ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

Eastasia has always been the hottest month

Anthony Watts busts The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fiddling the historical data again:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.

July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists. That summer more than half the country was experiencing drought and wildfires had scorched more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA.

According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.”

“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.

This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.
If you still buy into the "global warming" myth being pushed by these proven, documented, confirmed liars and self-interested charlatans, at this point, you're just an idiot.

Notice how the Left always attempts to avoid owning up to its own history? Even when they're blatantly caught out, they just quietly correct their misinformation and try to pretend it never happened.

Labels:

174 Comments:

Anonymous YIH July 02, 2014 9:17 AM  

“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,”
78.4 °F cut 'n pasted from current temp. 9:15am edt.
Not exactly freaking out.

Anonymous Al Gore July 02, 2014 9:22 AM  

CLIMATE CHANGE
climate change
Climate Change
You are becoming very, very sleepy...

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 9:25 AM  

NCDC transitioned to the nClimDiv dataset on Thursday, March 13, 2014.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/

Anonymous bob k. mando July 02, 2014 9:31 AM  

remember back in the 70s when a nationwide push to institute the max 55mph was going on? for the 'safety'?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvV3nn_de2k

yeah, well pretty much every state in the country is back up to 70mph. Illinois just reset all their signs to 70 out on the rural interstates. Ohio is up to 70 on general access highways ( US 30 from Mansfield to Sandusky ), Utah is up to 80.

IF the reason for lower speed limits was 'safety'
THEN there was ample data demonstrating this created back in the 70s when speeds dropped as well as over the last two decades as speeds have been back on the rise.

instead, state after state observes the LACK OF increase in major fatalities in neighboring states and proceeds to raise their own. and this data has actually been around for 40 years.

practically every aspect of every discussion the Left is involved in consists of lies from their side of the argument.

Anonymous FP July 02, 2014 9:42 AM  

Remember, no pressure... just say, 10% or we blow up your kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM

Anonymous YIH July 02, 2014 9:46 AM  

Did I mention that 'Arthur' is staggering around right off the coast?
It'll probably wander around drunkenly before heading to NYC to pass out to the strains of lame late 70's pop music.

Blogger Double Minded Man July 02, 2014 9:57 AM  

See, this is really just because they, in an attempt to get the most accurate data possible, kept measuring as the fires swept over the measuring stations. Temperatures topped 400 degrees before equipment failure, and so they had to estimate upwards from there. And thats how it made it as the hottest month ever.

Its all just a totally honest mistake!

Anonymous The other skeptic July 02, 2014 10:17 AM  

Is this an example of the Veeck effect?

Anonymous Tom S July 02, 2014 10:19 AM  

@bob k. mando:

You sure about that? I had thought the enactment of the 55 mph speed limit had to do with saving gas in response to the oil shocks of the '70s. Just checked wikipedia (for what that's worth), and it says the same thing. But, admittedly, I'm not an expert on that subject.

Anonymous UNCED 1992 Rio Earth Summit July 02, 2014 10:20 AM  

That said, I don’t believe this is case where somebody purposely has their hand on a control knob for temperature data, I think all of this is nothing more than artifacts of a convoluted methodology and typical bureaucratic blundering. As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.

Ah yes, the briar patch excuse.

Never attribute to incompetence or ignorance that which is really an Agenda (21).
IBM and Maurice Strong (and his Banker friends) need to build a Smarter Planet, after all.



Anonymous YIH July 02, 2014 10:35 AM  

The other skeptic:
Is this an example of the Veeck effect?
I hope so. ;)

Anonymous T July 02, 2014 10:36 AM  

As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.

Nobody has ever covered up malice with a veneer of incompetence?

Never say never.

Anonymous Roundtine July 02, 2014 10:38 AM  

Somebody just lost their ration of Victory Gin for a month.

Blogger CarpeOro July 02, 2014 10:41 AM  

And the winner is....

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/newsweeks-1975-article-about-the-coming-ice-age#.U7QaAR2KD3g

Blogger Pinakeli July 02, 2014 10:42 AM  

@bob k. mando & @Tom S

The initial drop in speed limits was due to gas savings (around 2% by estimates). Most of Europe decided that the increase in accidents and death was not worth the savings, but the Congress of the US could not admit that they might be wrong. The started a nation wide ad campaign about "safety" in an attempt to justify their decisions.

55 is the most dangerous speed that one can drive due to the hypnotic effect of the lane stripes. Not to mention the strange effect of speed sense. At speeds under 60-65 the human mind does not consciously realize that one is moving fast enough to die in a wreck. People will take chances that they would not take at a higher speed.

Blogger CarpeOro July 02, 2014 10:43 AM  

Just ignore the paragraphs above this excerpt and it sounds very familiar:
"“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.”

Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. "

Blogger CarpeOro July 02, 2014 10:48 AM  

Fortunately for us, political leaders have taken care of the boundary issue. Love those Demicans and Republicrats looking out for the children.... of Guatemala.

Blogger Feather Blade July 02, 2014 10:51 AM  

As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.

Never attribute to incompetence or ignorance that which is really an Agenda (21).

On the third hand, sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. If I could remember the original attribution of that saying, I would list it.

Blogger IM2L844 July 02, 2014 10:57 AM  

That damned information highway is ruining everything. This calls for drastic measures. Quick, release a documentary and double down on the memes.

Anonymous Porky July 02, 2014 11:05 AM  

NCDC transitioned to the nClimDiv dataset on Thursday, March 13, 2014.


Also known as "climate gerrymandering".

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 11:13 AM  

Porky: Also known as "climate gerrymandering".

Actually, it's called statistics, as published in peer reviewed journals.

Anonymous Porky July 02, 2014 11:18 AM  

Actually, it's called statistics, as published in peer reviewed journals.

Yes, gerrymandering is based on statistics.

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 11:20 AM  

Porky: Yes, gerrymandering is based on statistics.

Multiple independent studies support the warming trend.


Anonymous Josh July 02, 2014 11:25 AM  

Are those independent studies using independent data?

Anonymous Porky July 02, 2014 11:28 AM  

Multiple independent studies support the warming trend.

Yes. Gerrymandered data supports a warming trend.

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 11:34 AM  

Porky: Gerrymandered data supports a warming trend.

If you have specific objections, you should make them, rather than just waving your hands.

Josh: Are those independent studies using independent data?

Yes. For instance, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project started with the raw data, and using new statistical methods (e.g. Kriging), recently confirmed the temperature trend.
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

Anonymous patrick kelly July 02, 2014 11:37 AM  

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.....

Studies just systematically institutionalize them to manufacture consent via alarmist fear-mongering what otherwise would never gain support from the populace.

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 11:40 AM  

patrick kelly: Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Statistics underlies all of science, and while statistics can be manipulated, you would have to raise specific objections, otherwise, it's just handwaving. The temperature trend has been independently verified many times by many different methods by many different researchers in many different cultures and under many different political systems.

Anonymous kh123 July 02, 2014 11:41 AM  

Oh look, Boris is back.

Anonymous Porky July 02, 2014 11:41 AM  

If you have specific objections, you should make them, rather than just waving your hands.

Gerrymandering is gerrymandering. It matters little whether I object or not.

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 11:42 AM  

Porky: Gerrymandering is gerrymandering.

Sure, and an unsupported claim is indistinguishable from air.

Blogger James Dixon July 02, 2014 11:48 AM  

> If you have specific objections, you should make them, rather than just waving your hands.

So do you have an explanation for the Medieval Warm Period and why it isn't explained by their models? They simply claim it didn't exist, which is a blatant lie.

Anonymous maniacprovost July 02, 2014 11:48 AM  

Yes. For instance, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project started with the raw data, and using new statistical methods (e.g. Kriging), recently confirmed the temperature trend.

The NOAA satellites, or the ground monitoring stations? And if there is a warming trend, shouldn't it be identifiable with simple time averaging or a linear fit? Why is it that "new statistical methods" are needed to see if a variable is going up or down over time?

The only data set I trust is the raw satellite data, and NOAA keeps changing it.

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 11:54 AM  

James Dixon: So do you have an explanation for the Medieval Warm Period and why it isn't explained by their models?

That wasn't the claim under discussion.

James Dixon: They simply claim it didn't exist

Not at all. The Medieval Warm Period is subject a lot of investigation by climate scientists.

maniacprovost: The NOAA satellites, or the ground monitoring stations?

Satellites don't directly measure surface temperature, and we only have data for recent decades.

maniacprovost: And if there is a warming trend, shouldn't it be identifiable with simple time averaging or a linear fit?

No, because the surface instrumental record has many discontinuities and anomalies, so it has to be analyzed.

Anonymous kh123 July 02, 2014 11:56 AM  

...IIRC, what Jack Amok and a couple of others mentioned several months ago when Boris was making the rounds white knighting for AGW, was that unless the IPCC are young earth creationists, their argument in a nutshell is that while we have tens of thousands - or even hundreds of thousands - of years of climate data (showing pretty much whatever similar deltas in temp are not really indicative of anything over the long term), only the past several decades (if even that) are significant.

Boris' response was... Well, there was no response to this from what I remember.

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 11:58 AM  

kh123: only the past several decades (if even that) are significant.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Some of the best data for climate sensitivity is historical, such as climate changes associated with ice ages. In addition, we have to understand the mechanisms of natural climate variability to be able to properly model the current climate.

Blogger James Dixon July 02, 2014 12:04 PM  

> That wasn't the claim under discussion.

The claim under discussion was that they were manipulating the data to achieve their desired results. Which they did with the medieval warm period data to claim that it didn't exist.

> Not at all. The Medieval Warm Period is subject a lot of investigation by climate scientists.

Yes, it is. Mostly because the folks pushing AGW have been desperately trying to explain it away for at least 20 years now. They finally resorted to fudging the data enough that they could claim to simply ignore it.

Blogger WATYF July 02, 2014 12:07 PM  

Is there any way for a layman to see which calculations were used to modify the data (and what the justification was for each modification)?

Also, if modifications were made to account for stations which had to be moved due to the heat island effect (and other changes to the surrounding environment), then what happens if we remove all of the stations from the data which were moved and only use ones which haven't been changed since they were first put up?

WATYF

Anonymous kh123 July 02, 2014 12:10 PM  

On the one hand, we have historical data beyond the 20th century; on the other, we need to be very careful with how we handle it. Such as, taking a smaller average and plotting a line through the noise of data points to end up with a false positive, perhaps?

Anonymous kh123 July 02, 2014 12:11 PM  

...As with last time, when you make a claim Boris, it'd help if you'd be more specific. Cite the data in your own words.

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 12:13 PM  

James Dixon: Which they did with the medieval warm period data to claim that it didn't exist.

They did? There's all sorts of literature on the Medieval Warm Period.

James Dixon: They finally resorted to fudging the data enough that they could claim to simply ignore it.

Heh. That's a funny way to ignore it, by studying and publishing in journals.

