The Holocene Deniers

[Baggins]

T
You can't read can you. I have NOT said it will have much of an impact. When the earths temperature was about 5 degrees on average higher, and the Arctic 20+ degrees hotter, during the Eocene period, nothing happened to the earth that was of a catasrophic nature. Life went on.


.

Mr Morton you know this is disingenuous.

No one who accepts global warming thinks it can destroy the Earth or life on Earth or even humanity.

They think it will be detrimental to human civilisation, which didn't exist in the Eocene.

You know that I don't know why you keep dragging out this humungous straw man, leave it alone.

 

[Baggins]

A question for those who think consensus is important. The consensus is that the economy is bottoming out and better times are coming. That may or may not be true. Only time will tell.

But I would call attention to the fact that only data, not hopes, desires and wannabe's determines what the case will be.

I have a general beleif that usually the crowd is wrong. I would ask those who think the present consensus that the economy is improving why it is that the Baltic Dry Index is declining???

Now almost 100% of you are saying "The WHAT index?" This is the index that measures the cost of shipping goods across the sea. When times are grand, like in May 2008, the index was 11000 or so. During the worst of the collapse last fall it fell below 1000. In June, it rose to 4500, and that is when the global trade improved by 2.5%. That is the latest info on global trade.

But, what has happened since June? The index has been cut by 50%. How can this be? Consensus says that things are getting better!!. Everyone knows that.

So why are the ship owners getting more and more desperate and bidding DOWN the cost of shipping? Since July the index is down 32%. In the last 2 weeks it is down 15%. If the cost of shipping is dropping, it doesn't sound like a recovery. It means fewer goods are being shipped. But of course the sheeple in the economic world will continue to BELIEVE that things are getting better, even if they might not be, even if the data goes against that thesis.

Consensus will almost always lead you astray because most people don't do any research. They simply believe what it is they are told on the CBS news. You can see the Baltic Dry index at:

Bloomberg.com: Personal Finance

Am I right about a coming collapse of the market when everyone else thinks it is going up? I don't know. But I do find it oddly curious that the index for the cost of shipping shows that the shipowners are more and more willing to take less and less money to ship things. That is data. Political beliefs don't matter to the truth or falsity of what I am saying. Only reality matters.

Time will tell if I am correct or stupidly staying out of the market right now (except for oil which will rise as this country spends itself into oblivion.)

BTW, when I went to Alaska last month, I held a 100 trillion dollar note in my hand. It IS our future.

This is not off topic because it shows why consensus might be wrong. Time will tell if I am correct, but I am betting serious money on this view. And all that means is that I believe what I am saying. I am also betting serious money against global warming.

It is not up to you to bet against global warming because it affects all of us not just you. Your views are in a minority of scientists and an almost invisible minority of scientists competent in the field of climatology.

Consensus is just a word Mr Morton, a consensus of economic forecasters is not the same thing as a scientific consensus, for a start Economics isn't a science.

We can drop the word consensus if you like we can just say that every competent scientific body on earth accepts AGW and climate change and the vast majority of climatologists do as well, given that, and the predictions that it will have a detrimental affect on human society, it is up to politicians to legislate to mitigate the affects of climate change as far as possible based on views of the vast majority of competent scientists.

How's that?

 

[Baggins]

I Really am off to France now

 

[Gracchus]

No it is not pettifoggery. it is physics. If I sit on a heating pad the butt-thermometer will rise while the others dont.

But the overwhelming number record rising temperatures. Tree rings, ice cores, melting permafrost, vanishing sea ice, increased glacial runoff, desertification, all point to climatic change of a magnitude and speed uprecedented in the geological record. The evidence is arriving from all over the world, and yet, you keep harping on thermometer readings from two towns twenty-five miles apart. You have been sitting on the heating pad too long. You've fried your brain.

I am always amazed that people think it is OK to have heat souces on thermometers.

It is not OK. No one has said it is OK. What has been said is that it is statistically insignificant.

I will never change on that one.

I do not doubt that. Our brains are organized neural networks. You do the math, but you only use some of the data. Neural networks that are needed to evaluate all the data are disconnected from disuse. The part of your mind that analyzes has become disconnected from the part that gathers facts.

If you wanted to measure the magnetic field of the earth would you put a time variable electric coil next to your sensor?

No. On the other hand I would use a lot of sensors, so that if any one sensor, happened to be effected by a variable electromagnetic field, it would not have a significant effect upon the results. You have ignored the fact that the sensors that are ideally placed give the same result as the whole system.

From what you say, I can only think you would suggest that doing such and then having someone criticize you for it would be pettifoggery.

Indeed, I recognize that your thought processes are quite constrained. You could not think otherwise.

I have a suggestion. Why don't you start a campaign to fix the thermometer stations just to show how wrong I am?

Because even were I successful, you would not change your mind. Even if you did change your mind, it would not be worth that much effort.

Why would anyone want to subject their work to this easy kind of criticism?

Valid, reasonable criticism would not be quite so easy.

Below is a picture of the urban heat island effect in Atlanta. It is a temperature map. You have one thermometer with which to measure the temperature. Where do you put it so that you can be sure you are getting the true temperature. Note the temperature scale.

That would be stupid. There is no one "true" temperature. The temperature in the "heat island" would be different than the temperature outside of it. You are ignoring your own arguments. There are different "true" temperatures at different places, even places close together, at the same time. And there are different temperatures at the same place at different times.

Asking you this is more pettifoggery on my part. Yeah, we don't have to worry about microtemperature effects which can be 15 degrees change in a few hundred yards! But again, mere pettifoggery.

In Death Valley the temperature can be over 110 F in the day and near freezing the same night. A thermometer place on an asphalt parking lot is probably going to register a different temperature than one placed ten feet away in the spray from a shady fountain. I am not claiming otherwise. So you are convicted of pettifoggery.

Yours trully. Petty Pettifogg

It is nice to see that you finally got something right.

I would recommend to you a wonderful book I have recently started reading: "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not", by Robert A. Burton, Chief of the Department of Neurosciences at Mt. Zion-UCSF (University of California, San Francisco) Hospital.

You, obviously need to work on forming some new synaptic connecttions.

 

[grmorton]

But the overwhelming number record rising temperatures. Tree rings, ice cores, melting permafrost, vanishing sea ice, increased glacial runoff, desertification, all point to climatic change of a magnitude and speed uprecedented in the geological record. The evidence is arriving from all over the world, and yet, you keep harping on thermometer readings from two towns twenty-five miles apart. You have been sitting on the heating pad too long. You've fried your brain.

I just love how behind the times you are. The US had 3000 record low temperatures in July. Haven't you heard this? http://http//www.accuweather.com/mt...09/07/1000_low_temp_records_set_this_july.asp


The problem with the global warming crowd is precisely what you do at the end of the last paragraph. You cast some aspersion on the person so that you can categorize him and ignore him. This is what YECs do. And the reason I stopped fighting YECs was that they are harmless. YOu guys are intent upon destroying the economy and our jobs.

In 2008, the glaciers in Alaska grew for the first time in 200 years.
After 2 centuries of shrinking, Alaska glaciers grew this year
Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield in Alaska witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.


