Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit has had his hard work pay off with a discovery that the USA temperature data of Dr James Hansen of NASA GISS has concealed an error in recent years. This I understand affects the ranking of which is the hottest year in USA thermometer history. NASA had claimed 1998 as the hottest year for USA but I understand that after this error is allowed for, 1934 is still the hottest year.
It is a shame that the Climate Audit site is down as I write but they will be back again pretty soon I am sure.
I thought I would just quickly illustrate that there is little agreement bewteen the big climate groups about the ranking of 1934 and 1998. Using data from the KNMI ClimateExplorer.nl
If impotence is due to atherosclerosis, it can be cured with herbal remedies. 1. Whereas on the physiological aspect, it can be diagnosed and treated at early stage. The drug is available in pill type. Today, many female viagra buy male personalities, due to many physical and mental changes, suffer from sexual dysfunctions. 
We see that the Hadley Centre and Jones both have 1998 well below 1934. Jones CRUT2 stops in 2005 but the Hadley Centre CRUT3 has 2006 (1.08689) almost as warm as 1934 (1.09514).
The GHCN based CAMS has 2006 relatively lower than the UK based groups and the Spencer and Christy satellite data from the lower troposphere sees 1999 higher than 1998 and 2006 not notably warm as the Hadley Centre finds but the satellite data obviously includes areas of ocean while all the other series are land only.
Well done Steve and all involved!!!!
Got this from Climateaudit this morning:
“We’ve had to block pretty much everybody because of the enormous traffic from Instapundit, digg, slashdot and god forbid, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News
And a few hundred blogs.
CA is moving to a new server this weekend, one that shouldn’t meltdown quite as often
I’m sorry for the block, but it was necessary in the circumstances. Please try again on Monday
John”
2006 *was* the hottest year on record for the US. I knew when that information came out that something had to be wrong. By the end of last summer, 2006 wasn’t even in the top 3 hottest years to date, and then we had a significantly below normal fall with record lows nationwide and snow as early as the first week in October as far south as North Carolina. And then they say 2006 was the warmest ever?!?!? Horsesh!t.
Now, everything is called into question. If we can’t read a thermometer right, what else are we screwing up? If NASA can’t analyze temperature data correctly, are other countries screwing it up as well?
End result for the US. Current temperatures are NO WARMER than they were 70-80 years ago. No more argment on that. The question is why, if we have 70-80ppm more CO2 in the air now, are when not any warmer?
It also follows that we are now in the seventy-third year of a cooling trend from 1934. Not a very steep cooling trend, but a trend nevertheless.
There are also a few different interpretations of recent Total Solar Irradience about. A casual inspection suggests that we are still two years off solar minimum.
BTW, Gavin et.al. at Realclimate are treating this as “much ado about nothing.”
Riiiiiiight……
Some logic traps in here guys. If the temperature measurements are inaccurate/untrustworthy don’t argue a cooling trend either as you can’t have it both ways ?!? So which way is it?
As for 1934 – well yea it’s sure embarrassing but hardly fatal – doesn’t affect the global picture much at all. See Deltoid on this – check the graphs – scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov.php – the basic trends are all still there. So pub bragging rights is lost. About all.
You still have a warming trend that isn’t explained by solar influences (despite your ongoing assurance that it is). What we now need is for McIntyre to audit all the different solar theories – they can’t all be right. Which one are we up to now? But McIntrye only audits one side of the board. Anything goes on the other side. True scepticism means ream out everything. No favours or friends.
Anyway the recent paper at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;317/5839/796
says:
Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model
Doug M. Smith,* Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, James M. Murphy
Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.
I hope you guys will take the time to consider this new paper fairly as it for the first time introduces internal variability in the various oscillations as well as forcings. Some improvement in hindcast skill – also for Australia. Shows well why you should not expect increased CO2 to give monotonic temperature increases year after year. Also gives you a serious confounding issue with solar theories.
Luke,
all the climate models have an error bar of about 5K in temperature estimates. Arguing over variations less than a Kelvin on the basis of temperature anomaly plots is simply inane, like arguing over how many angels could be fitted onto a pin head.
You really have no idea about the numbers at all.
Amazing that a Y2K bug seriously affects the ranking of decadal temperature maxima. It means the rankings are not robust, and in any case we can’t really work out the mean surface temperature accurately in any case.