WATYF: Is there any way for a layman to see which calculations were used to modify the data (and what the justification was for each modification)?

Yes. Methodology is available in most journal articles. You can find the raw data at the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.

WATYF: then what happens if we remove all of the stations from the data which were moved and only use ones which haven't been changed since they were first put up?

You get the same trend. See Wickham et al., Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications, Geoinformatics &
Geostatistics 2013.


Anonymous YIH July 02, 2014 12:17 PM  

Zachriel:
as published in peer reviewed journals.
fail

Anonymous Porky July 02, 2014 12:19 PM  

Pre gerrymandering: 0.088 degrees/decade
Post gerrymandering: 0.135 degrees/decade

By applying various statistical methods to deeply flawed raw data we can make it appear as if the past were cooler, or hotter, or pretty much anything we want. There are several states that actually DID have a cooling trend under the previous dataset which are now warming under the new gerrymandered dataset.

For some reason, the "preferred" statistical methods always seem have the effect of cooling the past and heating up the present.



Blogger James Dixon July 02, 2014 12:20 PM  

> They did? There's all sorts of literature on the Medieval Warm Period.

Yes, there is. And up until it became politically expedient to push AGW, no one questioned the validity of that evidence.

> Heh. That's a funny way to ignore it, by studying and publishing in journals.

See http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm for one quick write up of the claims of AGW supporters.

Anonymous Krul July 02, 2014 12:21 PM  

I'm open minded to the possibility of global warming. However, there are a few reasons to be skeptical in general. Firstly, the whole thing is highly politicized. Secondly, the case relies on identifying statistical trends which aren't good predictors of future results by themselves.

Take the the price of amazon stock for example. Just look at today (enter 2014-07-02 for both the date fields) and you'd say that Amazon's prices are in a dramatic downward trend. Then look at the last week (2014-06-25 to present) and you'd say it's in an upward trend. Then look at the last month (2014-06-02 to present) and the trend seems to be holding steady at around 327, albeit with some variance. Look at the last two months (2014-05-02 to present) and the trend is up. Since March 3rd, the trend is down. Since two years ago (2014-07-06 to present) the trend is up.

You see my point? The trend changes a lot based on the range of data - what looks like a strong trend at one range looks like an anomalous blip at another range, and none of the trends would be useful for predicting the future price level to any degree of accuracy.

Furthermore, global warming/climate change subsumes several propositions which are not all equally pursuasuve. For example:

1) The earth is warming.
2) The cause of this warming is CO2.
3) The cause of the increased CO2 is human activity.
4) The warming will cause catastrophic weather changes.
5) By reducing carbon emissions, humans can prevent the warming and the catastrophic weather.

You see the problem? Even if you prove 1, 2, and 3 you still have to prove 4 and 5 for the political program.

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 12:33 PM  

Porky: By applying various statistical methods to deeply flawed raw data we can make it appear as if the past were cooler, or hotter, or pretty much anything we want.

Yes, we understand your claim, but you haven't provided any support for the claim.

James Dixon: And up until it became politically expedient to push AGW, no one questioned the validity of that evidence.

The Medieval Warm Period has been subject to debate since it was first proposed. No one doubts that the Northern Atlantic experienced a significant warming.

James Dixon: http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

The website indicates correctly that the Northern Atlantic experience a substantial warming, while much of the rest of the world experience cooling. So?

Krul: Secondly, the case relies on identifying statistical trends which aren't good predictors of future results by themselves.

Actually, it relies on a causative model that was proposed over a century ago.

Krul: Even if you prove 1, 2, and 3 you still have to prove 4 and 5 for the political program.

Sure, but apparently even #1, which is strongly supported, is subject to politicization.

Blogger buzzardist July 02, 2014 12:36 PM  

Notice how the Left always attempts to avoid owning up to its own history? Even when they're blatantly caught out, they just quietly correct their misinformation and try to pretend it never happened.

Or they say, "Oh, but science!" That's the most common excuse I hear, when they offer one at all. "Yes, yes, of course the data is changed because scientists are always researching. It wouldn't be science if the scientists weren't constantly checking and rechecking, adding to the body of knowledge." Which would be all nice and fine, except that they aren't adding to the body of knowledge. They're just fiddling with data to produce fictions to support political agendas. Whatever changes to the data they make, they will gladly unmake tomorrow, or substitute something else entirely, if doing so advances their agenda or avoids a costly scandal.

When the motivation to change data back to what it had been before you tweaked it to support your agenda is merely to avoid embarrassment, sorry, but you're still not doing reaal science.

Blogger CarpeOro July 02, 2014 12:37 PM  

"Statistics underlies all of science, and while statistics can be manipulated, you would have to raise specific objections, otherwise, it's just handwaving. The temperature trend has been independently verified many times by many different methods by many different researchers in many different cultures and under many different political systems."

Yes. So was the Ice Age article back in the 1970s. Just like then the many researchers when queried for the relevant data sets the answer has been "the dog at my home work". Check the interweb some time and may just find that information so you can catch up to two years past the end of everything.

Anonymous Krul July 02, 2014 12:37 PM  

Zachriel - Actually, it relies on a causative model that was proposed over a century ago.

What do you mean by "causitive model"?

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 1:07 PM  

CarpeOro: So was the Ice Age article back in the 1970s.

You're referring to an article in a popular magazine, not a scientific journal?

There are two countervailing anthropogenic influences on climate, particulate pollution which cools the Earth's surface, and greenhouse gases which warm the Earth's surface. It was soon apparent that the latter would predominate over the long run, even if the former were never controlled.

Krul: What do you mean by "causitive model"?

The basics of greenhouse warming has been known for more than a century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.

Anonymous DrTorch July 02, 2014 1:14 PM  

Statistics underlies all of science, and while statistics can be manipulated, you would have to raise specific objections, otherwise, it's just handwaving.

Once again Zach doesn't really know what they're talking about. Some of the biggest criticisms of "climate science" has come from statisticians such as Stephen McIntyre (yes, he's mentioned in the climategate emails). They point out that few "climate scientists" are trained well enough in statistics to do adequate peer review. And they've pointed out many flawed publications, yet the authors resisted their critiques; critiques that were later found to be legit.

Anonymous Porky July 02, 2014 1:18 PM  

Yes, we understand your claim, but you haven't provided any support for the claim.

The support comes from the government's own data which previously showed an 80 year cooling trend since the 1930's.

Now thanks to "statistics" they've changed the cooling trend to a warming trend.











Blogger Fnord Prefect July 02, 2014 1:19 PM  

Zachriel: as published in peer reviewed journals

Yeah cos scientist never cheat, lie, whore themselves for grants or decide by consensus so the peers (look up what peer means - clue: its the same people...) and journals are completely above suspicion...

(PS that's irony from a former scientist who's seen the ugly insides of the academia-industry circle-jerk close up)

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 1:23 PM  

Dr Torch: Some of the biggest criticisms of "climate science" has come from statisticians such as Stephen McIntyre

Sure. The original reconstructions were done on a shoe-string by piecing together data from a multitude of sources. However, McIntyre's objections have been responded to by several different studies. See Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Academies Press 2006. The problems McIntyre cites have negligible impact on the final reconstructions.

Dr Torch: They point out that few "climate scientists" are trained well enough in statistics to do adequate peer review.

That's been remedied by more recent studies, such as by the Berkeley project.
http://berkeleyearth.org/

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 1:25 PM  

Fnord Prefect: Yeah cos scientist never cheat, lie, whore themselves for grants or decide by consensus so the peers (look up what peer means - clue: its the same people...) and journals are completely above suspicion...

Of course they do. You didn't think they actually lived in ivory towers, did you? Scientists have all the same foibles as everyone else. However, the consensus is very broad.

Anonymous Krul July 02, 2014 1:26 PM  

Zachriel - The basics of greenhouse warming has been known for more than a century.

Just as I thought. My point in my first comment was that a warming trend in the data is insufficient to prove that CO2 is warming the earth.

Earlier you posted a link to NCDC. I went to the Global tab and checked the annual data from 1950 to 2014, and found the expected warming trend. Then I entered 1880 to 1950 and found the same warming trend. Then I entered 1880 to 2014 and found the same trend. The "per Decade" trendline has the same slope in each range, aproximately +0.1 degree C every 15 years. This suggests that CO2 emissions are a negligible influence.

Anonymous takin' a look July 02, 2014 1:28 PM  

We are headed into a cold period. That is what the evidence all around us shows. Ice floes on the American Great Lakes lasting into the month of June. Hudson bay still 50% iced over, global sea ice levels 2 million square kilometers above statistical average. Summer time snow in the northern hemisphere not just in montane regions, but in lowlands in normally temperate zones.

The media knows this, this is why there has been so much talk of "long, spring-like conditions" well today, they flipped the script to "autumn comes early".

Anonymous Porky July 02, 2014 1:28 PM  

Probably the most important fact to remember in this discussion:

Zachriel is Tad.

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 1:29 PM  

Krul: My point in my first comment was that a warming trend in the data is insufficient to prove that CO2 is warming the earth.

Huh? We said the theory of anthropogenic warming is based on a causative model. You asked, so we provided a citation to a seminal paper.

Blogger Fnord Prefect July 02, 2014 1:35 PM  

Damn, I fed the Tad.

Anonymous Vidad July 02, 2014 1:39 PM  

I've dealt with the possibility of a changing climate via planting edible trees and shrubs from growing zones both above and below my own, along with ones that are perfect for my area. Like this:

http://www.floridasurvivalgardening.com/2014/03/your-garden-can-beat-climate-change.html

Still, I don't buy Global Warming. I wish it were true so I could grow coffee outside, but weather is a chaotic system similar to economics. Both have become even more unpredictable due to the fudged data. The new USDA Growing Zone map puts me squarely inside of Zone 9, which is ridiculous. Previously we fell on the border of 8 and 9. Overnight lows in the teens happen practically every year. In a true "Zone 9" I could grow starfruit and maybe even mangos. Here you can grow pears... not tropical fruit.

Yet the USDA has jumped on the bandwagon and is forcing a false grid over the observable reality. Maybe if I play "let's pretend" hard enough I can put a starfruit in the ground...

Blogger Joseph July 02, 2014 1:40 PM  

The point regarding problems with the temperature data is a valid one. Read here for some good summaries.

GIGO

Anonymous Vidad July 02, 2014 1:41 PM  

Sorry - left my html all naked there:

Clickable link to article!

Anonymous Krul July 02, 2014 1:48 PM  

Zachriel - We said the theory of anthropogenic warming is based on a causative model.

Yes, and this does not contradict the point I made in my first comment.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 02, 2014 1:59 PM  

The trend changes a lot based on the range of data - what looks like a strong trend at one range looks like an anomalous blip at another range

Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing I'd mentioned before, what kh123 brought up. If you look at the last 100 years or so of data, you see a gradual warming trend up until 1998, then a cooling trend since then. When you mention to warmingmongers, they say "oh, but you can't just look at the last few years, that's too small a sample size. You must consider the previous several decades of warming!"