By Craig Medred
McClatchy Newspapers
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.
Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.
"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.Nation & World | After 2 centuries of shrinking, Alaska glaciers grew this year | Seattle Times Newspaper


That is from the USGS. And guess what, we have more than 35% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than we did 200 years ago. Yet, we make 3000 low temperature records in July and the glaciers grew last year (I don't think they will grow this year, but it is silly to claim that we have warmed the earth as much as you think when glaciers grow and we have 3000 low temperature records.

Why? Because, if CO2 is the cause, it should be taking us away from the low temperature records and we should, over a century have fewer and fewer of them. But we are in the past few years breaking many many 100 year old records.

And you ignore the fact that Greenland is cooling, according to NOAA. How can we have increased runoff if Greenland is cooling? Is this like the butt thermometer which your analogy failed to capture sitting on a heating pad as analogous to putting a thermometer next to an airconditioner. And you say I have a fried brain. Only a beleiver can believe that it is irrelevant to the measurement of temperature that an air conditioner coil is right next to it. I am appalled at the lack of knowledge of physics.

It is not OK. No one has said it is OK. What has been said is that it is statistically insignificant.

I have piles of that on my ranch, after the cows go by. The weather station siting recommendations say that a heat source can raise the thermometer temperature by 5 deg C. And Anthony Watts volunteer effort has found that 8% of them are next to heat sources (updates have downed it from an earlier 13% but they now have 3/4ths of the stations surveyed. Below is the pie chart from Home That is NOT statistically insignificant. That is about 1/12th of the stations affected by an increase in temperature of 5 degrees or more.

Class 4 (error &#8805; 2ºC) – Artificial heating sources <10 meters.
Class 5 (error &#8805; 5ºC) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface. Section 2.2.1 of http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

Now, if 8% have a 5 deg C + increase in temperature and 61% have a 2% increase in temperature, that means that over a degree C of warming could be incorporated into these numbers--numbers which are provided by NOAA itself.


So, do you disbeleive NOAA about the temperature increase? Or do you do the group think thing and disbelieve Watts' organization because it doesn't agree with what you want to beleive?

Of me saying that I won't change that an airconditioner is bad for measuring temperature Grachus, who agreed that it is a problem now seems to think it is idiotic to think it is a problem. He wrote in response to my statement that I will never think an air conditioner is a good thing when one is trying to measure the global temperature:

I do not doubt that. Our brains are organized neural networks. You do the math, but you only use some of the data. Neural networks that are needed to evaluate all the data are disconnected from disuse. The part of your mind that analyzes has become disconnected from the part that gathers facts.

Notice that he doesn't actually say why 8% of the stations being next to a heat source is not to be worried about, he babbles on about neural networks. Why don't you actually address the fact that if 8% of the stations are measuring 5 degrees+ C too high, that that means that this alone accounts for 0.4 deg C of warming? That isn't statistically insignificant. Nah, you don't want to discuss that, you like discussing the neural nets in my brain. That is irrelevant to the data.

Such warmings of the thermometers are NOT statistically insignificant. If they are, let us see your math. I just posted mine.

No. On the other hand I would use a lot of sensors, so that if any one sensor, happened to be effected by a variable electromagnetic field, it would not have a significant effect upon the results. You have ignored the fact that the sensors that are ideally placed give the same result as the whole system.

Ok, so you wouldn't put a magnet next to a sensor to measure the magnetic field, why on earth would you IGNORE a heat source next to 8% of the stations in the US which you already admitted would affect the temperature. What inconsistency you exhibit.

Indeed, I recognize that your thought processes are quite constrained. You could not think otherwise.

More argumentums ad hominems. Perhaps I should pull out my graduate school book on logic.



"The phrase argumentum ad hominem translates literally as 'argument directed to the man.' It is susceptible to two interpretations, whose interrelationship will be explained after the two are discussed separately. We may designate this fallacy on the first interpretation as the 'abusive' variety. It is committed when, instead of trying to disprove the truth of what is asserted, one attacks the man who made the assertion. Thus it may be argued that Bacon's philosophy is untrustworthy because he was removed form his chancellorship for dishonesty. This argument is fallacious, because the personal character of a man is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what he says or the correctness or incorrectness of his argument. To argue that proposals are bad or assertions false because they are proposed or asserted by Communists (or by Hippies or by doves or by hawks or by extremists [or I might add here, people who have faith--grm]) is to argue fallaciously and to be guilty of committing an argumentum ad hominem (abusive). This kind of argument is sometimes said to commit the 'Genetic Fallacy,' for obvious reasons."Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, (New York: MacMillan 1972), p. 74-75


You are merely making ad hominems, as defined by logicians. In other words, you are being highly illogical. Basically your logic is this:

"Glenn's thinking is constrained, therefore he is wrong."
That of course doesn't address the data I have presented.

Thistlethorn commited the fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem when he implied that because I work in oil I can't be trusted. Copi has this to say about that particular piece of illogic.


"The other interpretation of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, the 'circumstantial' variety, pertains to the relationship between a person's beliefs and his circumstances. Where two men are disputing, one may ignore the question of whether his own contention is true or false and seek instead to prove taht his opponent ought to accept it because of his opponent's special circumstances. Thus if on's adversary is a clergyman, one may argue that a certain contention must be accepted because its denial is incompatible with the Scriptures." Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, (New York: MacMillan Co, 1972), p. 75

This is equivalent to arguing that I have to object to AGW because I am in oil, which argument doesn't address the issues, it attacks the man. It is a formal logical fallacy. Congratulations guys, you are illogical.

When I asked him to start a campaign to remove this problem of heat sources, he says.

Because even were I successful, you would not change your mind. Even if you did change your mind, it would not be worth that much effort.

Gee, it IS all about me. Wow. I didn't know I had that much control over your life. This is great. Will you write me a check?

Valid, reasonable criticism would not be quite so easy.

So, from this, inspite of your claim that heat sources do affect thermometers, you think it is an invalid criticism. Let's see your math Gracchus. 8% x 5 C = 0.4 C. 61% x 2 C = 1.2 C.

That would be stupid. There is no one "true" temperature. The temperature in the "heat island" would be different than the temperature outside of it. You are ignoring your own arguments. There are different "true" temperatures at different places, even places close together, at the same time. And there are different temperatures at the same place at different times.

BINGO: There is no one temperature. But with the weather service you get to measure ONE temperature. You really ought to think about consequences of what goes on. Atlanta reports one temperature reading from one point in the city. it will be come the official temperature and as shown in that picture the temperature can vary by 15 degrees within a few hundred feet. How on earth would you know that you have chosen a good spot?

And yes, there is a heat island. It is as great as 15 deg F over a few hundred meters, but, guess what. GISS only corrects for urban heat island by 0.6 deg F. (~0.3C)


"The magnitude of the adjustment at the urban and periurban stations themselves, rather than the impact of these adjustments on the total data set, is shown in Plate 2l. The adjustment is about -0.3°C at the urban stations and -0.1°C at the periurban stations. In both cases these refer to the changes over 100 years that are determined by
adjusting to neighboring "unlit" stations. J. Hansen et al, "A Closer Look at United States and Global Surface Temperatures," J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23947-23963 available at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf p 6

So, you know that the urban heat island effect can be as much as 15 deg F (8 deg C) and yet Hansen at the GISS only corrects for it with 0.3 deg C. That isn't sufficient. Come on Gracchus, tell me that this is sufficient to account for 15 deg F (8 deg C)

There is a true maximum temperature and minimum temperature for each day. You seem not even to be aware that what is measured is the Max and Min temperature each day. To say the above shows that you seem never to have thought about it, and are thus implying that there is no maximum temperature for a given day.