Incidentally Junkscience has a $100,000 reward for anyone proving catastophic AGW. I assume you will be entering this competition?
Luke, buddy.
“If the temperature measurements are inaccurate/untrustworthy don’t argue a cooling trend either as you can’t have it both ways ?!? So which way is it?”
The US temperatures aren’t innacurate/untrustworthy anymore, are they? I do hope Steve and the gang gets to work soon on the global temperature record. Well, I guess he kinda already did when he busted the Hokey Stick.
“But McIntrye only audits one side of the board. Anything goes on the other side. True scepticism means ream out everything. No favours or friends.”
Dude, are you serious with that? Only “your” side gets audited? Huh? Wha?? N-O-T-H-I-N-G get audited on the AGW side. “We” can’t! You guys won’t release your data sets and equations. That’s how we got to where we where up until a few days ago: Unchecked methodologies leading to erroneous data. For years on end.
Is any of this making sense?
Louis – I can see you’ve critically reviewed the paper so I’d be pleased to know what your assessment of the improvement in skill of the treatments are. Over to you specifically for an informed specific response.
As for Y2K – are you sure – not listening to blog comments are we? In any case does it really matter which year is the absolute biggest by a small amount ? Surely the trend and its origin are most important. If not why in the context of my above comments would it?
So how would you define “catastrophic” – your term.
Matt – missed your post by a whisker .. ..
He busted the Hocky Stick – hmmm – seems to be restated specifically in the 4AR with more reconstructions.
I think they should release the code and data – let it go – perhaps it’s McIntyre tediously aggressive style that seems to put at odds with hundreds of other scientists. So he writes you a nice letter then slags you off a priori at ClimateAudit to a cheer squad of goons. This would endear him to any scientific community? Come on? It’s pure warfare.
Are you actually serious Matt – do you actually think there are no review or audit processes on science. They’re going on all the time but obviously not perfect.
Now are you serious – is there any serious review of the papers that’s served up for example at the recent Lavoisier meeting. Most of it would not be published in any reputable journal. I fail to see that they would have even passed the most elementary “internal” review. Good science hygiene starts at home first.
So we do have two standards definitely – anything goes on the AGW destructive side – any old bilge will do. Anything is acceptable. Standards are not necessary. The level of hypocrisy is stifling. And that’s why you get no respect.
Luke,
You have a go at Steven McIntyre over not auditing the solar theories. Last I looked no-one is waving around Solar Studies saying we must hurry and sign treaties that will send everyone broke the same way the hockey sick was waved about. If ever they start to be used to generate government policy I’m sure he and everyone else will also develop an interest in auditing them.
Until then why bother?
J
Luke, that’s a load of horsesh!t and you know it.
Am I serious? Damn straight I’m serious. Who reviewed Mann’s hockey stick? Mann’s colleagues. Wow, what a review. Certainy no one on the “other side” got an chance. And how could they with no data sets or formulas made availible for review? Same for NASA/NOAA, and on and on. McIntyre had to *reverse engineer* the algorithms. WTF mate?!? The only people allowed to review that stuff are the people who what to hear/read what they already say. That is not critical review.
Are you even a scientist?
Hey everybody!
Please go easy on Luke, will you ? The poor fellow has just realised that this hollow edifice called AGW has taken another direct hit by a full-blown missile carrying the name of Steve McIntyre. I think that Anthony Whatts fueled it.Thank you very much to both of them. Luke, you better watch out for next one to come. It might not be long!
Best. H.K.
Steve has served notice that if your science is suspect, he’s going to call you on it. Even if you hide all your data, equations, methods, what-not, doesn’t matter. Climateaudit is definitely an appropriote name for his endevor.
Please keep up the excellent work Steve…
Decorum gentlemen please
Look who appoints McIntrye – nobody? Does he have a real job. Does he have any positive contributions to climate science – nope – zip – only a couple of rebuttal notes. And he won’t be exanding out of the data/time series area as he doesn’t have the expertise. Frankly Matt I don’t think you understand the significance of the whole Hockey Stick saga – Mann et al got a smack on wrist for using the wrong stats (if you’re confident you can explain it to me). The right stats according to the same critics gives the same answer. The 4AR revisits the topic with further analyses from various authors and the thrust of the argument is still the same. You need to stop hanging around the poisonous well of Climateaudit and its cheer squad of goons and get out more.