But then when you look at the last half-million years of data, you see a fairly regular pattern: a cold period with temps many degrees below current (i.e. an Ice Age), followed by a fairly rapid warming trend, then lots of fluctuation as the warming trend peters out, followed by a crash back to the next Ice Age. We would be in the "lots of fluctuation as the warming trend peters out" stage currently. When you mention that, the warmingmongers insist you've got to ignore the old data and focus on the most current readings.

They always want to talk about one specific date range, mostly about 1900 to 1998, when we had a warming trend. They refuse to accept that data outside that range does not support their theory (or their "causative model") and do their best to ignore it when they can't falsify it.

Krul says he is open minded to the possibility of global warming. I am too, but I am also open minded to the possibility of fraud for economic and political gain, as well as the possibility of zealotry born of a new ersatz religion. When I look at the data, I conclude there is no statistically significant evidence of human impact on global temperature, while there is a tremendous amount of statistically significant evidence to support natural patterns of cyclical ice ages/warming periods.

Further, when I look at the behavior, I conclude there is an immense amount of fraud and the associated attempts to dodge questions and silence critics that one usually finds with con men. There are also immense amounts of blind faith, denunciation of heretics, and dismissal of non-believers, as one also finds with religious movements.

Anonymous DrTorch July 02, 2014 2:04 PM  

That's been remedied by more recent studies, such as by the Berkeley project.
http://berkeleyearth.org/


I went there, and your claims are not adequately supported. They write of the Earth warming in the last 250 years. Well no duh. That's not really the question.

Your understanding of particulate effects is simple-minded, and ultimately wrong. Your citation of Arrhenius as the description of the Earth's greenhouse effect is also simple-minded and wrong. Furthermore, if studies have shown anything it's that the Earth's climate is far more nuanced than even now is currently understood, and the models, and AGW hypothesis, are flawed.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 02, 2014 2:07 PM  

Statistics underlies all of science, and while statistics can be manipulated, you would have to raise specific objections, otherwise, it's just handwaving.

So I take it you didn't bother to read Vox's original post then. Or does your notion of "specific objections" somehow not include pointing out the NOAA data manipulations and memory-holing of their attempt?

Anonymous DrTorch July 02, 2014 2:17 PM  

Off topic, but still science...Another "Human species" is mentioned http://news.yahoo.com/gene-extinct-human-species-fortifies-high-altitude-tibetans-170522853.html

So it would seem that terminology is entering the mainstream.

Anonymous Dr. Kenneth Noisewater July 02, 2014 2:19 PM  

The initial drop in speed limits was due to gas savings (around 2% by estimates).

That's a bit low.. More like 10-20% less efficient at 65-75mph (which is fairly common these days).

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.jsp#speed-limit

Drag goes up at approximately the cube of velocity, though CdA improvements help quite a bit.

Anonymous Krul July 02, 2014 2:24 PM  

Earlier you posted a link to NCDC. I went to the Global tab and checked the annual data from 1950 to 2014, and found the expected warming trend. Then I entered 1880 to 1950 and found the same warming trend. Then I entered 1880 to 2014 and found the same trend. The "per Decade" trendline has the same slope in each range, aproximately +0.1 degree C every 15 years. This suggests that CO2 emissions are a negligible influence.

I was wrong here - user error. The trend is actually steeper in the later time period than the earlier one.

Blogger rycamor July 02, 2014 2:32 PM  

Vidad July 02, 2014 1:39 PM

Still, I don't buy Global Warming. I wish it were true so I could grow coffee outside,


Well, to expect good coffee you would also need to believe in global altitude change. Is Florida rising or sinking?

Anonymous maniacprovost July 02, 2014 2:45 PM  

No, because the surface instrumental record has many discontinuities and anomalies, so it has to be analyzed.

And yet we can do simple curve fits in discontinuous non-euclidean space that identify local maxima with ease. Sure, some analysis is needed to correlate tree rings in Iceland to satellite data or penguin fossils. But for any given point in time, they need to yield an estimated mean global temperature, or they're useless. "Discontinuities and anomalies" do not provide a conclusive case for dictatorial global government.

One question is whether Surface Air Temperature is a good proxy for Global Warming. I think so, but it's thermodynamically possible that SAT could decrease relative to the expected uptrend, and actually increase the heat intake of the earth by acting as a cold sink.... Is that climatologically possible? Unfortunately, my understanding of climate science is that it's currently at the butterfly collecting stage, and unknown phenomena cannot be modeled. I doubt they can answer that, or any question, until it happens.

The theory of AGW is based on the fact that CO2 absorbs radiation. So does water vapor, a point that has been memified and repeated ad nauseum. So does increased CO2 displace water vapor? How does it affect condensation and cloud formation? At least they're studying this, in their lackadaisical fashion, but those factors completely overwhelm the absorptivity of CO2 as a factor in itself, so....

Temperature record? extremely inconclusive.
Basic physics behind the theory? Inconclusive.

People working on the problem? Probaby average scientists, aka government funded professors who essentially stayed in academia because it was more comfortable than taking their bachelor's and getting a real job. However we can't judge them, because the people we actually hear from are politicians, transnational progressivists, charlatans, crazies, and paid lobbyists.

Conclusion: If AGW is real, then we are not going to stop it. We could, but we won't, regardless of the science. All we can do is try to advance technology to the point that we can survive it as a species.

This rant has been brought to you by Dr. Pepper(TM) and the Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 02, 2014 2:47 PM  

Well, to expect good coffee you would also need to believe in global altitude change. Is Florida rising or sinking?

It was slowly rising, but I think it's getting far enough away from the mid-Atlantic ridge that it may be slowly sinking.

But as to the overall point, global warming would be a hell of a lot better than global cooling. Another ice age would be far more damaging in every respect than anything the warmingmongers say will happen.

Anonymous takin' a look July 02, 2014 3:05 PM  

Dr Torch. That's *Homo denisovia*. Hmm, lets see now, about 30,000 years ago, we had Denisovians, Neandertals, Flores hobbits and Asian Erectus. Possibly also a gigantic form known informally as *Meganthropus*. Both *Mega* and Flores hobbits may actually be australopithicines, not hominines. And of course you have gorilla and chimpazee genes in the ancestry of various West african Negro sub groupings plus unknown hominoid genes from possibly as many as three extinct species.

Maybe it is time to give up the ghost and acknowledge modern *Homo* is probably a species-complex, like *Canis* ,*Cervus* and so on.

The old concepts of species as discreet reproductive units are being shown for the joke they are. Many clearly different species will hybridize and produce fertile offspring. It's not just Humans, deep time genetic research is showing evidence of hybridization between very different species. For example, rusa deer with pere david's deer but not with closely related sikas. Animals as it turns out are a lot like plants. Crossbreds are far more common than once believed and the genetic signals are only now coming to light.

Anonymous Porky July 02, 2014 3:19 PM  

And right on cue, Antarctica sets a new record for sea ice.

Anonymous Dr. Kenneth Noisewater July 02, 2014 3:25 PM  

Conclusion: If AGW is real, then we are not going to stop it. We could, but we won't, regardless of the science. All we can do is try to advance technology to the point that we can survive it as a species.

This presumes, of course, that we _should_ stop it. Perhaps humanity is subconsciously fending off another overdue ice age?

http://www.amazon.com/Fallen-Angels-Larry-Niven-ebook/dp/B005BJTZ1U/ref=sr_1_1

And leaving aside AGW altogether, reducing the use of imported oil, and reducing the burning of fossil fuels in and of themselves worthy goals for reasons of thrift, national security, and air quality.

Anonymous Vidad July 02, 2014 3:25 PM  

rycamor: "Well, to expect good coffee you would also need to believe in global altitude change. Is Florida rising or sinking?"

You're right on the altitude. However, I'm just just going to market it as "Locally Grown, Sustainable, Fair-Trade, Organic, Gluten-free, Grown On A Family Farm, Non-hydrogenated, Cage Free, Pesticide Free, 100% Natural, non-GMO, Free Range Florida Coffee."

Flavor is secondary to marketing.

Guess I'll need to go back to my original idea of a pressure-controlled pit greenhouse warmed by the thermal mass of the surrounding ground. "Thin Air, Thick Beans!"

Anonymous Vidad July 02, 2014 3:26 PM  

Oh - and of course - I'll sell it in small, hand-numbered hemp bags made overseas.

Anonymous Vidad July 02, 2014 3:28 PM  

Jack Amok: "It was slowly rising, but I think it's getting far enough away from the mid-Atlantic ridge that it may be slowly sinking."

That's why I like this blog. Ask a question about tectonics anywhere else and you get a blank stare.

(Shoot... maybe that means I've been asking sociopaths about tectonics. D'oh!)

Blogger mojohn July 02, 2014 3:35 PM  

10,000 BC

Ogg Vorbis, reporting from the central part of a landmass to be known in future millennia as North America.

Cuthwalla, the ice sheet is rapidly retreating to the North. According to local climatologists, we must cease burning mastadon dung in such large quantities or disaster threatens our way of life. Please get out the word before all is lost.

Courtesy of CNN (Caveman News Network)

Anonymous Peter Garstig July 02, 2014 3:56 PM  

Yes. Methodology is available in most journal articles. You can find the raw data at the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.

Sorry, that's simply not enough to be falsible. Methodology is just a concept. How it is applied is important.

To be taken seriously, release the raw data (true meaning, e.g. no zombie sfarions), the methodology, the implementation (funny how that is never open source!) and the parametrisation of the model. Basically, give anyone the possibility to reproduce the results.

Then we speak.

Blogger mojohn July 02, 2014 4:00 PM  

Correction to my post at 3:35:

"According to local climatologists" should read "According to local shamen"

Anonymous Vidad July 02, 2014 4:01 PM  

@mojohn

"We also urge the various tribes to forgo the development of agriculture, particularly the raising of legumes, due to the unfortunate release of gasses associated with such..."

Blogger mojohn July 02, 2014 4:03 PM  

@Vivad

Well-stated!!!

Anonymous The Ark of Hope July 02, 2014 4:36 PM  

AGW is nothing but Propaganda for the vacuous, murderous souls that do not believe in private property and individualism. Right Thinkers.
Who's son was it on that Corporate board that had the interest in the land in Nevada for the sake of "energy" production? (an "energy" which is only 15% efficient).

Bankers and their Corporations are behind the AGW lie. Feudalism has returned, supported and fully enabled by the vacuous souls with nothing better to believe in.

Blogger rycamor July 02, 2014 4:44 PM  

Jack Amok July 02, 2014 2:47 PM

But as to the overall point, global warming would be a hell of a lot better than global cooling. Another ice age would be far more damaging in every respect than anything the warmingmongers say will happen.