A hint to those of you who know nothing about the temperature measurment system, they are measured today by an MMTS, Maximum-Minimum Temperature System. to say what you say means you think there is no maximum temperature at a given spot for each day. What an utter laugh.

In Death Valley the temperature can be over 110 F in the day and near freezing the same night. A thermometer place on an asphalt parking lot is probably going to register a different temperature than one placed ten feet away in the spray from a shady fountain. I am not claiming otherwise. So you are convicted of pettifoggery.

No your argument convicts you. My entire argument is that heat sources and cement cause the temperature to read higher than it should. YOu acknowledge that, yet claim I am wrong. Ridiculous. I am the one who is saying that the placement of thermometers next to air conditioners and on top of cement is giving bias of high temperature to the measurments. Yet you are the one who is saying that all is well. You can't seem to even remember what it is you said in the preceding paragraph.

It is nice to see that you finally got something right.

I would recommend to you a wonderful book I have recently started reading: "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not", by Robert A. Burton, Chief of the Department of Neurosciences at Mt. Zion-UCSF (University of California, San Francisco) Hospital.

You, obviously need to work on forming some new synaptic connecttions.

I do appreciate your worry about my synapses. It is sooooooo relevant to the data I present.

 

[grmorton]

One of the most hilarious things has been reported. The MET office, the UK weather service, has a super computer which has a HUGE carbon foot print. I love the fact that reducing carbon emissions applies to everyone except those who believe in AGW like Al Gore whose house is huge and wasn't as energy efficient as Bush's until the newspapers started talking about his hypocrisy. I love the fact that all thes rock stars go around telling us to save the planet, yet they fly around on private jets everywhere.

Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters | Mail Online

Physician, heal thyself. The political elite get to tell us what to do but they don't have to live by the rules they set for us.

ETA: this reminds me of the Vietnam war saying "In order to save the town, we must destroy it.", only this is, "In order to save the planet, we must destroy it." What a hoot!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Why anthropogenic global warming is not a religion for me.
So far in the debate we&#8217;ve gone round and round about the same things that always come up in these debates. I&#8217;ve been responsible for pulling it off into the mathematical weeds precisely because that is where any such detailed discussion must end up if we are all serious. But I&#8217;m going to step back and lay out why, for me a non-professional in climatology, a guy who deals with climate not at all in my daily work, but who has a science background, believes in anthropogenic global warming.
Let&#8217;s go through this formally:

1.Yes the earth has been warmer before. I have a PhD in geology I understand that the earth&#8217;s climate is not fixed. Just because that is the case does not mean that the current warming is necessarily a &#8220;natural cycle&#8221;. This is a logic fallacy
a.All climate is unstable
b.Some unstable climate is natural
c.Therefore all climate instability is natural
d.This is wrong because it assumes only natural instability (ie not caused by man) is available

2.Regardless of historical lag or feedback loops with regard to CO[sub]2[/sub], CO[sub]2[/sub] is a known greenhouse gas because of its physics. Its bonds have resonance frequencies in the IR range. I have personally seen it absorb in the IR when I ran FTIR samples and measured backgrounds. The assymetrical stretch of O=C=O absorbs at about 2350cm[sup]-1[/sup] wavenumber region. (Silverstein et al, Spectrometric Identification of Organic Compounds, 5th ed., 1991, John Wiley and Sons, NY). It also has an absorption band at 667cm[sup]-1[/sup] (LINK)

3.CO[sub]2[/sub] has an exceedingly long residence time in the atmosphere. That is one of the reasons it is a particularly effective greenhouse gas. This is important in its role in radiative forcing calculations, apparently (LINK)

4.Humanity can be directly linked to the recent increases in CO2 by the [sup]14[/sup]C signature in the atmosphere (LINK)

5.As discussed earlier in 1988 when Hansen developed models that were built on radiative forcing functions, chief among them being CO[sub]2[/sub], the trends after that model prediction seem to line up reasonably well for the next decade.

6.Concensus: While I recognize that not all science requires concensus it does not mean that concensus is &#8220;bad&#8221; (that would be another logic fallacy). In terms of anthropogenic global climate change the fact that the majority of professionals in the field of climatology do not find this concept problematic is strong indicator to me that there is at least a reasonably good chance this is solid science. A recent poll (2009) of climatologists and meteorologists showed that the concensus is quite strong (Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS 90 (3): 22&#8211;23)
a.

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."(ibid)

b.There are other polls such as the one from 2008 conducted for the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason College which showed general concensus among earth and atmospheric scientists (LINK)

7.CONCLUSION: Does this mean that anthropogenic global warming is a &#8220;religion&#8221; to me? No. I don&#8217;t dogmatically believe in the tenents without proof. Nor do I believe that this hypothesis is inerrantly true. In fact I am a mere mortal who&#8217;s only job is to attempt to live my life according to the best data I can see. I am not a meteorologist but by the same token I am not a scientific &#8220;babe-in-the-woods&#8221;. I&#8217;m a degreed, professional scientist with a doctorate in the earth sciences, two chemistry postdoctoral appointments under my belt, and some brief time working for a major earth and oceanographic research facility. So I&#8217;m hardly unable to critically assess some aspects of the science.

8.In the end I will live my convictions as I am currently doing until I am shown better data or more proof. If my actions cost me a bit of cash (my solar unit, my xeriscaped yard) then the only person who&#8217;s been impacted is me and I&#8217;ve acted in a &#8220;conservative&#8221; way. At the very least I&#8217;ve lessened my negative impact on critical, limited resources and hopefully done my little bit.

9.If I&#8217;m wrong then I&#8217;m out some cash. If the other side is wrong then we might be out a planet. I don&#8217;t imagine a Hummer and lot of money will buy us a new planet. (And in case anyone thinks I'm saying global warming will destroy the earth, don't think that. I'm sure the earth can and will survive our meddling with it's atmosphere. But I am reasonably sure we won't necessarily be able to, certainly our society wouldn't necessarily be able to. And we might take out vast swaths of the current ecosystems with us.)

 

[grmorton]

8.In the end I will live my convictions as I am currently doing until I am shown better data or more proof. If my actions cost me a bit of cash (my solar unit, my xeriscaped yard) then the only person who&#8217;s been impacted is me and I&#8217;ve acted in a &#8220;conservative&#8221; way. At the very least I&#8217;ve lessened my negative impact on critical, limited resources and hopefully done my little bit.

I always admire a person who lives their convictions. Clearly you are. I was preparing a post for my blog and when I looked over here I was taken by your comment, bolded above. I don't presume to know what data or proof will move your opinion, but I just posted the following (slightly modified for here) to my blog.

The first chart, taken from a NOAA website says some rather disturbing things about the veracity of the claim that the earth has warmed. The above picture has been bandied around the internet but I have never seen someone follow the logic of what it means.First, if the editing of the data set requires the editors to warm the present vs the past, it means that they must believe that our thermometers today measure too low of a temperature.


Secondly, that implies they think today's thermometers are worse than those used in the past because those used in the past are uncorrected but today's crappy thermometers must be 'corrected' before they will give the 'true' temperature.