It’s interesting that McIntrye didn’t discover the errors in the MSU data and randiosonde data. Notice errors discovered by the AGW side – no hysterics – points resolved, noted and move on. None of this hysteria associated with ClimateAudit.
As for the Mann’s colleagues issue – fairly common in limited domain science. Very difficult in highly specialist areas.
“Steve has served notice” – oooo – Wow ! – so he’s the Lone Ranger is he. The enforcer on the range. This is not how real science works. The real science is moving on every day and sweeping past these guys.
And it does matter a very great deal if the solar theories are indeed wrong. Inaction in this instance may cost you dearly in the long run.
What you guys have missed is that the 6 billion going to 9 billion humans on the planet are already maladapted to climate variation as it currently exists. We don’t deal with easily. Want some more?
Maladapted? My dear boy, it is the very upward climate trend itself that you seem to hate so much that has allowed 6 going on 9 billion people to exist on this rock. Wanna cut a few billion out? Let’s go back to 1850 world temps and see how much food we can grow. We *may* be headed back that way. We’ll see in 5-10 years I suppose.
Steve=Lone Ranger. Perhaps. He seems to certainly taking the lead in exposing horrible science. And seeing as his background is math, it clearly doesn’t take a climate scientist to do it. He’s forgotten more about statisitcal data analysis than you’ll likely ever know.
Well it all depends on how the rainfall is distributed doesn’t it. Hope you feel lucky.
You may have noticed that agronomic advances still don’t cope well with back to back droughts.
“Horrible” science – how dyslogistic – like Christy & Spencer mucking up the satellite data ? Jeez. It might pay to do a checklist of what McIntyre also gets wrong. Don’t just tally the wins.
So if he “audits” something, finds it to be absolutely correct and proper science, that’s a loss?!?!?
You need help Luke.
In any event, you should be overjoyed with this news, but you aren’t. You seem to clearly think a warmer world is a bad bad place, so evidence that it may not be quite as warm as we thought should be met with relief from the AGW-ers. Don’t you *want* to be wrong about the planet warming another 5-15 degrees (or whatever IPCC comes up with this week) melting all the ice, flooding all our coast and killing all the animals?
Instead, you’re pissed off. Why is that exactly?
Like most environmentalists, he loves the earth — it’s people he can’t stand!
Fairness correction: strike “most” — insert “many” environmentalists.
I’m not pissed off. I’m quite happy. I thought you guys were here to debate science.
Is that not what blogs are for? Are not alternate points of view appreciated? Would it not be so tedious if everyone said “Oh yes”.
Back to your point. How does this reranking (1934 issue) affect any future scenario?
I love the usual attempt to parody and project to alarmism and “environmentalism”.
It would be nice if all that happened is that the world warmed uniformly. But you will get changes in extremes. Global circulation patterns involving rainfall do reorganise – see the paleo data for examples. There will be winners and losers. Tropical storms may be an issue for some. Changing ocean chemistry issues for others. The metabolism of most insect pests will speed up. 30% of all food produced is eaten by insects already. And it may have all happened before in geological time but this fast with 6 billion humans? In a world with 30 days food supply with a globally linked interdependent economic system.
Sea level rise may or may not be a problem depending on the mechanics of ice sheet disintegration more than temperature. It’s only a moderate long term concern on my list.
If McCall was involved in drought counselling work he would not be telling those involved in climate that “it’s people he can’t stand”. Do I know you. Do you know me by my few words?
It’s about risk management. People with climate risk at not content with your assurances of “she’ll be right”. People have to make climate risk management decisions already. They already have exposure.
They want to make smarter ones in the future. Nuclear may be our best option. I’m up for it if that’s what it comes to !
Ah yes, a classic piece of denialism:
And we wondered who appointed James Hansen or Michael Mann. Who appointed Einstein to overturn classical physics? Anyone?
Does McIntyre have a real job? Yes, it’s called scientific audit.
Does Steve McIntyre have any positive contributions to climate science? Yes, he’s shown that the IPCC TAR was based on false science, upon a reconstruction of past climate that is statistical and scientific nonsense. He has forced climate science to start checking instead of bleating about apocalypse. He has also shown that multiproxy studies of past climate depend on statistical anaylsis that is known to be deeply flawed. He has managed to provoke invesdtigations in COngress, and the production of reports which backed every single point he made.