Yes, this is the 2nd part of all the hand-wringing that deserves its own mocking. In two parts:

a. It would be the worstest thing ever!!!111

Why? Because things would change? Apparently the last global warming period is what transformed Northern europe into a farming paradise, paving the way for Europe's rise to prominence. But ocean levels would rise!! How much exactly? It would take a *serious* amount of increased energy to raise the oceans even 1 foot. All the realistic estimates have it rising by mere inches over centuries. ho hum. Yes, certain hot areas near the equator would be a degree or two hotter on average, but hardly enough to kill off all the vegetation.

b. Once it starts, it's just going to spiral out of control!!!111 Runaway warming is realz!

And we know this, why? If anything, we see that globally, effects are always eventually counterbalanced by other effects, often as reactions. Populations can only grow explosively when conditions support that explosive growth. Once conditions ameliorate the situation, growth begins to slow down. Nothing happens instantly and in a binary manner. As conditions change, people VOLUNTARILY (how about that??) change their behavior. Case in point, as food prices increase, more and more people are turning their yards into gardens. As internet technology has increased, more and more people are working from home. These trends should be factored in every bit as much as the other "trends" being noticed by scientists.

Blogger Pinakeli July 02, 2014 5:01 PM  

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater July 02, 2014 2:19 PM

The initial drop in speed limits was due to gas savings (around 2% by estimates).

That's a bit low.. More like 10-20% less efficient at 65-75mph (which is fairly common these days).

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.jsp#speed-limit

Drag goes up at approximately the cube of velocity, though CdA improvements help quite a bit.


Drag is only a major factor if power and torque curves are linear. They are not. Not by a long shot.

2% was the official measured difference by almost all of the European transportation agencies.

The really interesting part is that many (almost all non-American) cars of the day got better mileage at 70 than they did at 55. I watched my mileage drop from around 40 MPG to under 25 as the speed limits were dropped and the octane was dropped. The was a 1974 Porsche 914. My 1985 Fiero went up around 15% when the speed limits in Fort Worth went from 55 to 65.

Again, power and torque curves are the key. You want to drive the speed (and in the gear) that both are as close to peak as possible. Drag at these speeds is negligible. If it were not cars would add speed brakes like aircraft have.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 02, 2014 5:06 PM  

a. It would be the worstest thing ever!!!111

Indeed. It's too damn bad these idiots won't look at the climate graphs from the last 500,000 years, as they would see how much colder the planet has frequently been. Or maybe if they learned enough practical geology to look at a the landforms around them and realize gigantic sheets of ice once occupied so much of the country. Seattleites are surrounded by lakes and valleys carved by glaciers. Long Island is basically the rubble that the ice sheet scraped off of Canada and New England and shoved in front of it as it moved south.

b. Once it starts, it's just going to spiral out of control!!!111 Runaway warming is realz!

This is one big reason they have to hide any evidence the earth was ever warmer than it is now (which it absolutely has been, many times in the past). But actually, they have to hide any evidence it was ever different than it is now because their "causative models" require the Earth's climate to be dynamically unstable. Any slight change one direction or another will spiral out of control.

They are charlatans who don't even comprehend their own arguments.

Anonymous willneverpostagain July 02, 2014 5:19 PM  

If disagreeing with the global warming crowd helps to negate any government attempts to regulate (read tax) the people, then it is worth it in and of itself. I can make a good case that I would reject it even if it were true, which has not been proven.

Anonymous KK July 02, 2014 5:21 PM  

Talk about change - Porsche to Fiero

Blogger Pinakeli July 02, 2014 5:34 PM  

KK July 02, 2014 5:21 PM

Talk about change - Porsche to Fiero


Yeah, but the air conditioner was worth it on my 35 minute drive (dropped to 25 minute when the speed limits went up, traffic was much smoother).

Blogger Pinakeli July 02, 2014 5:35 PM  

And I kept the Porsche until the rust was so bad I didn't want to fix it again. 34 years with that car!

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 6:03 PM  

Joseph: The point regarding problems with the temperature data is a valid one.

From Joseph's link:

My problem is the adjustments made to the input (or "raw") data. These adjustments appear arbitrary, they are poorly explained (if they are indeed explained at all), and the scientific establishment seems to have no intention at all of quality controlling the data.

That is incorrect. Methods are explained in the relevant literature, and the data has been subjected to a multitude of tests.

Indeed, the CRU data set (this is from the "hide the decline" crowd) doesn't even have the original data any more - they threw the backup tapes out some time ago, only keeping the adjusted (or "value added" in their terminology) data. This is the data set that the IPCC relies on for its reports, and it's entirely impossible to check to see if it's valid.

That is also incorrect. The original data had to be aggregated from thousands of institutions from around the world, recorded in different languages, various protocols, and inconsistent instrumentation. The data has always been available to researchers, but not always available for redistribution. Yes, science is hard. In recent years, the raw data has been made generally available.

Krul: Yes, and this does not contradict the point I made in my first comment.

This?

Krul: the case relies on identifying statistical trends which aren't good predictors of future results by themselves.

That's correct. However, climate science also relies on causative models, which allows testing of the various influences and forcings.

Jack Amok: But then when you look at the last half-million years of data, you see a fairly regular pattern: a cold period with temps many degrees below current (i.e. an Ice Age), followed by a fairly rapid warming trend, then lots of fluctuation as the warming trend peters out, followed by a crash back to the next Ice Age.

What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!

Jack Amok: They refuse to accept that data outside that range does not support their theory (or their "causative model") and do their best to ignore it when they can't falsify it.

Historical climate change is among the most important evidence to climate scientists because it allows them to fix climate sensitivity.

Jack Amok: I conclude there is no statistically significant evidence of human impact on global temperature, while there is a tremendous amount of statistically significant evidence to support natural patterns of cyclical ice ages/warming periods.

Presumably, there's a conspiracy to prevent the publication of your groundbreaking research.

DrTorch: They write of the Earth warming in the last 250 years. Well no duh. That's not really the question.

They examine the whole instrumental record. They also show that volcanic activity and atmospheric CO2 content can explain most of the historical record.

The rest of your comment is an extended "Is not!"

Jack Amok: So I take it you didn't bother to read Vox's original post then.

Indeed, we did, and answered it. NCDC transitioned to the nClimDiv dataset on Thursday, March 13, 2014. Watts is comparing apples and oranges.

rycamor: Well, to expect good coffee you would also need to believe in global altitude change. Is Florida rising or sinking?

Actually, you only need to consider local effects for making coffee. Florida is sinking at about ½ mm/yr.

OpenID simplytimothy July 02, 2014 6:16 PM  

Real Climate reminds us that Al Gore predicted the North Pole would be ice-free this year; because the science is settled.

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 6:19 PM  

maniacprovost: "Discontinuities and anomalies" do not provide a conclusive case for dictatorial global government.

We're just discussing the temperature trend. To determine that requires statistics. A lot of methods have been used, but Berkeley used a some new techniques.
http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-103.pdf

maniacprovost: One question is whether Surface Air Temperature is a good proxy for Global Warming.

Heat energy will move chaotically through the system, so what you really want to measure is total energy.

maniacprovost: The theory of AGW is based on the fact that CO2 absorbs radiation. So does water vapor, a point that has been memified and repeated ad nauseum.

As Arrhenius pointed out, increased CO2 warms the atmosphere, which increase the moisture content of the atmosphere, amplifying the effect.

maniacprovost: People working on the problem? Probaby average scientists, aka government funded professors who essentially stayed in academia because it was more comfortable than taking their bachelor's and getting a real job.

Sure.

antarcticsun.usap.gov/AntarcticSun/science/images/SCAR_icecore.jpg

ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1895320!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg

braaschphotography.com/indexphotos1/indexphotosv/158Earthscience.jpg

blogs.ei.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/scuba-baerbel-300x225.jpg

Anonymous Jack Amok July 02, 2014 6:27 PM  

Okay Zachriel, let's see what your responses amount to:

What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!

A non-response, trying to deflect the conversation away from the damning historical evidence that the earth has changed temperature many, many times without human intervention, and that current "climate changes" are completely within historical norms.

Historical climate change is among the most important evidence to climate scientists because it allows them to fix climate sensitivity.

Again, a non-response to the observation that any time data outside of a carefully selected range is discussed, Warmists attempt to either fudge it or discount it. Data from before the late 19th century, or after 1998, is most certainly not treated as important evidence by AWG scare-mongers.

Presumably, there's a conspiracy to prevent the publication of your groundbreaking research.

"Disqualify, Disqualify, Disqualify!" said the rabbit. I'm an engineer, dumbass. Engineers don't "publish research." We built shit. It either works, or it doesn't, and when it doesn't, we fix it so that it does. We don't try to get people to ignore the evidence that it didn't work like your Heroic Research Publishers do.

Indeed, we did, and answered it. NCDC transitioned to the nClimDiv dataset on Thursday, March 13, 2014. Watts is comparing apples and oranges.

"We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket, or should I be addressing you as Your Royal Majesty? As to apples and oranges, why yes, yes, that is the problem right there. Watt is pointing out that where your side used to have apples, you've now swapped them for oranges. And painted them green.

Anonymous Skeptic July 02, 2014 6:30 PM  

Explain to me exactly why global warming is actually bad? Wouldn't that simply result in a better overall climate forhumans by making the cooler regions more temperate and open up more habitable land than is lost due to extreme heat/flooding?

Blogger hadley July 02, 2014 6:34 PM  

This "reinstating" July stuff is exactly like the Feds "restating" their GNP, GDP and employment statistics, sometimes decades after the fact.

Blogger James Dixon July 02, 2014 6:37 PM  

> The website indicates correctly that the Northern Atlantic experience a substantial warming, while much of the rest of the world experience cooling. So?

So if you cherry pick your data, you can easily demonstrate that. Funny how the historical record and accepted analysis showed no such thing until they did so.

> Zachriel is Tad.

Well, duh. :)

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 6:57 PM  

Jack Amok: A non-response, trying to deflect the conversation away from the damning historical evidence that the earth has changed temperature many, many times without human intervention, and that current "climate changes" are completely within historical norms.

Just pointing out that the same scientists whose views you reject on modern climate change, you accept on past climate change. In any case, climate certainly does change, and the past can give us a lot of evidence concerning how it changes, and why. In particular, it allows scientists to determine climate sensitivity, which most studies put at around 2-4°C, e.g. Schmittner et al., Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science 2011.

Jack Amok: Data from before the late 19th century, or after 1998, is most certainly not treated as important evidence by AWG scare-mongers.

It certainly is by climate scientists. We just provided a citation. There's an entire field within climate science called palaeoclimatology. Entire institutions are dedicated to studying ancient climate change, including its relationship to modern climate. Arrhenius based his paper on a study of ice ages. How many hundreds of citations did you want?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/primer.html

Jack Amok: Watt is pointing out that where your side used to have apples, you've now swapped them for oranges.