Thirdly, the logic following from this is that the NOAA crowd thinks that technology has gotten worse over the 20th century requiring the 'correction' seen in the first picture. I have a solution for them. REPLACE ALL THESE MODERN MMTS THERMOMETERS WITH THE SYSTEM USED IN 1900. Then they won't have to go to the work of fixing the bad output of the technologically horrible modern thermometers. That conclusion seems to follow directly from what they do. If the modern MMTS thermometers were more accurate, more reliable, they should, one would think, require less 'correction' than the technologically primitive thermometers of 1900. Nostalgia is a grand thing.

I could not find the difference series in tabular form. I would love to have it, but, it isn't necessary as I can use the chart to create an approximation curve to the one above. Thus, I took the chart, and read the values off for every 5 years and then interpolated in the in between years. This will introduce a wee bit of error, but won't affect the general conclusions of what I am going to show below. I am interested in what the USHCN temperature anomaly would look like if I removed the editorial bias--the after the fact changes to the observed temperature.

After creating the approximate bias curve, I then downloaded the USHCN temperature anomalies from a Nasa site.The anomaly data is taken from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt which goes with the figure D described as:

Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States
Annual and five-year running mean surface air temperature in the contiguous 48 United States (1.6&#37; of the Earth's surface) relative to the 1951-1980 mean.

[This is an update of Figure 6 in Hansen et al. (1999).]

Also available as large GIF, PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data.
(Last modified: 2009-01-09)

source
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
I then subtracted the false warming inserted into the data by the GISS editors and the curve would look like this--so this is approximately what the raw data shows. I used the 5 year running average curve, which is the one most people see.



Note that the 'warming' of the past 30 years does not take us beyond the natural range seen in the 1930s. If the warmth is being inserted into the data by the editors, who effectively are telling us that the modern thermometers are not as good as those used 100 years ago and thus need to be corrected towards warmer temperature, then why should we believe their bunk?

The last picture shows all three curves on the same graph. Only after the editors working for Hansen get through with the editing of the raw data does global warming happen. Before they get their hands on the data, the world isn't warming.



I am reminded of the butler in the original movie version of The Shining. I loved the way he used the word, 'correct'. Yes, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 'corrects' the temperature record, and by doing so, they make the world warm up.
--end of blog post

Today's question. Everyone who believes that the modern thermometers are worse than those in 1900 please speak up.

 

[thaumaturgy]

This is all most interesting, but I was rather of the impression we all agreed here that the earth's temperature is warming, correct? I seem to distinctly recall even you were in agreement that the earth's climate and average temperature have warmed.

Seems that further discussion of the errors in the surface temperature and warming increases must be around hindcasting the models.

This will, of course, have nothing to do with the agreement on the forecasting that Hansen's Model B had with the data that came after 1988, but it would possibly have some bearing on how much other models are to be assessed.

I believe it's been pointed out on numerous posts that the models that most climatologists work with are not based at all on temperature data but rather calculations based on radiative forcing functions which predict a given performance of the actual system. These are, if I am correct, called Physical models which means they are built independent of the temperatures they will ultimately "predict".

This is different from someone taking past temperature data and then extrapolating forwards. This is very different in nature.

In this case the model is built "how will the temperature move if these are the inputs in radiative forcing functions?"

If CO[sub]2[/sub], as just one example of a known, human-made greenhouse gas, is even half of what is listed in Hansen's paper from 1988 then it is still a major forcing function in the equations. According to Hansen's 1988 paper the forcing function that is closest to that of CO[sub]2[/sub] is still about 40% lower in it's value than CO[sub]2[/sub].

Now, I'm not wholly sure I still have my head wrapped around radiative forcing functions but it seems as if this still keeps CO[sub]2[/sub] in the lead among these functions. And the fact that the Hansen Model B using these forcing functions agreed reasonably well with what actually happened in the next 12 years seems to speak well for the input data.

 

[grmorton]

This is all most interesting, but I was rather of the impression we all agreed here that the earth's temperature is warming, correct? I seem to distinctly recall even you were in agreement that the earth's climate and average temperature have warmed.

did you look at the middle chart? The earth IS warming from about 1968 to the present. What part of that upward trend do you not see?

Seems that further discussion of the errors in the surface temperature and warming increases must be around hindcasting the models.

This will, of course, have nothing to do with the agreement on the forecasting that Hansen's Model B had with the data that came after 1988, but it would possibly have some bearing on how much other models are to be assessed.

Nothing has anything to do with hindcasting. At least my post had nothing whatsoever to do with hindcasting. The NOAA chart is simply the subtraction of the final USHCN average of the OBSERVED temperature AFTER EDITING for the US from the USHCN raw data BEFORE ANY EDITING IS DONE TO THE DATA. No models are involved at all, Thau.

I believe it's been pointed out on numerous posts that the models that most climatologists work with are not based at all on temperature data but rather calculations based on radiative forcing functions which predict a given performance of the actual system. These are, if I am correct, called Physical models which means they are built independent of the temperatures they will ultimately "predict".

I am not talking about models. I am talking about measurements. Models isn't even discussed or present in the observational data.

You must be replying to someone else, sorry for making these comments. Obviously you can't be responding to my post. I said nothing whatsoever about models and none of my data involves models.

 

[grmorton]

It is not up to you to bet against global warming because it affects all of us not just you. Your views are in a minority of scientists and an almost invisible minority of scientists competent in the field of climatology.

It is my right as a free man, to bet as I wish. You do not have the right or the perogative to tell me how to live my life. When you start telling me how to live my life, you have become like a religious evangelist.

At least so long as I have freedom, I will do as I please thank you very much, Petit dictator.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Nothing has anything to do with hindcasting. At least my post had nothing whatsoever to do with hindcasting. The NOAA chart is simply the subtraction of the final USHCN average of the OBSERVED temperature AFTER EDITING for the US from the USHCN raw data BEFORE ANY EDITING IS DONE TO THE DATA. No models are involved at all, Thau.

But if you agree that the globe is warming (which you explicitly stated earlier) then clearly the only difference between us all is that you don't feel human impact is necessarily the culprit, correct?

That is why I mention models, precisely because the only way to understand the increase in temperature, the only way to differentiate it from any sort of "natural" warming would be to find a way to predict it and then see how the predictions work with or without human input.

Hindcasting is the only way that I know that global warming researchers actually use surface temperature data, so that means hindcasting (checking the models in the past) is the only reason to be discussing the validity of the surface temperature record.

I am not talking about models. I am talking about measurements. Models isn't even discussed or present in the observational data.

But you do agree that the globe is warming, correct? The plants moving north the various other non-surface station temperature measurements, they all point to warming.

So how would you propose we differentiate natural warming from human-caused warming?

You must be replying to someone else, sorry for making these comments. Obviously you can't be responding to my post. I said nothing whatsoever about models and none of my data involves models.

You said nothing about models but models are indeed the core of the debate. Just as statistics was the core of any assessment of validity of the surface station data.

 

[grmorton]

But if you agree that the globe is warming (which you explicitly stated earlier) then clearly the only difference between us all is that you don't feel human impact is necessarily the culprit, correct?

And I know that the present warming is not as great as what the earth experienced in the past--where no dire consequences occurred at all. 5000 years ago when the seas were 2 meters (6.6 ft) higher than they are today, the world somehow muddled through. But the problem is that I am now told if we go back to those times, dire consequences will happen. I don't see why?

That is why I mention models, precisely because the only way to understand the increase in temperature, the only way to differentiate it from any sort of "natural" warming would be to find a way to predict it and then see how the predictions work with or without human input.