He has shown very simply than James Hansen can’t even run a long standing experiment properly without screwing up.
These are positive contributions to science by showing that not everything claimed by these people is true.
Let Edward Wegman explain it to you:
In other words, Mann was wrong, wrong, wrong, and the independence of scientific peer review was compromised to the point of worthlessness.
Really? What are those “right stats”? The Wegman report also showed what Steve McIntyre had already said: the climate scientists were unaware that their models failed statistical tests and were worthless and that they all used the same tawdry group of proxies to produce the same result.
Some of those “independent” studies even used Mann’s PC1 as a proxy even though they well knew that it was worthless as anything, let alone a proxy.
Perhaps because those data are already being audited and debated because the data and metholodogy are open to appraisal and replication, something that is not true of Hansen’s network. Why aren’t you interested in Hansen’s network? Afraid of the answers you might find?
Excuses, excuses. As Wegman says they’re locked in and separated from the mainstream statisical community, which is probably why they make such elementary errors in their models and fight so hard to hide their methodology and results.
Real science is creeping up on the Hockey Team by showing up their methods as crude and their results unconvincing.
It would matter if the solar theories were wrong, but this is science where everything is disputable.
The maladaptation is that a lot of them are extremely poor, and your solution is to increase poverty? We’ve already had this particular scare in 1968 with the production of the “Population Bomb” with its predictions of mass starvations and societal collapse by the 1980s (ah, yes I remember it well)
What we have here from Luke is deny, excuse and more denial. No facts, just pettifogging and FUD.
1. Ah yes, a classic piece of hand sifted spin and not listening
McIntyre is a geologist self-appointed as an auditor of all things AGW – but only things AGW – other denialist pseudo-science such as diverse solar theories can be produced in great volumes with no audit needed. He’s not appointed to an institution studying climate issues.
“the IPCC TAR was based on false science” – what the whole lot.. ROTFL. What a try-on John.
Hockey Stick is a small piece of a larger puzzle which seems to again by re-stated with more reconstructions in the 4AR.
The Wegman report was a kangaroo court set up by a good old boy – Joe Barton as a political attack on establishment science. A panel itself with no referee’s report.
Unlike your selective review of the issue it’s more informative to read that a variety of opinions from knowledgebable commentators have been made on the issue. I can’t believe we’re having another Hockey Stick debate but here we go. A reasonable summary of the huge literature at Wiki and it’s worth reviewing some of those points.
Gerald North, chairman of the National Research Council panel that studied the hockey-stick issue and produced the report Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, stated the politicians at the hearing at which the Wegman report was presented “were twisting the scientific information for their own propaganda purposes. The hearing was not an information gathering operation, but rather a spin machine.”
The result of fixing the alleged errors in the overall reconstruction does not change the general shape of the reconstruction.
Similarly, studies that use completely different methodologies also yield very similar reconstructions
The National Research Council agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect
According to Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita[35] and Jesus Rouco,[36] reviewing the NAS report on McIntyre’s blog ClimateAudit, “With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.”[37] It was noted by their critics, however, that no such statement, explicit or implicit, is present on the two pages cited[38]; the closest the report comes being a statement that “Some recent results reported in Table 1S of Wahl and Ammann (in press) indicate that their reconstruction, which uses the same procedure and full set of proxies used by Mann et al. (1999), gives CE values ranging from 0.103 to -0.215, depending on how far back in time the reconstruction is carried.”[39]
However, CE is not the only measure of skill; Mann et al. (1998) used the more traditional “RE” score, which, unlike CE, accounts for the fact that time series change their mean value over time. The statistically significant reconstruction skill in the Mann et al. reconstruction is independently supported in the peer-reviewed literature.[40][41]
John I suggest you read more widely on the issue outside of spin central.
McIntyre’s positive contributions to advancing the position? He may have indirectly improved the state of science methodology but at what cost and no real contribution to any advancement in actual knowledge. But such is the lot of an auditor versus a scientist.
I note the usual tawdry throw to that somewhow AGW science and policy increases poverty. All well worn try-ons. So that explains the ongoing billions of dollars shelled out to support first world Australian farmers for drought now lingering over decades. Do you know how much havoc El Nino can wreak on Africa, Indonesia and Brazil. Millions of lives at stake. I’m sure your fistful of dollars will be of great use facing a complete multi-season rainfall failure in the third world. If you don’t know the global impact of drought in the last 30 years I suggest you find out.