How and why.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/transitioning-gridded-climate-divisional-dataset
Did you want technical details?

Anonymous Jack Amok July 02, 2014 7:00 PM  

"We" again? Dude, that mouse in your pocket, are you sure he supports you on AGW? Most mice would be better off if the globe was a bit warmer.

Blogger rycamor July 02, 2014 7:01 PM  

Zachriel July 02, 2014 6:03 PM

rycamor: Well, to expect good coffee you would also need to believe in global altitude change. Is Florida rising or sinking?

Actually, you only need to consider local effects for making coffee. Florida is sinking at about ½ mm/yr.


Well of course I was joking, but still... think, my good man... think! If one land mass is sinking then something has to be rising somewhere. I said global altitude change.

1/2 mm/yr... awesome!. So my long-term investment in central FL real estate will pay off when it becomes oceanfront property in about 20,000 years. My heirs will be so pround of me!

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 7:02 PM  

Zachriel: The website indicates correctly that the Northern Atlantic experience a substantial warming, while much of the rest of the world experience cooling. So?

James Dixon: So if you cherry pick your data, you can easily demonstrate that. Funny how the historical record and accepted analysis showed no such thing until they did so.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/box64.html



Blogger hadley July 02, 2014 7:04 PM  

The climate models are tweaked and adjusted regularly to accomodate inconvenient truths. The new models appear with little or no fanfare, explanation or validation. Whatever "global warming" is, each new model that they manufacture needs to be considered de novo and revalidated.

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 7:05 PM  

hadley: The new models appear with little or no fanfare, explanation or validation.

Again, that is incorrect. Methodologies are published along with every scientific paper.

Blogger hadley July 02, 2014 7:05 PM  

This "reinstating" July stuff is exactly like the Feds "restating" their GNP, GDP and employment statistics, sometimes decades after the fact.

Anonymous takin' a look July 02, 2014 7:10 PM  

"Skeptic July 02, 2014 6:30 PM

Explain to me exactly why global warming is actually bad? Wouldn't that simply result in a better overall climate forhumans by making the cooler regions more temperate and open up more habitable land than is lost due to extreme heat/flooding?"

Not just for Humans, but for damn near everything.

http://www.worlddreambank.org/D/DUBIA.HTM

This link illustrates just how much of a paradise our planet would be if all the ice melted and sea-levels rose.

The converse is when we are in Icehouse conditions, we become maritimers. the Pacific and Indian ocean have literally tens of thousands of submerged seamounts and such which turns these tropical seas into big ponds of archipelagos.

Why? Because outside of the tropics, life is HELL, imagine following a herd of caribou just south of Wrangel, set up camp in a shelter, wake up and see dead deer everywhere. That would be because during the night, their breathe condensed in a big CO2 cloud over them and filtered back down, cutting up their lungs and flash freezing their blood.

You want Ice Age conditions? you're welcome to them, I'll take Redwoods in Greenland and otters in kelp forests in Hudson bay thank you very much.

Blogger hadley July 02, 2014 7:12 PM  

Global warming is modern day Millerism. Like Millerites, Global Warming advocates will not change their minds even if the Second Coming and Armageddon never occur on schedule. Like Millerites, they will merely refine their "model" and keep preaching. They will go bak to their Holy Scriptures (The Book of Daniel, in the case of Miller and HAD/CRUT in the case of AGW folks) and find some factor or interpretation that lets them tweak their millenarian prophecies.

They are true believers. It is pointless to argue with them.

Repent Now for the End is Near!

Blogger Michael July 02, 2014 8:06 PM  

@ Zachriel / Tad

I shall attempt to help you with a simple explanation...

To those of us who think clearly and critically, these are all m/l equivalent:

- Jim Baker asks us to donate to his latest ministry.
- Bernie Madoff offers us an investment opportunity.
- Bill Clinton asks to date my daughter.
- Karl Rove wants to give electoral advice.
- A climate scientist says the earth is warming due to humans.

We would politely show them the door, as we don't much care to associate with proven charlatans, frauds and liars.

Clear?

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 8:08 PM  

Michael: I shall attempt to help you with a simple explanation...

What you did was merely make an association, while assuming your conclusion. You neglected to provide the explanation.

Blogger Michael July 02, 2014 8:16 PM  

@ Zachriel

"You neglected to provide the explanation. "

Apologies. Here's the explanation:

Climate scientists are proven charlatans, frauds and liars.

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 8:19 PM  

Michael: Climate scientists are proven charlatans, frauds and liars.

And yet Jack Amok trusts climate scientists when they claim to have shown that climate has gone through ice ages. In any case, you have not shown climate scientists are any different from other scientists.

Blogger Michael July 02, 2014 8:22 PM  

@Zachriel
"And yet Jack Amok trusts climate scientists when they claim to have shown that climate has gone through ice ages."

We're discussing climate scientists. Stop changing the subject.

"In any case, you have not shown climate scientists are any different from other scientists."

Stop changing the subject.

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 8:25 PM  

Michael: We're discussing climate scientists.

Ice ages are climate phenomena. People who study climate phenomena are called climate scientists.

Blogger Michael July 02, 2014 8:28 PM  

@Zachriel People who study climate phenomena are called climate scientists.

So why did you change the subject to one Jack Amok?

Blogger Zachriel July 02, 2014 8:37 PM  

Michael: So why did you change the subject to one Jack Amok?

You claimed climate scientists are "proven charlatans, frauds and liars." Should we therefore discount what climate scientists say about recurring ice ages? Do you have evidence to support your claim?

Anonymous kh123 July 02, 2014 8:45 PM  

Jack, what charts or sources do you normally fall back on when this comes up.

Blogger Michael July 02, 2014 8:46 PM  

@Zachriel
"You claimed climate scientists are "proven charlatans, frauds and liars." Should we therefore discount what climate scientists say about recurring ice ages?"

Dear simple one ...
Are you not aware that when even a known liar admits something that runs contrary to self interest there is a good chance they are telling the truth. But when they espouse something directly aligned with self interest it is prudent to assume they are lying.

"Do you have evidence to support your claim?"

Uh, yes. It's the topic of this blog entry. As well as the many other frauds thus far discovered within climate "science".

Anonymous maniacprovost July 02, 2014 8:54 PM  

Pretty sure Ice Ages were discovered by paleontologists. Of course, they haven't been confirmed experimentally...

Anonymous takin' a look July 02, 2014 9:36 PM  

Ice Ages do not require climatologists to be proven or disproven (it helps!) Geologists and Paleontologists have known about Ice Ages since the late 1880s. The same sort of landscape types we see in in modern day glaciated areas are also present in formerly glaciated areas.We see the Loess steppe, eskers, glacial middens/moraines and their analogues match up quite well. The only Glacial feature we do not see in the modern-day are enormous chaos created when ice-dams break and release glacier-fed lakes. That tends to be primarily a temperate/boreal zone phenomenon during Glacials.

Anonymous Roundtine July 02, 2014 9:39 PM  

If you've ever played around with statistical/financial work you know how this works: you start changing the input and the output changes. They're goal seeking.

Much of climate "science" relies on predictive computer models. They are constantly changing the historic data because their models are shit. Every year that goes by they are more wrong. We have a perfect parallel with climate models in financial models. Financial analysts, the top nerds at investment banks, can barely be called accurate in their 1-year earnings projections. Out to 5-years and they're pretty much worthless, though they have value in what they tell us about current thinking on future trends. And really, while the economy has a lot of variables, it should be pretty easy to predict something like how many cans of Coke people will drink in 2019, but they cannot accurately predict Coke's earnings 5-years out.

In 2008, the quant models all assumed home prices don't go down.We know a lot about housing and we have a lot of data on home prices, yet even this major and well documented data set was useless because the model made the wrong assumptions. In defense of the financial models, they were working until 2007 and 2008. Climate models cannot even claim that level of accuracy.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 02, 2014 9:47 PM  

kh123, you can Bing "ice core temperature records" and find your choice of data. Here's a site that lets you play around with the range courtesy of Nasa. You may note* that the initial view is scoped to a range that indicates a warming trend...

Of course, Zachriel is thoroughly confused by my use of this data. How can I use the data if I don't trust the scientists? I think someone up-thread already pointed out it's mostly the PR flacks, politicians, and grant gobblers that make the AGW noise. The scientists who generate the actual raw data are mostly competent, average ability folks and usually produce initial data that is reliable.

But then what ol' Z-Tad and the mouse in his pocket can't get through their thick mid-wit skulls is that we're calling them on doctoring and cherry-picking the data.

* Two other things that stand out is that the current warm period differs slightly from pervious ones in that the peak is quite a bit lower and flatter, and it is a lot more jagged. My own guess is that distance from the present decreases the overall granularity (the older ice has been more compressed than the new, mashing many years together into a smeared average). Since the trend is pretty consistent that the graph gets smoother as it goes farther in the past, I think I'm right about that. Would that also account for the steeper drop-offs from previous warm cycles? I don't know. I do think this cycle (the Holocene) had a lower peak than previous interglacial periods. If it is also staying warm longer, that trend began when the global human population was three orders of magnitude lower than today and burned no fossil fuels.

OpenID simplytimothy July 02, 2014 10:00 PM  

Zachreil is Paul Krugman.

Both cite studies and scholars as proof of their models. We, looking at the real world call bullshit on their nonsense and they double down on their failed models.


Tiresome bastards, the lot of them.

Anonymous kh123 July 02, 2014 10:25 PM  

Thanks much Jack.

Anonymous takin' a look July 02, 2014 10:25 PM  

Jack Amok, the primary difference between this interglacial and the previous ones is pretty simple. The terrestrial megafauna is gone. Take for example, tundra and muskeg, that is a rare and scattered ecosystem; however, with the loss of huge herds of horses, bison, antelope, pronghorns,mammoths, camels, yaks, mastodonts, wapiti, etc, things are quite different.

Caribou/reindeer and musk-oxen are poor substitutes. They cannot on their own, devour and tear up the landscape so the soil dries out and becomes suitable for grasses and forbs, also important is the subterranean burrowers, currently, the Northern tundra has a ground squirrel.....and nothing else, during the previous glacials/interglacials, we have jerboas, mice, moles, pikas, etc, because the top layer of soil over the permafrost was dry enough to remain unfrozen even in the depths of winter.

Summer in previous interglacials would have been much hotter in the Arctic/Boreal zone as the landscape would have been like a parkland, vast grasslands/forbs with gallery forests.

Anonymous maniacprovost July 02, 2014 10:25 PM  

OK, this is fun.

Zachriel:
We're just discussing the temperature trend. To determine that requires statistics. A lot of methods have been used, but Berkeley used a some new techniques.
http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-103.pdf


I look forward to the results they get from applying their method to the full universe of datasets. I am curious as to why their graphs show the present temperature anomaly to be much higher than 1936, consistent with many other statistical studies, while NOAA's raw data states that 1936 was hotter than the present. The only legitimate explanations I can think of are the disparity in datasets and the effects of geographical interpolation. Or the fact that everyone seems to assume "homogeneity breaks" are an artifact of the data.