I can differentiate part of this man made warming. It is caused by the editing of the raw temperature records. That IS man-made warming, and it isn't real. It arises only after someone manipulates the data and takes the raw data and makes it 0.3 deg C hotter than it was when it entered the computer. I would agree with you that that is man-made global warming but not of the kind that you fear.

Yep, it is man-made global warming and I can actually identify the particular men (and women) who are making the US warm by 0.3 deg C over the past century. They are the men and women who edit the data and they work for Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Get them to stop warming the data and you can cool the US by 0.3 degrees C.

Let's go back to the first chart in my penultimate post. Does it not bother you that the weather service is buying inferior thermometers which are worse than those bought in 1900 as shown by the greater correction required (always towards the warmer side) ?

That is the question in my mind--models have nothing to do with it.

Hindcasting is the only way that I know that global warming researchers actually use surface temperature data, so that means hindcasting (checking the models in the past) is the only reason to be discussing the validity of the surface temperature record.

Thau, the issue I raise is nothing more complicated than this.

Raw observation + editing = final temperature series.

They published the picture of the editing which shows an increasing amount of temperature added to the recent years.

All I did was estimate the numerical values of 'editing' from their chart and performed the simple subtraction

Raw observation = final temperature series - editing.

There is no hind casting. I am not talking about hind casting. I am not talking about modeling. I am merely talking about what the system does to the raw observation. If you want to talk about hindcasting, do so, but I see no reason to respond further on that topic since that isn't what I am talking about.

But you do agree that the globe is warming, correct? The plants moving north the various other non-surface station temperature measurements, they all point to warming.

So how would you propose we differentiate natural warming from human-caused warming?

When it gets us beyond the natural variation of past climates. Until then, there is no way to know it. But in order to do that, one must be sure that the temperature record is solid--by that I mean it can't be tainted by air conditioners and heat sources. Good science requires good data. If you have bad data, you will make the wrong decision.

You said nothing about models but models are indeed the core of the debate. Just as statistics was the core of any assessment of validity of the surface station data.

Which model? The spread in their predictions is quite wide.
see below.

 

[Phileas]

Sorry, I was inspired to join simply because some of these arguments are ridiculous.

And I know that the present warming is not as great as what the earth experienced in the past--where no dire consequences occurred at all. 5000 years ago when the seas were 2 meters (6.6 ft) higher than they are today, the world somehow muddled through. But the problem is that I am now told if we go back to those times, dire consequences will happen. I don't see why?

How long did it take for temperature change in the past (say during the Holocene)? About 2000 years minimum. How long is this warming episode taking? It's pretty much instantaneous on a geological timescale. Do you have any evidence that such dramatic and instantaneous environmental changes have occured naturally in the geological past? Let's try the Permian-Triassic boundary and what occurred, a mass extinction. I'm not saying that the current increase in CO2 (note not temperature) will be anywhere near as dramatic as the Permian-Triassic boundary, but it is clear that rapid changes in environment cause extinctions. Also, I hope you notice that since the early Holocene a number of extremely dense human population centres have sprung up along the worlds coastlines amounting to millions of people. A 2 metre rise in sea level will most certainly be significant for them.

Let's go back to the first chart in my penultimate post. Does it not bother you that the weather service is buying inferior thermometers which are worse than those bought in 1900 as shown by the greater correction required (always towards the warmer side) ?

That is the question in my mind--models have nothing to do with it.

Has it not occurred to you that the thermometers were not more accurate in 1900. Maybe, just maybe, error isn't calculated on the old data precisely because it's old data and nobody can be certain of where, how and why it was collected and therefore can't calculate accurately what the error margins are.

When it gets us beyond the natural variation of past climates. Until then, there is no way to know it. But in order to do that, one must be sure that the temperature record is solid--by that I mean it can't be tainted by air conditioners and heat sources. Good science requires good data. If you have bad data, you will make the wrong decision.

When it gets beyond natural variation of past climates it's too late and there is nothing at all which can be done to prevent it. Yes, good science requires good data, but with climate you are using an absolutely huge dataset. Are you saying we can't believe anything these people are telling us until it is made certain that every thermometer across the world is checked to make sure it shows no bias. You even claim yourself that in a survey 8% were found to be poorly sited. I agree 8% of your data being imprecise is not great but I doubt those 8% of sites are suddenly going to reveal that after all these years the temperature is actually going down.

Which model? The spread in their predictions is quite wide.
see below.

Yet they all show the temperature spiralling ever upwards. I don't see any saying it will level off or drop down. All you've shown is the agreement of all models that global temperature is increasing. The only debate is how rapidly.

In 2008, the glaciers in Alaska grew for the first time in 200 years.
After 2 centuries of shrinking, Alaska glaciers grew this year

Wow, let's just ignore the 2 centuries of shrinking and concentrate on the fact that it grew. All climate predictions must therefore be wrong. It's an outlier. If you showed a glacier that grew year on year you may have a point.

And you ignore the fact that Greenland is cooling, according to NOAA. How can we have increased runoff if Greenland is cooling? Is this like the butt thermometer which your analogy failed to capture sitting on a heating pad as analogous to putting a thermometer next to an airconditioner. And you say I have a fried brain. Only a beleiver can believe that it is irrelevant to the measurement of temperature that an air conditioner coil is right next to it. I am appalled at the lack of knowledge of physics.

Greenland is a very bad example. If you look at ocean currents you will notice that right next Greenland is a tremendous downwelling of warm ocean water as part of the Great Ocean Conveyor. The loss of this warm water mass inevitably removes some warmth from the atmosphere. Even in the most extreme climate models it is often shown that while most of nothern latitudes undergo severe warming eastern Greenland remains fairly stable. Also you seem convinced that every measure of temperature is sat right next to a bonfire or an air conditioner. That simply isn't true, a few of them may be sited in that way and I'm sure if you contacted whoever was in charge of that site (be it NOAA or whoever) they would agree this wasn't good would move it and thank you for telling them.

 

[Phileas]

Sorry, double post.

 

[thaumaturgy]

And I know that the present warming is not as great as what the earth experienced in the past--where no dire consequences occurred at all. 5000 years ago when the seas were 2 meters (6.6 ft) higher than they are today, the world somehow muddled through. But the problem is that I am now told if we go back to those times, dire consequences will happen. I don't see why?

To my knowledge 5000 years ago we didn't have millions of people living in coastal areas whose migration would have massively, globally and catastrophically economically affected the rest of the world.

I like to think of New Orleans. When I lived there we had to evacuate only once for hurricanes. I didn't live there during Katrina, but Katrina was a great example.

As of 2006 Katrina had cost $60 billion with an estimated $125 billion (SOURCE). That was for just one lousy stretch of the Gulf Coast. Now, imagine what the cost would be for the loss of New York City, the loss of Boston, the loss of most of the cities along the East Coast.

You mentioned earlier the fact that people wont' just "stand there" and wait to be drown, that is true. They will move. Where will they move? To the interior. Which is fine if you relocate all of the East Coast (and West Coast) of the U.S. to Wyoming and Texas. I suspect the folks of Texas will be as warm and receptive to 1,000 times the number of relocated folks as they were to Katrina victims, and the Katrina victims sometimes went back home. Not so for the refugess from the flooded coasts.