I stopped reading your retort when you refered to Wikipedia. That tells me all I need to know….
McIntyre is a geologist self-appointed as an auditor of all things AGW – but only things AGW – other denialist pseudo-science such as diverse solar theories can be produced in great volumes with no audit needed. He’s not appointed to an institution studying climate issues.
Not answered the point about who does the appointing. Rather typical denialist tactics, I’d say.
Steve McIntyre is not, and has never claimed to be a geologist. Where do you get these peculiar delusions from? The only pseudoscience is the one promoting it – you.
“the IPCC TAR was based on false science” – what the whole lot.. ROTFL. What a try-on John.
ROFLOLOLOLOL. No, just the important bits about how do we know the climate is warming at an unprecedent rate in the last 1000 years. Those important bits which you are now in deep denial of. That the Hockey Stick was referred to as the “Smoking Gun” of global warming, but now it “doesn’t matter”. Denial. And then more denial.
Hockey Stick is a small piece of a larger puzzle which seems to again by re-stated with more reconstructions in the 4AR.
All of those reconstructions use the same mathematical treatment and use the same proxies. Unsurprisingly they come to similar conclusions and they all fail statistical tests for significance.
The result? The “Fuzzy Hockey Stick” which appears to have been specially designed to prevent replication by Steve McIntyre. They’re all bad math and bad science.
The Wegman report was a kangaroo court set up by a good old boy – Joe Barton as a political attack on establishment science. A panel itself with no referee’s report.
And straight back with the hardcore denialism, eh Luke? The Wegman Report was entirely independent, and took no money at all from Barton’s Committee or anyone else. Its lead author is a top-ranked statistician, who admitted under oath that in 2000 he voted for Al Gore. Wegman hadn’t even met Barton until the Congressional Hearing.
The only political attack was by the non-statisticians and ideologues who tried to rubbish the messenger because they couldn’t answer the criticisms. The same form of paranoid conspiracy theory that we’re all tired of hearing.
John I suggest you read more widely on the issue outside of spin central.
McIntyre’s positive contributions to advancing the position? He may have indirectly improved the state of science methodology but at what cost and no real contribution to any advancement in actual knowledge. But such is the lot of an auditor versus a scientist.
What cost? How much money is being wasted on the Kyoto Protocol? Billions so far.
Don’t talk to me about waste.
I note the usual tawdry throw to that somewhow AGW science and policy increases poverty. All well worn try-ons. So that explains the ongoing billions of dollars shelled out to support first world Australian farmers for drought now lingering over decades. Do you know how much havoc El Nino can wreak on Africa, Indonesia and Brazil. Millions of lives at stake. I’m sure your fistful of dollars will be of great use facing a complete multi-season rainfall failure in the third world. If you don’t know the global impact of drought in the last 30 years I suggest you find out.
El Ninos are natural phenonmena of climate and have been going on for millions of years. They have nothing to do with AGW. They are not man-made.
Impoverishing everybody won’t help the poor in Africa, Indonesia and Brazil, but you don’t give a shit about the poor. All of that poverty could be alleviated for a fraction of what it would cost to implement Kyoto and best of all, those people would be better able to deal with climate change from whatever cause. The global impact of drought has reduced and as the Earth has warmed over the 20th Century, deserts have shrunk (including the Sahara).
Nevertheless droughts happen as they have done for billions of years. Welcome to planet Earth.
” That the Hockey Stick was referred to as the “Smoking Gun” of global warming, but now it “doesn’t matter”. ”
Thanks John for pointing that out John. 8 years ago, it’s “the smoking gun” with “no more debate”. Now it’s a “small part”.
Wow. Just…wow.
I can only wonder how if the situation was reversed, how would the alarmists act? If an error was found and corrected that *increased* the actual US temperature, would you be saying “it’s no big deal. Only affects a few years of US data. Make no difference on a global scale.” No. It would be yet another indication of man-made doom/gloom, the headlines would read.
Last week was not a good week for true-believers like you Luke.
I sincerely look forward to Steve’s audit of international sites. His statements indicate that Asian sites have no adjustment what-so-ever for UHI effects. Should be quite interesting….