Heat energy will move chaotically through the system, so what you really want to measure is total energy.

Yes. But we can't. So the question remains, is SAT a good proxy for total energy? Hey, my questions are odd and partly rhetorical. I don't think they count toward Vox's Rules of Etiquette.

As Arrhenius pointed out, increased CO2 warms the atmosphere, which increase the moisture content of the atmosphere, amplifying the effect.

But the premise that CO2 warms the atmosphere is in question, if not among the scientific community, then among bored blog readers. Maybe CO2 reduces the average production of ozone, thus lowering the temperature, lowering the moisture content of the atmosphere and producing a runaway cooling effect. Maybe it increases cloud formation. In the lab, yes, CO2 increases warming. In the atmosphere? It is not a straightforward assertion.

Sure.

antarcticsun.usap.gov/AntarcticSun/science/images/SCAR_icecore.jpg

ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1895320!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg

braaschphotography.com/indexphotos1/indexphotosv/158Earthscience.jpg

blogs.ei.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/scuba-baerbel-300x225.jpg


These are representative samples? The Berkley guys that applied Kriging to combine historical data sets are also the guys collecting butterflies in the Amazon?

On average, the people who go into academia do so because of inertia. They spend 16 years of their life in school, they perform well, and they emulate the successful examples before them. They go to grad school. They go to post grad work. 30 years of minimum wage pay later, they get tenure. They apply for grants and BS their way through meaningless politically safe papers which are published in second rate publications. I've read them. Do I have a problem with that? Eh. 90% of the population anywhere does the minimum to get by, go home, drink a beer and watch the World Cup. Academics are no better or worse, but they are selected for intelligence and other less scientifically useful qualities.

Going to Antarctica is not a sign of supreme self-directed will. Millions of young men have charged to their death in battle because they were told to. Were they brave? Sure. Were they physically comfortable? No. But despite the pain and fear, it was easier for them to go along with the crowd. That's what I'm talking about.

So the bulk of the researchers can be discounted. Like any other field, there are probably a handful of climatologists that actually produce 95% of the innovation. And there are not enough of them to solve this problem before it kills us, if it's going to.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 02, 2014 11:01 PM  

takin' a look,

The megafauna connection with churned up sounds reasonable, but I'm not following how that would cause higher temperatures. Nor, for that matter, how it would cause drier soils. I'm not disagreeing, just saying I don't understand how the effect is supposed to work.

Anonymous takin' a look July 02, 2014 11:20 PM  

"Jack Amok July 02, 2014 11:01 PM

takin' a look,

The megafauna connection with churned up sounds reasonable, but I'm not following how that would cause higher temperatures. Nor, for that matter, how it would cause drier soils. I'm not disagreeing, just saying I don't understand how the effect is supposed to work."

Simple, open parkland is always drier and windier and hotter than enclosed forest.

Actually, this link explains it better (he is a globull warming supporter, but read between the lines)

http://www.pleistocenepark.ru/en/

Think of it this way, a wet, damp, humid landscape across the Arctic reflects sunlight and absorbs heat easily. Think of a sandy desert, the top layer is hot as hell, but the subterreanean layers just a few inches below are quite cool. Water transfers heat downwards. Dry soil does not.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 03, 2014 12:02 AM  

Sending me to a .ru website? Geez, you want to give me a virus or something?

Okay, okay, just kidding. I read it. I'm not sure I buy it though. I'm more inclined to think that heavy megafauna traffic would compact the soil, leading to more runoff and less deep soaking to transfer and hold heat. Areas that are overgrazed are more likely to become dry than wet.

So, just double-checking to make sure I've got the theory right. Large numbers of megafauna churn up the soil, preventing large, cool forest from forming and instead encouraging extensive warmer and drier grasslands?


Anonymous takin' a look July 03, 2014 12:27 AM  

"Jack Amok July 03, 2014 12:02 AM

Sending me to a .ru website? Geez, you want to give me a virus or something?

Okay, okay, just kidding. I read it. I'm not sure I buy it though. I'm more inclined to think that heavy megafauna traffic would compact the soil, leading to more runoff and less deep soaking to transfer and hold heat. Areas that are overgrazed are more likely to become dry than wet."

You got it, so where does all that heat go? it remains in the atmosphere! Dry soil only absorbs heat superficially, wet soil absorbs it and takes it down deep....where it melts far more permafrost.

"So, just double-checking to make sure I've got the theory right. Large numbers of megafauna churn up the soil, preventing large, cool forest* from forming and instead encouraging extensive warmer and drier grasslands?"

*As well as gigantic expanses of bog tundra and muskeg. You've got it!

Anonymous Jack Amok July 03, 2014 1:39 AM  

No, I don't got it.

Are you saying (or at least repeating) that increased water content in the soil makes the soil a larger heat sink, thereby slowing the temperature gain (thus the lower peak) and also slowing the resultant heat loss (thus the flatter peak and slower drop-off)? Essentially by having more water in the soil, the earth increased its specific heat?

Blogger Zachriel July 03, 2014 8:07 AM  

Michael: Uh, yes. It's the topic of this blog entry.

To which we have responded. Watts is comparing apples and oranges. The change is data-set wasn't deceptive, but publicly discussed and analyzed by the scientific community long before the change was made.

maniacprovost: Pretty sure Ice Ages were discovered by paleontologists.

It was the geologist Jens Esmark who proposed global changes in climate that resulted in Ice Ages. He also proposed a mechanism, changes in Earth's orbit, which makes him a palaeoclimatologist.

takin' a look: Ice Ages do not require climatologists to be proven or disproven.

Studying global climate change is climate science, but it can encompass evidence from many different disciplines.

takin' a look: Geologists and Paleontologists have known about Ice Ages since the late 1880s.

Jens Esmark, Contributions to Earth History, 1824.

Jack Amok: The scientists who generate the actual raw data are mostly competent, average ability folks and usually produce initial data that is reliable.

Not sure how average these scientists are, but scientists nearly universally say the evidence they have collected is consistent with theories of anthropogenic climate change.

Jack Amok: My own guess is that distance from the present decreases the overall granularity (the older ice has been more compressed than the new, mashing many years together into a smeared average).

Have you thought that perhaps scientists have investigated rates of climate change. Climate can change abruptly, and investigation of historical changes show that small changes can be amplified shifting the climate into a different equilibrium.

Anonymous Skeptic July 03, 2014 8:19 AM  

@ Zachriel: Please explain to me why a warming planet wouldn't be better for us because it would open up more habitable land they when we lose?

Anonymous Skeptic July 03, 2014 8:19 AM  

'when we lose' should be 'what we lose'

Blogger Zachriel July 03, 2014 8:28 AM  

simplytimothy: Both cite studies and scholars as proof of their models.

Are you saying experts in a field are not more likely to be correct than laypersons? In any case, we also address the evidence.

maniacprovost: I look forward to the results they get from applying their method to the full universe of datasets.

Their original project was to reevaluate the instrumental surface temperature data. They have shown the trend is real, and that the trend is largely explained by volcanism and atmospheric CO2.

maniacprovost: I am curious as to why their graphs show the present temperature anomaly to be much higher than 1936, consistent with many other statistical studies, while NOAA's raw data states that 1936 was hotter than the present.

Are you confusing global and U.S. temperature data? Globally, the hottest years on record are all since 1998.

maniacprovost: So the question remains, is SAT a good proxy for total energy?

Over long enough scales, probably on the order of the El Niño cycle. The hydrosphere absorbs most of the energy.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

maniacprovost: But the premise that CO2 warms the atmosphere is in question, if not among the scientific community, then among bored blog readers.

There are more of the latter than the former.

maniacprovost: Maybe CO2 reduces the average production of ozone, thus lowering the temperature, lowering the moisture content of the atmosphere and producing a runaway cooling effect.

It should easier for you to show an interaction between CO2 and ozone than it would be to show there's a teapot orbiting Mars.

maniacprovost: In the lab, yes, CO2 increases warming. In the atmosphere?

There is substantial evidence that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. The open question is climate sensitivity, the amplification due to increased water vapor. Most studies put climate sensitivity at 2-4°C.

maniacprovost: The Berkley guys that applied Kriging to combine historical data sets are also the guys collecting butterflies in the Amazon?

You were the one with the gross overgeneralization. Climate science requires collecting data from many different sources, using many different methodologies. It's the independence of the various measures that lends confidence in the conclusions.

maniacprovost: On average, the people who go into academia do so because of inertia.

You don't know much about science or scientists, do you?

maniacprovost: Like any other field, there are probably a handful of climatologists that actually produce 95% of the innovation.

Pareto principle, the 80-20 rule, probably applies.

Blogger Zachriel July 03, 2014 8:32 AM  

Skeptic: Please explain to me why a warming planet wouldn't be better for us because it would open up more habitable land they when we lose?

We're first trying to establish anthropogenic warming. Discussing the latter requires understanding the former.

A degree or so of warming probably isn't all that harmful, and may have some benefits, but continued warming beyond that would severely disrupt climate. That's why you have to understand the mechanism first, so you can understand the extent of the problem, before addressing possible solutions.

Blogger Zachriel July 03, 2014 8:34 AM  

Z: the amplification due to increased water vapor

And other feedbacks, such as long term changes in albedo.

Blogger James Dixon July 03, 2014 8:39 AM  

> We're first trying to establish anthropogenic warming. Discussing the latter requires understanding the former.

We know that, Tad. Your problem is that there isn't any to establish. I guess it's a shame reality doesn't conform to your desires, but it is what it is.

OpenID simplytimothy July 03, 2014 9:09 AM  

Are you saying experts in a field are not more likely to be correct than laypersons? In any case, we also address the evidence.

No, re-read what I said. I said there comes a time when 'experts' are called on their bullshit. Keynesianism is one thing, Global Warming is another. Feminism another.

You, doubling down, by citing YAGFTWS* , are just repeating the insanity.

Things that people citing YAGFTWS have predicted and have not come to pass are: The North Pole being ice free this summer; A snowless Kilimanjaro. Worse hurricanes, a hockey-stick rise in temperatures ...

Now, you come here saying there is YAGFTWS coming from Berkely. wow. that settles it? this is credible?. bullshit.

Putting the word 'expert' before the noun does not imply competency. You, having been spectacularly wrong for so long have no credibility.

It is you who must prove your case. So, mann (heh) up and make it.

Given probability p the temperature T of the Earth E at time t can be expressed as...? what exactly?

You cannot.

So shut up.


*YAGFTWS = Yet Another Government Funded Tightly Worded Study

Anonymous Porky July 03, 2014 10:35 AM  

Simplytimothy nails it. The way you judge a scientific theory is by whether it's predictions hold up.