Multiply this by several billion fold as really crowded poorly developed countries like Myanmar and India get in on the fun.

As I clearly stated I don't have any problem with the earth's history being quite different from today. But I don't think that means that our current society or even humanity as we know it will be able to adapt.

I know that the earth will probably be OK in the long run (unless there's some runaway greenhouse). Life has adapted before just fine. That doesn't mean we get a place at the table.

I can differentiate part of this man made warming. It is caused by the editing of the raw temperature records.

Just as any signal is processed. When I measure pH I most certainly don't report the voltage of the cell. I report the pH which is based on a calculation correlated to the voltage response from the cell. There's two treatments of the data.

I suspect that you do not deal with pure, unadulterated, unfiltered, unprocessed seismic or geophysical well log data in it's rawest form to draw conclusions.

That IS man-made warming, and it isn't real.

Imagine for a moment that I am given noisy data and asked to see if there's anything meaningful in it. I recognize there are problems with the data (I can figure that out by looking at the data statistically) and I know there are ways to compensate for the data. There is no dishonesty if I:

1. Clearly state what I am going to do to alter the data
2. Clearly show how I have altered the data
3. Find a trend after processing the data based on rules established before I processed the data.

Note the only way you and any other non-climatologist, non-NOAA, non-NASA GISS person could possibly have figured this all out is if the data was out there and the manipulations were clear to see. If there was any subterfuge you would never know. I suspect they are smart enough that if they really wanted to bamboozle you and I they could do so quite easily.

That is the question in my mind--models have nothing to do with it.

Correct. Models have nothing to do with the surface station temperature measurement. The models are checked by comparison to past and current climate data.

Thau, the issue I raise is nothing more complicated than this.

And the topic is anything but uncomplicated.

There is no hind casting. I am not talking about hind casting. I am not talking about modeling. I am merely talking about what the system does to the raw observation. If you want to talk about hindcasting, do so, but I see no reason to respond further on that topic since that isn't what I am talking about.

You are by no means required to deal with the topic as it is being dealt with by the climatologists. No one is. Unless, of course, they have a major disagreement with the climatologists' actions.

When it gets us beyond the natural variation of past climates.

How many large human cities were there in the Cretaceous? How many in the mid-Holocene for that matter?

Again, no one is disagreeing with you that the earth has had different climates in the past. But to my knowledge everyone involved in this discussion is a member of a small adaptable species of mammal. Countless species have gone extinct with less variation than we might be responsible for.

I am as good a nihilist as the next guy, but I don't think I want to be in part responsible for annihilating our little species if there's something we could have done. Even if it doesn't cause human extinction, I don't want to be part of a global economic/society catastrophe never seen in human history before if there was something I could have done. I wouldn't even want to be part of just the destruction of the American experiment if there was something I could have done to avoid it.

Until then, there is no way to know it.

There's no way to know with 100&#37; certainty. But then that isn't science. Science's job is to know with as much certainty as we can wring out of the data. The only way to truly understand the data is statistically and the only way to understand the implications of that data is by model.

But in order to do that, one must be sure that the temperature record is solid

-Statistics. 100% pure statistics. That is what statistics is built to do. In fact one can essentially say that that is the only tool in the tool box for that job. It was custom made to do that very thing.

--by that I mean it can't be tainted by air conditioners and heat sources.

Correct! It shouldn't be. But sometimes it is. That is why it is crucial to have multiple lines of evidence of the increase in temperature and thankfully we have that very thing.

Good science requires good data. If you have bad data, you will make the wrong decision.

Correct, but you can have noisy data and still draw good conclusions. In fact I'll go so far as to say that if I ever saw data that had no noise in it I'd immediately be suspicious and probably throw that out long before I'd throw out noisy data.

I think we need to clarify what your point is, Glenn.

1. Do you agree that the earth's average global temperature is increasing?
2. If so, why debate the surface station temperature record? (since it only makes up a fraction of the evidence for global warming)

Obviously I'm glad to discuss the data as raw as is liked, but I must know what the point of the present debate is all about.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Which model? The spread in their predictions is quite wide.
see below.

There does appear to be a banquet of models to choose from. In fact there appear to be some meta studies on the quality of the models and what the comparison of models shows.

A 2009 study shows that climate models, with little regard to the quality of the model itself all seem to point to a human-induced effect on the climate that has resulted in increased water vapor in the atmosphere.

The atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.4 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m_) per decade since 1988, and natural variability alone can't explain this moisture change, according to Santer.

&#8230;
Then the group repeated their fingerprint analysis, but now using only &#8220;top ten&#8221; or &#8220;bottom ten&#8221; models rather than the full 22 models. They did this more than 100 times, grading and ranking the models in many different ways. In every case, a water vapor fingerprint arising from human influences could be clearly identified in the satellite data.

(Source)


In 2008 the NSF released a report out of the University of Utah that indicates the robustness of climate models:

A new study by meteorologists at the University of Utah shows that current climate models are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions to global warming trends.
"Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change, and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations," said Thomas Reichler of Utah&#8217;s Department of Meteorology. "We can now place a much higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past."
(SOURCE)

Sure there&#8217;s still questions and even some deviation. Not all models are perfect. Nor do we have a perfect handle on all the possible variability.
A study of Antarctica over the past 50 years in light of climate change data shows that:

The models&#8217; predictions covering the last 50 years broadly follow the actual observed temperatures and snowfall for the southernmost continent, although the observations are very variable (Source).

However the article goes on to mention that on a century-scale there is some significant variance from the models but this simply means that the extremes of the poles may not behave the way the models predict. It says nothing about the tropics.
I don't see anyone claiming perfection (on either side of the debate), but as usual in matters such as this a more conservative and exhaustive approach is required.

The data and the models must be examined as closely as possible and every bit of usable information wrung from them.

 

[grmorton]

Sorry, I was inspired to join simply because some of these arguments are ridiculous.

Glad I can be an inspiration to you.

How long did it take for temperature change in the past (say during the Holocene)? About 2000 years minimum. How long is this warming episode taking? It's pretty much instantaneous on a geological timescale. Do you have any evidence that such dramatic and instantaneous environmental changes have occured naturally in the geological past?

Sheesh, for a guy who claiimes my arguments are ridiculous, yours are so far out of date as to reveal how little of the scientific data you access.

"The buried reefs revealed that sea level rises of as much as two inches (five centimeters) per year resulted in at least a 6.6 foot (two meter) jump in as little as 50 years, based on a series of reefs retreating closer to a receding shore over time. An older reef's tip crested at roughly 10 feet (three meters) above present sea level but a second reef crest farther inland grew 10 feet higher than that, indicating that sea level had risen by as much as 10 feet by the time the latter formed because corals grow nearly to sea level, according to the findings published today in Nature." Ancient Corals May Provide Record of Rapid Sea Level Rise: Scientific American

You can find the original peer-reviewed article in Nature 458, 881-884 (16 April 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature07933; Received 8 October 2008; Accepted 23 February 2009

You, sir, are the one way behind the times.

Let's try the Permian-Triassic boundary and what occurred, a mass extinction. I'm not saying that the current increase in CO2 (note not temperature) will be anywhere near as dramatic as the Permian-Triassic boundary, but it is clear that rapid changes in environment cause extinctions. Also, I hope you notice that since the early Holocene a number of extremely dense human population centres have sprung up along the worlds coastlines amounting to millions of people. A 2 metre rise in sea level will most certainly be significant for them.