This weekend, whilst walking down the same street Code Pink HQ is located at (e.g. a radical street, it was) I saw a bumper sticker – “Promote Global Cooling.” My mind processes that sticker as “promote zee finahl zolushun!”
Although there are plenty of useful idiots amongst the Radical Green Movement, at its core are followers of Margaret Sanger (and Hitler). Some of them are in important positions in government, media, industry and naturally, the research community.
Anyone who thinks this is paranoia, think again.
RE: #17 – There are new strains popping up of an Evil which was prematurely declared eradicated in both 1945 and 1991. The big T. These are the most virulent strains thus far. Those who embrace it, and who pine for the 4/5ths death (leading to world conquest by the surviving 1/5th) are a motley bunch, but are dangerous and have much power. Ultimately, the leaders of it are in distant lands. However, there are plenty of today’s versions of Red Diaper Babies and Brown Shirts to result in quite the 5th column in its own right, here in the West. This 5th column is like a watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside.
Well gentlemen it would be nice to continue our robust discussion but it seems I am not allowed. But that’s OK.
That’s OK. My comments get edited/removed on Realclimate….
Luke, this will make you feel better. I am just back from a week on a mate’s boat going down the Croatian coast, some of it at 30 knots chewing 500 litres/hour. It was a 78 footer, brand new from the factory. Three passengers and three crew. I got the jetski up to 110 kmph.
And Luke, you were quite right to quote Wikipedia, because my last paper is cited there as a source to consult on the CO2 absorption effect.
Lastly Luke, do you have any pull at Desmog Blog? Because I am still not on their list of deniers despite my prodigious output of denialist scientific papers. Please put in a word for me, and Warwick too.
Here is how to create new ‘Hockey Sticks’, temperature series this time.
icecap.us/images/uploads/Central_Park_Temperatures_Two.pdf
No need to cut the recent figures, just take off up to 11 degrees F from the earlier ones,simple eh?
For ‘cut’ read ‘pad’
The AGWers have even gone to the point of saying the Global Cooling theory of the 1970s wasn’t real. I’m serious.
reasic.com/2007/07/19/green-myth-busting-70s-ice-age-predictions/#comment-5468
And *WE’RE* labled “Deniers”????
Just….wow, man….
Luke you really are talking total nonsense, you claim the hockey stick is in AR4 but you dont say that in AR3 it appeared on page 3 of the SPM, and where is it in AR4? It is not in the SPM at all, and it appear much later on in the document somewhere round page 676, so even the IPCC are admitting the stick is broken. Also when it does appear it is with many other graphs that do show a MWP, again shows that Mann was wrong. SteveM’s contribution is massive and he will go down in history as the first to seriously question Mann. Your comment on Wegman is also nonsense, they were three top independent statisticians, and they said that M&M’s arguments were compelling.
Matt yes you are right it is Mann and his cronies who are the deniers, they deny historical facts like the MWP and the LIA, and now they are denying facts that I can remember like the ice-age scare scare in the 1970s.
Re: Reasic.com
Don’t bother posting. Reasic exhibits full-out censorship over there. Several of my posts calling in to question the validity of his argument have been deleated.
Not surprising really.
Just wanted to let you all know that climateaudit.org is now up on its new server colocated in a very nice datacenter in California. The server is a lot faster, a lot beefier and has a nice separate firewall to protect it.
Also Steve McIntyre will be interviewed on the Today Program on BBC Radio 4 tomorrow morning (Friday). I don’t know exactly when but the programme airs between 6 and 9 BST.
You can work out when that is in your timezone via this handy tool.
There is an archive of the Today prog which should appear on the BBC website here
Actually the SPM has a significant Box article on recent paleoclimate. perhaps you missed it:
P”alaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}”
It then further devotes this significant amount of space in Chapter 6 of the 4AR at pages 466-482
To a previous assertion on drought:
More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. Increased drying linked with higher temperatures and decreased precipitation has contributed to changes in drought. Changes in sea surface temperatures, wind patterns and decreased snowpack and snow cover have also been linked to droughts.
On the ice age scam – there was no major science effort on ice age scares. If so put it up the extensive literature that says there was. Popular press like Newsweek isn’t science. Another denialist myth.