Simple observation tells us that every IPCC prediction on warming (the so-called "broad consensus") has been dramatically, horribly wrong.

End of story.

Now go drive your SUV to Burger King, buy yourself a bacon double cheeseburger and celebrate. And leave the engine running while you are in the restaurant so that the AC is nice and cold when you get back in the car.

Climate control, baby!

Anonymous maniacprovost July 03, 2014 10:50 AM  

I think Zachriel has convinced me to open up a CO2 pipeline and observe the effects on the local atmosphere. I'm not sure how to get funding. Maybe a climatologist can help?

Anonymous DrTorch July 03, 2014 1:07 PM  

Global warming pause now at 17y 10m.

In any case, we also address the evidence.

That's just it, you don't. You cherry pick the evidence you address, often citing flawed results.

The rest of your comment is an extended "Is not!"

Yes, you're right. Because at some point, the explanations "water doesn't flow uphill" and "the moon is NOT made of green cheese" are good enough. They have books and reams of scientific publications on the physics you misrepresent. I'm not going to re-type all of it as a response to your willful avoidance.

Blogger Zachriel July 03, 2014 1:36 PM  

simplytimothy: Given probability p the temperature T of the Earth E at time t can be expressed as...? what exactly?

The distribution of heat in the geosphere is chaotic, however, the overall energy is increasing.

DrTorch: Global warming pause now at 17y 10m.

The hydrosphere absorbs most of the energy.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

DrTorch: You cherry pick the evidence you address, often citing flawed results.

What evidence do you think we are overlooking?

DrTorch: Because at some point, the explanations "water doesn't flow uphill"

While the general trend is downhill, water can flow uphill for short distances due to momentum. Similarly, while the overall energy of the Earth's surface is increasing, it is transported between the various parts of the system; hydrosphere, atmosphere, cryosphere, biosphere; chaotically. It sloshes turbulently between these components, but the overall movement is towards a higher energy state.

Blogger Zachriel July 03, 2014 1:38 PM  

Porky: The way you judge a scientific theory is by whether it's predictions hold up.

Energy is increasing.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

Anonymous Jack Amok July 03, 2014 1:41 PM  

Have you thought that perhaps scientists have investigated rates of climate change. Climate can change abruptly, and investigation of historical changes show that small changes can be amplified shifting the climate into a different equilibrium.

You're not even following the discussion. Your comment is a complete non-sequitur. As Vox says, you're not tall enough for this ride.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 03, 2014 1:47 PM  

Jack Amok: The scientists who generate the actual raw data are mostly competent, average ability folks and usually produce initial data that is reliable.

Not sure how average these scientists are, but scientists nearly universally say the evidence they have collected is consistent with theories of anthropogenic climate change.


Let me help you. Most scientists these days are nothing more than lab technicians. They can competently read measurements from instruments invented by people smarter than them. That's the limit of their competence. It does not extend to evaluating theories. But they are usually smart enough to know who's signing their paychecks and what that person wants to hear...

Blogger Zachriel July 03, 2014 2:17 PM  

Jack Amok: Your comment is a complete non-sequitur.

This was your comment:

Jack Amok: My own guess is that distance from the present decreases the overall granularity (the older ice has been more compressed than the new, mashing many years together into a smeared average).

You are claiming observational bias, that present events can be discerned in greater detail than older events. While true, climate scientists have been able to determine that climate can change very rapidly. The rapidity has to do with the same positive feedbacks that are of concern with anthropogenic climate change.

Jack Amok: Most scientists these days are nothing more than lab technicians.

Some scientists work in labs. Some work in the field. Some work in both. It depends on the type of evidence involved. Climate science includes evidence from geology, palaeontology, oceanography, radiosonde and satellite observations, historical research, biology, ecology, environmental science, and many other fields of study. As we already mentioned, it's the consilience of so many lines of evidence that lend confidence to the conclusions concerning anthropogenic climate change.

Anonymous DrTorch July 03, 2014 3:36 PM  

Similarly, while the overall energy of the Earth's surface is increasing, it is transported between the various parts of the system; hydrosphere, atmosphere, cryosphere, biosphere; chaotically. It sloshes turbulently between these components, but the overall movement is towards a higher energy state.

So energy is moving towards a higher energy state? Uh no. That really doesn't make any sense quite frankly.
Nor does your notion that energy "sloshes around chaotically". That's not how thermodynamics works. Energy flows from a higher energy state to a lower one.

And the NOAA charts disagree w/ other published values, so you again cherry pick the data you like, while ignoring others. Moreover, comparisons to historical data are questionable b/c of the dearth of historical data.

It is largely conjecture that the alleged increased energy of the Earth's atmosphere now resides in the oceans. It is conjecture that has only been posited since the temperature data that originally inspired the AGW panic no longer support that hypothesis. It is conjecture that is not well supported by all the collected empirical data, and conjecture that if established, would undoubtedly destroy all the previous climate models that have been used to promote AGW.

It is a no win situation for the catastrophists. The empirical data has proved their hypothesis (in its current state) wrong.

Blogger Zachriel July 03, 2014 3:55 PM  

DrTorch: So energy is moving towards a higher energy state?

Um, no. The Earth's surface (hydrosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, atmosphere) is moving towards a higher energy state.

DrTorch: That's not how thermodynamics works. Energy flows from a higher energy state to a lower one.

As energy flows through a system, it can create turbulence. In particular, ENSO cycles heat into the deep ocean and back.

DrTorch: And the NOAA charts disagree w/ other published values, so you again cherry pick the data you like, while ignoring others.

We provided specifics, you provide generalities. Which NOAA charts disagree with what other published values?

DrTorch: Moreover, comparisons to historical data are questionable b/c of the dearth of historical data.

There are a lot of ways to surmise past temperatures, such as through ice cores.

DrTorch: It is largely conjecture that the alleged increased energy of the Earth's atmosphere now resides in the oceans.

We can directly measure the heat of the oceans.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/pictures.html

Blogger James Dixon July 03, 2014 4:05 PM  

> The distribution of heat in the geosphere is chaotic, however, the overall energy is increasing.

And yet temperatures aren't.

> Energy is increasing.

And yet temperatures aren't.

> The Earth's surface (hydrosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, atmosphere) is moving towards a higher energy state.

And yet temperatures refuse to rise in accordance with the AGW theories.



Blogger Zachriel July 03, 2014 4:08 PM  

James Dixon: And yet temperatures aren't.

For surface temperature, the warmest years on record are all since 1998. Ocean temperatures continue to rise. As the increased energy is distributed, surface temperatures will tend to rise.

Anonymous Legatus July 03, 2014 5:12 PM  

The two most important numbers about "Global Warming". 0.7 and 2.1.

The theory is, the sun hits the earth, it warms, gives off infra-red radiation, which is then trapped by the "greenhouse gasses", which are water vapor, water vapor, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone, and a few other very minor gasses. When it is trapped, it warms the surrounding non-greenhouse gasses, and radiates it's own infra-red radiation, half of it downward, which further warms the earth (a little). The theory is, more carbon dioxide will result in more of the latter warming.

The problem, we can measure the warming of the air when infra-red is trapped by the atmosphere, an almost direct measurement of "global warming" at it's prime source (the increased infra-red at the earths surface varies so much it is basically impossible to measure). The predicted increase of temperature at 12Km altitude in the tropics, where the majority of this effect will be seen, is 2.1C. The measured warming at that altitude is 0.7C, 1/3 the predicted amount. That means two things 1. "global warming" is real, and 2. it is too small to be worried about, 1/3 or less the predicted amount is 1C or less, harmless, or even actually beneficial, and well within the norm of the last 10,000 years or so.

In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.
It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. – Richard Feynman

Computed, 2.1C, measured, 0.7C, any questions?

Now you might say "carbon dioxide must warm the earth, it's just physics!". There are a number of explanations, one of which follows. The sun hits the earth, and 71% of the time it hits water. A little more infra-red at the surface does not warm the earth, because infra-red cannot penetrate water. All that happens is the water evaporates a little sooner, and at about 11AM the usual thunderstorm forms, as it does every day the second the temperature hits the threshold temperature, and eventually joins a huge collection of squall lines of thunderstorms around the daylight equator that forms every day. When the thunderstorm forms, it first creates shade, which cools the earth. It also moves all that heat/energy up to high altitude, where it can more easily radiate off into space (bypassing being trapped by CO2). When that results in cooling, it rains, cooling the surface. The thunderstorm disappears when the sun goes down, allowing heat from the surface to radiate freely to space at night (around midnight). This also results in dry air falling at about 30 degrees north and south of the equator, resulting in dry sunny places like southern Italy and California, drenched in risen and dried out air (rained out) by the thunderstorms at the equator. These thunderstorms are one reason the temperature of the earth has actually been remarkably stable over time. A little more infra-red radiation just means the thunderstorm shows up a few minutes earlier in the day, with a result of little or no increase of temperature.

Blogger James Dixon July 03, 2014 8:20 PM  

> For surface temperature, the warmest years on record are all since 1998.

Complete and total BS.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259012/Global-warming-Met-Office-releases-revised-global-temperature-predictions-showing-planet-NOT-rapidly-heating-up.html

http://www.infowars.com/no-global-warming-since-1998-as-planet-cools-off/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/19/warming-lull-since-1998-must-be-explained-scientists-behind-landmark-un-climate-change-report-say/

http://www.thegwpf.org/researchers-puzzled-global-warming-standstill/

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/04/an-explanation-for-lack-of-warming-since-1998/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html

When even the NY Times says you're lying, you've pretty much exhausted your credibility. Not that you ever had any to start with.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 03, 2014 8:35 PM  

You are claiming observational bias, that present events can be discerned in greater detail than older events.

Wow, you are fucking stupid. No wonder you believe AGW, you can't follow the most basic logic. And no wonder you don't flinch at the data fabrication your crowd engages in, you don't really comprehend the difference between bias and resolution. I suspect you don't really understand anything about science, you just parrot talking points you get from some warmingmonger website.

Or do you get them from the mouse in your pocket?

Blogger Zachriel July 03, 2014 8:38 PM  

Legatus: The predicted increase of temperature at 12Km altitude in the tropics, where the majority of this effect will be seen, is 2.1C.

The tropical tropospheric hotspot is predicted to occur due to changes in the lapse rate, regardless of the source of warming, hence is not a signature of anthropogenic global warming. The data is rather sparse, but is not inconsistent with the existence of the tropical tropospheric hotspot.

Santer et al., Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, International Journal of Climatology 2008.

Legatus: A little more infra-red radiation just means the thunderstorm shows up a few minutes earlier in the day, with a result of little or no increase of temperature.

Um, you do realize that there is no reasonable scientific doubt about the greenhouse effect generally?

Legatus: These thunderstorms are one reason the temperature of the earth has actually been remarkably stable over time.

The Earth has gone from being nearly completely covered in ice, to virtually no ice at all. That's hardly stable. Rather, it indicates that the Earth see-saws between different equilibrium points.