I don't doubt that, but such rises 2 meters in 50 years have happened in the past 125,000 years, back when there was not a single auto on the planet. Assuming that we are responsible for warming (and given the post I did on my blog on Sunday Aug 30, it seems that the manmade warming is due to data editors at GISS). Yet somehow you want us to be to blame for what you fear will come but which might not happen. But in any event if this is a natural warming due to an interglacial period, then you are asking us to stop nature from operating. How King Canutish.

Has it not occurred to you that the thermometers were not more accurate in 1900. Maybe, just maybe, error isn't calculated on the old data precisely because it's old data and nobody can be certain of where, how and why it was collected and therefore can't calculate accurately what the error margins are.

You cant recognize sarcasm, can you. Of course our thermometers should be more accurate, but as the NOAA chart shows, it is the modern thermometers they are correcting, not the old ones. That surely seems odd.

And if you, like many on the AGW side, can't seem to handle the "if this, then that" logical construction. IF we can't know what the error margins are in the old data, THEN we can't know if the world has warmed at all."

If this, then that. What if all those 1900 thermometers read too cold, as the GISS seems to think of the modern thermometers? In that case, then the world hasn't warmed at all.

I think your logic needs improvement before you tell me how ridiculous my arguments are.

When it gets beyond natural variation of past climates it's too late and there is nothing at all which can be done to prevent it. Yes, good science requires good data, but with climate you are using an absolutely huge dataset. Are you saying we can't believe anything these people are telling us until it is made certain that every thermometer across the world is checked to make sure it shows no bias. You even claim yourself that in a survey 8% were found to be poorly sited. I agree 8% of your data being imprecise is not great but I doubt those 8% of sites are suddenly going to reveal that after all these years the temperature is actually going down.

And before it gets past natural variation, you might be just trying to stop the wind from blowing--trying to stop something that is a natural event.

Your math is as lacking as your logic. If 8% of the stations can have a 5 deg C difference, then that affects the average by 0.4 Deg C. Do you know that that is HALF of what the IPCC says the world has warmed over the past century? And are you aware that 100 years ago NO thermometers were next to heat sources. So, if today's are next to air conditioners etc, and it heats them by 5 deg C, then mathematically there is no way you can deny that half of the .84 deg C warming claimed by the IPCC is simply due to heat sources being nearby.

Yet they all show the temperature spiralling ever upwards. I don't see any saying it will level off or drop down. All you've shown is the agreement of all models that global temperature is increasing. The only debate is how rapidly.

Clearly you actually haven't looked at the raw data. I would suggest you go look at all the stations which are cooling, shown on my blog (address below). And the NOAA chart shows that many of the stations are not spirally up warmer. They add the heat via editing.

Wow, let's just ignore the 2 centuries of shrinking and concentrate on the fact that it grew. All climate predictions must therefore be wrong. It's an outlier. If you showed a glacier that grew year on year you may have a point.

Well, once again, you can't use the 'if this; then that' construct. If the glaciers started melting in the early 1800s, THEN CO2 could not have been the cause of the melting because CO2 didn't start rising until about 150 years after the glaciers started melting. What is it that started the melting? It was natural variation of the earth's temperature.

Greenland is a very bad example. If you look at ocean currents you will notice that right next Greenland is a tremendous downwelling of warm ocean water as part of the Great Ocean Conveyor. The loss of this warm water mass inevitably removes some warmth from the atmosphere. Even in the most extreme climate models it is often shown that while most of nothern latitudes undergo severe warming eastern Greenland remains fairly stable. Also you seem convinced that every measure of temperature is sat right next to a bonfire or an air conditioner. That simply isn't true, a few of them may be sited in that way and I'm sure if you contacted whoever was in charge of that site (be it NOAA or whoever) they would agree this wasn't good would move it and thank you for telling them.

Boy are you wrong. downwelling water doesn't suck heat from the atmosphere down it. What physics drivel this is. If the surface of the water is warm, the direction the water is going is irrelevant. Warm surface waters will warm the atmosphere period.

And if you agree with NOAA that Greenland is cooling, why do all the AGW folk whinge about Greenland? Below are a couple of other pictures from Greenland from the dot maps available at NOAA's Global Climate at a Glance.

Wow, you came on like my arguments were ridiculous. You desperately need to take a physics course.

 

[grmorton]

There does appear to be a banquet of models to choose from. In fact there appear to be some meta studies on the quality of the models and what the comparison of models shows.

It is worse than that Thau. None of the models can handle clouds correctly. To model clouds one needs grid cells of around 10 x 10 km. But the Global Circulation models work on a 50 x 50 km grid. Look up on a cloudy day. Most clouds are smaller even than a 10 x 10 km grid. No model handles clouds well and only one actually has a change in cloud cover. Clouds and Global Warming

Yet, everyone seems to place huge quantities of trust in the models, models which aren't very good. Just this week a model was finally able to unite solar irradiance variation effects in the upper atmospher and lower atmosphere into one model and they found the combined effect was greater than what one would predict from either alone.

A 2009 study shows that climate models, with little regard to the quality of the model itself all seem to point to a human-induced effect on the climate that has resulted in increased water vapor in the atmosphere.
(Source)

I am sorry but if the quality of the model isn't good, I don't care what it points to.

In 2008 the NSF released a report out of the University of Utah that indicates the robustness of climate models:

Sure there’s still questions and even some deviation. Not all models are perfect. Nor do we have a perfect handle on all the possible variability.
A study of Antarctica over the past 50 years in light of climate change data shows that:

However the article goes on to mention that on a century-scale there is some significant variance from the models but this simply means that the extremes of the poles may not behave the way the models predict. It says nothing about the tropics.

When models don't predict part of the world, one can't really trust what it says about the rest of the world.

Now, will you finally answer my question: Do you think the modern thermometers are worse than those used in 1900 and thus in need of more 'correction' than those of 1900?

I don't see anyone claiming perfection (on either side of the debate), but as usual in matters such as this a more conservative and exhaustive approach is required.

The data and the models must be examined as closely as possible and every bit of usable information wrung from them.

No one will ever have perfection, but one needs verification. If a model can't model the present, why should I believe what it says about the future?

Now, I have addressed your issues but you have not ever addressed my question about the editorial warming. Do you think it OK for editing to add 0.3 deg C to the temperature of the US? Yes or no?

 

[grmorton]

To my knowledge 5000 years ago we didn't have millions of people living in coastal areas whose migration would have massively, globally and catastrophically economically affected the rest of the world.

Oh yes we did. We had millions living near the shore then as we do now.

I like to think of New Orleans. When I lived there we had to evacuate only once for hurricanes. I didn't live there during Katrina, but Katrina was a great example.

As of 2006 Katrina had cost $60 billion with an estimated $125 billion (SOURCE). That was for just one lousy stretch of the Gulf Coast. Now, imagine what the cost would be for the loss of New York City, the loss of Boston, the loss of most of the cities along the East Coast.

You mentioned earlier the fact that people wont' just "stand there" and wait to be drown, that is true. They will move. Where will they move? To the interior. Which is fine if you relocate all of the East Coast (and West Coast) of the U.S. to Wyoming and Texas. I suspect the folks of Texas will be as warm and receptive to 1,000 times the number of relocated folks as they were to Katrina victims, and the Katrina victims sometimes went back home. Not so for the refugess from the flooded coasts.