“Ice age myth” — you’re full of it, Luke. My Climatology class of 1977 spoke specifically to that prevailing theory — a direct descendant of the research of that time and years before. You either weren’t alive to experience it, or you’re in denial as has been charged by others here. Disconnect your brain from revisionist Spencer Weart and start doing your own research.
As to the warmest in 1300 years crap — what was missing from all the AR4 spaghetti charts (except the GRAFTED instrument record) is proxy verification of the warming in the 1990s. None, repeat NONE of the AR4 spaghetti reconstructions used in or to support MBH 9x “warmest in…” claims had 1990 period appendages. While this is/was forgivable in the TAR, it is an unjustifiable obscene omission in AR4 given how much money they had to spend on proxies and reconstructions. Without said 1990 appendages to the reconstructions echoing the “unprecedented warming”, one can now argue that the same could be said for MWP! IOW, the spaghetti reconstructions of the MWP, under-represent actual temperatures of the time.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the DIVERGENCE problem torpedos such extraordinary claims of not only 1000, but the extended claim of 1300 years. BTW, the divergence discussion/justification is another area where Dr Mann has screwed up big; but since that too is discussed on CA among other sites, I wouldn’t expect you to be current with AR4’s equivalent of the hockey stick debacle. In fairness, some solar physicists think the AR4-hockey stick debacle is more like what happened in L&F2007 — but that’s for another thread.
BTW — did you ever get marked wrong for right answer, incorrect method or proof in you academic career? One thinks with your regurgitation of the MBH mantra of support, you didn’t even take Geometry where right conclusion, wrong steps is the default method of evaluating proofs.
make that:
“right conclusion, wrong steps is the default method of DEVALUATING proofs.”
and “1990 period” should have been “1990s decade”, i.e. where the hockey stick made it extraordinary claims — and shot down in the Wegman Report.
“the spaghetti reconstructions of the MWP, under-represent actual temperatures of the time. ” and you youself know what the global temperatures “actually” were do you. ROTFL
You may have had ice age mentioned in your climatology class – I can’t help what institutions you went to – there is no organised large published science agenda suggesting that there was to be an ice age. Don’t obfuscate on the point. Put it up. You can’t as it doesn’t exist.
www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm#N_2_
Clearly they were incorrect, but just as clearly, it was a real theory and one that was quite popular.
I for one am glad they were wrong. I kinda hope they’re wrong about the next 20 years as well.
Thank you, Matt.
From Luke: “you youself know what the global temperatures “actually” were do you. ROTFL
Uh no; (reeling in the Lukefish) I don’t know anymore than the ministers of your AGW religion know.
What we do know is:
1) The (PC1-, r2-, BCP-, data-mined, and otherwise flawed) hockey stick led to an MBH conclusion that the “1990s decade was the warmest in 1000 years!” This even when found statistically unsupportable, as found in the Wegman report which allowed only 400 years (a skeptic, DUH given acceptance of a global LIA)!
2) While the TAR was too soon to get proxy verification of the “unprecedented 90s warming”, the 2007 AR4 should have found and shown it. But the proxy extensions that were done after TAR, FAILED to show the “unprecedented warming” verification signal of the instrument record – hence a divergence problem (similar to that AGW zealots are fond of selectively applying to solar NGW folks).
3) With the lack of proxy verification, the AR4 summary ministers of AGW migrated to the other end of the spaghetti of proxies. They extended the warming claim to 1300 years BP (also a skeptic DUH, if one accepts a global MWP, then the centuries preceding it were by definition, cooler)! The tragic result of this was AGW disciples like you, and especially the media fell for the AR4 spaghetti misdirection. So while you’re now running around chanting, “warmest in 1300 years,” skeptics (and others) are focused on why there was no “unprecedented 90s warming” signal in the business end of the spaghetti chart’s tree-ring proxies (used to make the extraordinary millennial claims)?
4) And now the punch line! By extension of your religion, since the otherwise consensus established “unprecedented 80s warming” proxy signal is missing (but AGW itself is still REAL), one might reasonably hypothesize that warming might have been missing from the MWP years too — same tree-ring proxies, right?
Oh wait – with AGW (or any) zealots, “reasonable” proposals such as in 4, are not allowed. Not surprising, given your selective weakness in geometric proofs!
BTW, has anyone seen Ender? Even with other weaknesses, I suspect he’s better at geometric logic than Luke is.
