speaks all languages.

And it is you who is opposed to actually looking at data. I mean actual data as opposed to model output. Since actual data doesn't support your political leaning, you disregard it in favor of whatever does no matter how rediculous it is.

 

[RollingThunder]

SSDD -

Very clearly there are DOZENS of source, but try the national climate centres of any major country. Every major country has one, and most are easy to find. I can link them for you if you are willing to commit to looking at them sensibly.

Yeah, and you have been given evidence of tampering in those centers as well. Money speaks all languages.

Another one of your insane conspiracy theories, you poor deluded retard. Apparently you now imagine that all of the scientists in the world are in on this absurd conspiracy and that they are all taking bribes (from who exactly?) to alter the records and fudge the numbers. LOLOLOLOL. And you're actually too retarded to see how crazy that is. LOL.

Since actual data doesn't support your political leaning, you disregard it in favor of whatever does no matter how rediculous(sic) it is.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....it is always hilarious to watch you talking to yourself like this.....that sentence describes you and the other denier cultists 'to a t'.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Very clearly there are DOZENS of source, but try the national climate centres of any major country. Every major country has one, and most are easy to find. I can link them for you if you are willing to commit to looking at them sensibly.

Yeah, and you have been given evidence of tampering in those centers as well. Money speaks all languages.

And it is you who is opposed to actually looking at data. I mean actual data as opposed to model output. Since actual data doesn't support your political leaning, you disregard it in favor of whatever does no matter how rediculous it is.

Another childish, dishonest reply.

There is no evidence that 90% of the data centres listed have ever produced anything other than first class research. There are no allegations and no accusations.

It only exists in your fevered brain. It is just another reason for you to not read.

 

[SSDD]

Another childish, dishonest reply.

There is no evidence that 90% of the data centres listed have ever produced anything other than first class research. There are no allegations and no accusations.

You really don't have a clue. There is evidence of tampering in all of the organizations that gather worldwide data and evidence of tampering in many of those who gather data in large nations. Perhaps little flyspeck nations don't tamper but then their little bit of data is easily lost in the great noise that the global data makes.