Ok, lets take New Orleans. I lived in southern Lousiana in the mid-1980s. Everyone knew that there would eventually be a hurricane which would take out New Orleans. Everyone knew that there will eventually be a hurricane coming up the Atchafalaya bay which will wipe out most of the towns south of Lafayette. Yet people buy property there. We have rebuilt New Orleans (in part it is now a sad shadow if its former self). But we know that another hurricane will come and wipe them out. The people who live there KNOW what is comeing yet they assume the risk. Similarly, even the poor along the coast know what is coming, yet they assume the risk that it won't happen during their life time. They are adults. they are free. They can take whatever risk they want to take.

Or, they could do the rational thing and start finding jobs elsewhere. I am not responsible for their choices, good or bad.

Multiply this by several billion fold as really crowded poorly developed countries like Myanmar and India get in on the fun.

You act as if this is going to happen in 5 minutes. It won't. A few homes will be destroyed each year and the few people will move somewhere else. It happens on the Texas coast with every hurricane. Some homes are lost which will never be rebuilt.

As I clearly stated I don't have any problem with the earth's history being quite different from today. But I don't think that means that our current society or even humanity as we know it will be able to adapt.

So you think modern humans are too stupid to react? Has our species, in your mind, become less smart?

I know that the earth will probably be OK in the long run (unless there's some runaway greenhouse). Life has adapted before just fine. That doesn't mean we get a place at the table.

I absolutely love this inconsistency. You and others have chided me for saying that some global warming advocates beleive that mankind will be doomed if we don't fix global warming. Several people have said how ridiculous it was of me to state that view. Yet, here you are saying that if we don't fix global warming mankind might not get a seat at the table.

So, everyone, why don't you jump on Thaumaturgy for claiming that global warming advocates beleive that AGW might kill off humanity? My gut tells me that you jump on me because I don't believe in AGW but you won't jump on him for the same statement because he does. I don't know, I might be wrong, but my nose smells a strong odor of hypocrisy on the part of those who have claimed that I overstated the doom claims of AGW.

Just as any signal is processed. When I measure pH I most certainly don't report the voltage of the cell. I report the pH which is based on a calculation correlated to the voltage response from the cell. There's two treatments of the data.

I suspect that you do not deal with pure, unadulterated, unfiltered, unprocessed seismic or geophysical well log data in it's rawest form to draw conclusions.

Agreed.

Imagine for a moment that I am given noisy data and asked to see if there's anything meaningful in it. I recognize there are problems with the data (I can figure that out by looking at the data statistically) and I know there are ways to compensate for the data. There is no dishonesty if I:

1. Clearly state what I am going to do to alter the data
2. Clearly show how I have altered the data
3. Find a trend after processing the data based on rules established before I processed the data.

That only works if you don't add a bias trend to the data as NOAA did and showed in that plot.

Note the only way you and any other non-climatologist, non-NOAA, non-NASA GISS person could possibly have figured this all out is if the data was out there and the manipulations were clear to see. If there was any subterfuge you would never know. I suspect they are smart enough that if they really wanted to bamboozle you and I they could do so quite easily.

You might think so, but those who know me personally know that I doubt almost everything and those who have had to have me review their prospects know how thorough I can be.

Correct. Models have nothing to do with the surface station temperature measurement. The models are checked by comparison to past and current climate data.

I am delighted that you agree with that. So, do you think the editing which adds 0.3 deg C of man-made global warming to the US temperature handles the data correctly? Are the thermometers of 1900 better than those of today?

You are by no means required to deal with the topic as it is being dealt with by the climatologists. No one is. Unless, of course, they have a major disagreement with the climatologists' actions.

And you are in no way required to deal with the addition of 0.3 deg C of heat to the US temperature, but it would be nice if you would finally address that problem rather than talking about everything BUT that issue.

How many large human cities were there in the Cretaceous? How many in the mid-Holocene for that matter?

Again, no one is disagreeing with you that the earth has had different climates in the past. But to my knowledge everyone involved in this discussion is a member of a small adaptable species of mammal. Countless species have gone extinct with less variation than we might be responsible for.

Actually I would suggest that you are wrong. I have had AGW advocates deny that the world was hotter in the past.

I am as good a nihilist as the next guy, but I don't think I want to be in part responsible for annihilating our little species if there's something we could have done. Even if it doesn't cause human extinction, I don't want to be part of a global economic/society catastrophe never seen in human history before if there was something I could have done. I wouldn't even want to be part of just the destruction of the American experiment if there was something I could have done to avoid it.

OK, all you other guys. Why don't you jump on Thaumaturgy and tell HIM how ridiculous it is for him to claim that mankind might go extinct if we don't fix global warming. You jumped on me for merely mentioning that some people thought that and you told me how stupid I was to believe such nonsense!!!!!! Once again the fumes of hypocrisy (not from you Thau but from the others ) rises to my nostrils.

There's no way to know with 100&#37; certainty. But then that isn't science. Science's job is to know with as much certainty as we can wring out of the data. The only way to truly understand the data is statistically and the only way to understand the implications of that data is by model.

I think we can agree that there is no way to know anything with 100% certainty. So, if that is the case, why is it so awful to doubt something, anything? All the AGW crowd act as if there is no way to doubt AGW and they treat anyone who raises a single issue as if they are a leper. Yet, as you say there is no way to know with 100% certainty. If you really beleive that then you will embrace doubters.

-Statistics. 100% pure statistics. That is what statistics is built to do. In fact one can essentially say that that is the only tool in the tool box for that job. It was custom made to do that very thing.

Oh good grief, statistics isn't certainty. If that is all we have then all we have is a probability. As I pointed out to you, I was told that I had a 95% probability of having licked this cancer. It didn't work out that way.

Correct! It shouldn't be. But sometimes it is. That is why it is crucial to have multiple lines of evidence of the increase in temperature and thankfully we have that very thing.

Ok, I am delighted that you acknowledge that we should strive not to taint our thermometers with air conditioner heat. So, why don't you email the weather service and tell them to fix it?

I agree that over the past 30 years the world has warmed. At least part of that is demonstrably due to man-made global warming by the editors at Goddard Institute. As to things like later springs etc, that would all happen even if the only warming is what is shown in my picture where I subtract the fraudulent editorial warming from the final USHCN temperature series. Things are still warming and spring would come quicker but we still wouldn't be as hot as we were in the early 1930s.

Correct, but you can have noisy data and still draw good conclusions. In fact I'll go so far as to say that if I ever saw data that had no noise in it I'd immediately be suspicious and probably throw that out long before I'd throw out noisy data.

I would agree only if you add the proviso that you haven't biased the data. Statistics may not be able to show a bias if that bias is increaseing each year.

I think we need to clarify what your point is, Glenn.

1. Do you agree that the earth's average global temperature is increasing?

From 1968 to the present, yes, but we are not warmer than 1934 (and even Hansen admits that, and we are not warmer than 5000 years ago when the world was 2-3 Deg C warmer than we are at present.

2.If so, why debate the surface station temperature record? (since it only makes up a fraction of the evidence for global warming)
Obviously I'm glad to discuss the data as raw as is liked, but I must know what the point of the present debate is all about.

because it is the only QUANTITATIVE evidence of warming. Science is quantitative, not subjective. All the other evidence is subjective and lacks deep historical perspective.