In point 4, make that ““unprecedented 90s warming” proxy signal is missing”
Matt – a large discussion on Milankovitch theory with one reference to “a” meeting of glaciologist types in 1972 doesn’t seem like an extensive literature to me – next !
As far as proxy verification by our high priest of denialism. Statistically unsupportable – and he if he used Wegman as his statistician – oh look the same answer. Next !
Well it’s tragic that the proxy verification doesn’t extend into the 1990s just for you but it does for quite some period before that. 6.10 seems a good match.
Ender has returned to Jennifer Marohasy’s site. He’s in good form.
Luke, just because the 1970s media didn’t give it much press is meaningless. They had other things on thier mind (like: Vietnam). And by the time that war was over, the temperature had stopped falling, and the theory was well on it’s way to being dismissed. That does not in any way change the fact it was the prevailing opinion (read: consensus) for a brief time that the world was cooling and we were supposedly headed for the next ice age. They used much of the same tactics (look at the temperature, look at how much more ice we have, etc) to bolster their claim that “you guys” use today.
AGW is a cargo cult science (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science), which is work that has the semblance of being scientific, but is missing a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty. That lack of integrity is being effectively exposed daily, from the lack of integrity of data used to prove AGW, to the hand-waving and cherry picking used to discredit the skeptics.
This debate is done in 5-10 years. Either we continue to get warmer (as per “your” claim), or solar cycle 24&25 are going to prove the skeptics correct. And considering the work of Steve McIntyre, who is busily auditing international temp data as we speak, you need to get ready to eat some crow. His first stop is Brazil, and holy crap does the data look contaminated with UHI effects….
If you really want to stir a hornet’s nest with a stick then challenge the validity of the CO2 level that has so glibly been presented as fact. I have tried to find a valid source and methodology for determining the reported atmospheric CO2 level and have failed. With the recent controversy over the validity of something so easy to measure as temperature, why would anyone trust the reported CO2 levels?
I did find one manufacturer and from their web site a short duration outdoor measurement of CO2 article.
Go to the web site www.vaisala.com/instruments/products/carbondioxide/gmp343 and then go to Meeting the Challenge of Outdoor Carbon Dioxide Measurements.
The reported variance of the CO2 level was 100 PPM!
Please investigate.
Matt is mostly correct about the popular media focus in the early to mid-70s — they were primarily reporting on Viet Nam, Watergate (& later election ’76), and the oil crisis. After 1975, among the many small things filling the media void, the multi-decade cooling trends in climate (and the ice age theory) began to emerge. The ice-age theory had been discussed and gaining in science and academia for many years; popularly however, there was significant lag time that AGW revisionists (like Weart) and uninformed zealots (like Luke) now have tried to paint as supporting only a fringe theory. In fact, the flat to cooling trend period of the 40s until the late 70s, lasted much longer than the latest warming period until 1998, as well as the fantasy warming through 2006!
re: “Ender has returned to Jennifer Marohasy’s site. He’s in good form.”
Lil’ Lukefish has now been weighed, measured, and tagged before being dropped into one of the smaller AGW farm pond schools — there to frolic(?) with the rest of the underweight science and stat guppies. Bye, Lil’ Lukefish!
Now guys you’re getting ruffled. I did say the popular media picked up on it. What ? -now you’re saying they didn’t – get your story straight. I have said there is no major science literature about an imminent ice age – a couple of papers and a meeting or two. So still waiting for the put up !! Doesn’t seem to be coming. So maybe I think it isn’t there.
So you’ve sold yourselves an urban myth.
Rod as far as CO2 measurement is concerned that’s why you need good sites and technique. Where this is done properly in a string of stations from Mauna Loa to the South Pole the results are remarkably consistent. Don’t confuse poor experimental technique with facts.
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel-flask/
Mccall – thanks for the ad hom and it’s a pity you can’t stay.
Luke, I suggest you read more than Realclimate, Reasic, and Illconsidered. That seems to be where you get your info as you simply parrot whatever is on there.
I am in agreement wth the general view that it is incorrect to dismiss AGW on the basis that the global coolers were wrong. That does not in any way change that a good number of researchers in the 70s were convinced we stood at the doorstep of the next ice age. I just can’t imagine why I can’t find much published research from the 1960s and 1970s on the internet…
Continuing to claim it is a myth or urban legend really show what an idiot you are.