Blogger Zachriel July 03, 2014 8:44 PM  

Zachriel: For surface temperature, the warmest years on record are all since 1998.

James Dixon: {snip multiple links}

None of the articles, none of which are considered scientifically authoritative, address the claim.

"With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record."
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html

Blogger James Dixon July 03, 2014 11:15 PM  

> None of the articles, none of which are considered scientifically authoritative, address the claim.

Which only goes to show you didn't bother to read them.

Lying can only get you so far. Eventually people figure it out and stop listening. NASA and the NOAA have been caught lying too many times. And your parroting their lies doesn't make them true.

Anonymous Toby Temple July 04, 2014 2:59 AM  

James Dixon. You have to understand.

He's a liar. Not a fighter.

OpenID simplytimothy July 04, 2014 8:30 AM  

None of the articles, none of which are considered scientifically authoritative, address the claim.

The bold text has been one method in their strategy since we first learned about it in FOI.zip; disqualify as 'not scientifically authoritative' those with whom they disagree. The dissenting party then has 2 obstacles to overcome--his creds and his science. Not that the statists give a damn about the latter. . They cannot do that anymore. The scientific community--i.e. not the state paid actors who have discredited themselves--has earned this victory over the anti-science AGW fraudsters.

A helper to their strategy of disqualification was/is the active collusion of media/scientific journals in suppressing evidence that contradicted their claims; this too was revealed in FOI.zip.

Since the release of that data, men and women of integrity found the fortitude to soldier on and defeat the lies of these monstrously evil men. They have defeated them with data and science and the free exchange of ideas.

Ironically, Al Gore's Internet played a pivotal role in defeating Al Gore's AGW.

You will notice that Zachriel provides us with no links to his website where he shows us his study/research; Tell us, Zachriel, where is your original work? Have you the courage of Steve Goddard at Real Science to make your claims and present your evidence for them?






Blogger Zachriel July 04, 2014 9:43 AM  

James Dixon: Which only goes to show you didn't bother to read them.

This is our comment at issue: For surface temperature, the warmest years on record are all since 1998. Let's start with the first link, shall we?


James Delingpole: And it's what Phil Jones admitted in a BBC interview when he said that there had been no "statistically significant" warming since 1995.

That doesn't address our comment. Measured surface temperatures have increased somewhat, but not quite at the 2σ level. That means there is a near 95% (but not quite) probability that the measured temperature increase represents a real increase in temperature. It's reasonable to say that surface temperatures have plateaued somewhat, but that doesn't address the claim at issue. The hottest measured global mean surface temperatures have all occurred since 1998 (inclusive).

Blogger Zachriel July 04, 2014 9:46 AM  

simplytimothy: You will notice that Zachriel provides us with no links to his website where he shows us his study/research

There's no reason to reinvent the wheel. The research is ongoing.
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/

OpenID simplytimothy July 04, 2014 9:52 AM  

The research is ongoing.

I was looking for your research and or work. not jpl.

thx.

Blogger Zachriel July 04, 2014 9:56 AM  

simplytimothy: I was looking for your research and or work.

Never said we did research in climate science. There are plenty of scientists who work in that field, though, as we pointed out.
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/

Anonymous maniacprovost July 04, 2014 10:35 AM  

This raises a good point. If you were able to measure the volatility of the climate over different time periods, and show that it is different in some way over the last 300 years, that would be better evidence of CO2 induced warming than the actual warming itself.

Blogger Zachriel July 04, 2014 10:45 AM  

maniacprovost: If you were able to measure the volatility of the climate over different time periods, and show that it is different in some way over the last 300 years, that would be better evidence of CO2 induced warming than the actual warming itself.

Current rates of climate change are estimated to be about 10x the rate at any time in the last 65 million years. See Diffenbaugh & Field, Changes in Ecologically Critical Terrestrial Climate Conditions, Science 2013.

However, the basic thermodynamics still apply. While the geosphere continues to absorb more energy than it emits, it will continue to warm.

Blogger James Dixon July 04, 2014 7:43 PM  

> You have to understand. ... He's a liar. Not a fighter.

Oh, I understand quite well, Toby. And he's not even an original one. He's merely parroting the lies of others, without even fully understanding them.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 05, 2014 11:36 AM  

The hail in Spain falls at levels that are mainly insane

Anonymous The other skeptic July 05, 2014 11:38 AM  

However, the basic thermodynamics still apply. While the geosphere continues to absorb more energy than it emits, it will continue to warm.

So, how much more energy does it absorb than it emits, what is the impulse response, and how does that energy surplus/deficit compare with the amount dumped into the geosphere every day by that large fusion device that is almost 83M miles away?

Anonymous The other skeptic July 05, 2014 11:49 AM  

Never said we did research in climate science. There are plenty of scientists who work in that field, though, as we pointed out.
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/


You mean the propaganda is ongoing.

Pretty soon NASA will be at the level of The Old Negro Space Program

Blogger Zachriel July 05, 2014 8:50 PM  

The other skeptic: So, how much more energy does it absorb than it emits, what is the impulse response?

0.58± 0.15 W/m2
Hansen et al., Earth's energy imbalance and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2011.

The other skeptic: and how does that energy surplus/deficit compare with the amount dumped into the geosphere every day by that large fusion device that is almost 83M miles away?

The Sun is about 93 million miles away from Earth, and receives about 342 W/m2. The energy imbalance is what causes the Earth's surface to warm.

Anonymous maniacprovost July 06, 2014 3:54 PM  

However, the basic thermodynamics still apply. While the geosphere continues to absorb more energy than it emits, it will continue to warm.

You post things like this and then don't understand our collective contempt for those government employees who call themselves scientists? I am quite familiar with the laws of thermodynamics.

Hansen et al., Earth's energy imbalance and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2011.

Although I have several quibbles with this paper, since it contains no "original" research and no detailed explanation of its meta-analysis, I guess they don't matter. The estimate of the aerosol forcing magnitude may be quite useful. I would like to point out that the author brings up the inertial problem I alluded to earlier... "common descent"... that most of the research tends to use the same basic methods and assumptions of the original research, and come to the same conclusions.

So, given that it is impossible to reduce the CO2 content of the atmosphere to this paper's recommended target of 350 ppm by reducing fossil fuel useage, what can we do?

1) Create refineries to spray aerosols fo rthe next century or two and cause negative forcing.

2) Create working fusion

3) Use existing fission technology

4) Economically viable extraction of CO2 from the air (or ocean) and recycling into hydrocarbons, or some other commodity... We do this for Bio Organic Architectural Reinforcement Devices on a limited scale.

5) Hydrogen Economy! Where the hydrogen is produced via magic.

Whatever it is needs to be profitable, or at least provide an opportunity for widespread graft, or it will not be adopted at the required scale.

Blogger Zachriel July 06, 2014 4:44 PM  

maniacprovost: You post things like this and then don't understand our collective contempt for those government employees who call themselves scientists?

Your contempt is not an argument.

maniacprovost: what can we do?

The question we were discussing was whether the data shows the Earth is warming. Are we clear on that issue now?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/giss_temperature.png

Anonymous maniacprovost July 07, 2014 10:46 AM  

Actually, the question we are discussing, if you read the OP, is why climate scientists keep changing the underlying data in a suspicious manner. "Why we have contempt for scientists" is completely relevant.

So far I have seen nothing that makes me think the Earth is warming with any certainty. I've been exposed to pop science articles for years, starting with the Discover Magazine Special Issue that was all about global warming, and continuing with the annoying Ars Technica propaganda efforts. I've looked over the raw data. I've even read two of the scientific papers you linked here.

Hey, I'm a genius. That doesn't mean I can understand everything in those papers, loathe as I am to admit it. That doesn't mean I have time to read the long chain of articles and citations necessary to get to the one that contains original thought and judge it for myself. That doesn't mean I have any particular authority. I have to rely on specialists in that field.

But I can't. And if I can't rely on the professional integrity of climate scientists, no one else can either. That's why our contempt is relevant.

Actually, I admire your persistence and work ethic in trying to convince a bunch of troglodytes who refuse to be convinced.

All that does nothing for two reasons: 1) The temperature record is nothing special, or particularly alarming, unless you put it through enough algorithms to produce some variant of a hockey stick which is plainly NOT evident in the underlying data 2) The models are questionable, and 3) The people most stridently arguing for AGW are the same people who lie about everything else.

It's going to be pretty ironic if the Progressives' fascist takeover of the Academic Institutions results in the extinction of mankind because nobody believes anything they say.

I am perfectly prepared to believe that pumping pollutants into the atmosphere on an industrial scale is bad. Global Warming is a pretty sound theory. Unfortunately, we probably won't have enough observational data to prove it's a problem until it is unstoppable. And if a simple curve fit isn't enough... If it takes a decade of specialization to understand the science necessary to show AGW... then how do you expect to convince anyone that does not have that decade of experience? You have only the trust people place in the specialists, which is now Zero.

They stood by and said nothing when Al Gore made his garbage.

They stand by and say nothing while progressives hijack AGW for their own purposes, misrepresenting it in the process with various sophistries because the progressives don't really understand it either.

They falsify data and allow articles to be published without meaningful peer review.

They take public money and use it to fund their "research" which consists of sitting in front of a computer and creating yet another shoddy curve fit.

The question we were discussing was whether the data shows the Earth is warming. Are we clear on that issue now?

No, because I don't really care whether the Earth is warming. That is not helpful information. I am not full of curiosity. I don't vote myself other peoples' money and then live on it while I debate useless theories on the internet.

We've established the Earth is maybe probably warming now, and it might be worse than the other Billion times the Earth has warmed,here's a possible mechanism, and maybe we should do something to stop it.

You say "What can we do?" is not the issue we are discussing, but THAT WAS THE CONCLUSION OF THE LAST ARTICLE YOU POSTED. IT TOLD US WHAT WE SHOULD DO.

If you are willing to concede we should do nothing whatsoever to stop AGW, then I will concede it's real and that all the fish in the sea will be boiled within 20 years. Then we both win, according to your terms of debate.

Blogger Zachriel July 07, 2014 11:28 AM  

maniacprovost: Actually, the question we are discussing, if you read the OP, is why climate scientists keep changing the underlying data in a suspicious manner.

They don't change the underlying data. The raw data has clear problems, so they analyze the data to determine the actual trend. Both the raw data and the homogenized data are available.

maniacprovost: And if I can't rely on the professional integrity of climate scientists, no one else can either. That's why our contempt is relevant.

There are thousands of scientists working in many different specialties with different methodologies, in different countries and political systems and cultures, all reaching the same basic conclusion. Ad hominem is not an effective argument.

maniacprovost: They falsify data and allow articles to be published without meaningful peer review.

While scientists are subject to all the usual foibles that beset all humankind, there is no evidence that these thousands of scientists are falsifying their data.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts