AndersB

The Global Warming 'Hockey Stick' is debunked

83 posts in this topic

I am very much in favour of moving towards sustainable and renewable energy sources.

I am very much against an Emissions Trading Scheme, as it seems to be based on many shaky assumptions.

Even though it is obvious that the global climate change naturally with time, I am highly suspicious of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

Steve McIntyre (a mathematician) has now debunked the 'hockey stick' chart that formed the basis for IPCC's position and the subsequent Climate Change research bonanza. This has been discussed in layman's terms here:

http://bishophill.sq...-implosion.html

The Yamal implosion

September 29, 2009

...

The story of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick reconstruction, its statistical bias and the influence of the bristlecone pines is well known. McIntyre's research into the other reconstructions has received less publicity, however. The story of the Yamal chronology may change that. The bristlecone pines that created the shape of the Hockey Stick graph are used in nearly every millennial temperature reconstruction around today, but there are also a handful of other tree ring series that are nearly as common and just as influential on the results. Back at the start of McIntyre's research into the area of paleoclimate, one of the most significant of these was called Polar Urals, a chronology first published by Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. At the time, it was used in pretty much every temperature reconstruction around. In his paper, Briffa made the startling claim that the coldest year of the millennium was AD 1032, a statement that, if true, would have completely overturned the idea of the Medieval Warm Period. It is not hard to see why paleoclimatologists found the series so alluring.

keith.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1254256593243Keith Briffa

Some of McIntyre's research into Polar Urals deserves a story in its own right, but it is one that will have to wait for another day. We can pick up the narrative again in 2005, when McIntyre discovered that an update to the Polar Urals series had been collected in 1999. Through a contact he was able to obtain a copy of the revised series. Remarkably, in the update the eleventh century appeared to be much warmer than in the original - in fact it was higher even than the twentieth century. This must have been a severe blow to paleoclimatologists, a supposition that is borne out by what happened next, or rather what didn't: the update to the Polar Urals was not published, it was not archived and it was almost never seen again.

With Polar Urals now unusable, paleclimatologists had a pressing need for a hockey stick shaped replacement and a solution appeared in the nick of time in the shape of a series from the nearby location of Yamal.

...

When McIntyre started to look at the Osborn and Briffa paper in 2006, he quickly ran into the problem of the Yamal chronology: he needed to understand exactly how the difference between the Briffa and Hantemirov versions of Yamal had arisen. McIntyre therefore wrote to the Englishman asking for the original tree ring measurements involved. When Briffa refused, McIntyre wrote to Science, who had published the new paper, pointing out that, since it was now six years since Briffa had originally published his version of the chronology, there could be no reason for withholding the underlying data. After some deliberation, the editors at Science declined the request, deciding that Briffa did not have to publish anything more as he had merely re-used data from an earlier study. McIntyre should, they advised, approach the author of the earlier study, that author being, of course, Briffa himself. Wearily, McIntyre wrote to Briffa again, this time in his capacity as author of the original study in Quaternary Science Reviews and he was, as expected, turned down flat.

RSTB_362_1479_thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1254256711810

...

A reader pointed out that the Royal Society had what appeared to be a fairly clear and robust policy on data availability:

As a condition of acceptance authors agree to honour any reasonable request by other researchers for materials, methods, or data necessary to verify the conclusion of the article...Supplementary data up to 10 Mb is placed on the Society's website free of charge and is publicly accessible. Large datasets must be deposited in a recognised public domain database by the author prior to submission. The accession number should be provided for inclusion in the published article.

Having had his requests rejected by every other journal he had approached, McIntyre had no great expectations that the Royal Society would be any different, but there was no harm in trying and he duly sent off an email pointing out that Briffa had failed to meet the Society's requirement of archiving his data prior to submission and that the editors had failed to check that Briffa had done so. The reply, to McIntyre's surprise, was very encouraging:

We take matters like this very seriously and I am sorry that this was not picked up in the publishing process.

Was the Royal Society, in a striking contrast to every other journal in the field, about to enforce its own data availability policy? Had Briffa made a fatal mistake?

...

When McIntyre started to look at the numbers it was clear that there were going to be the usual problems with a lack of metadata, but there was more than just this. In typical climate science fashion, just scratching at the surface of the Briffa archive raised as many questions as it answered. Why did Briffa only have half the number of cores covering the Medieval Warm Period that the Russian had reported? And why were there so few cores in Briffa's twentieth century? By 1988 there were only 12 cores used, an amazingly small number in what should have been the part of the record when it was easiest to obtain data. By 1990 the count was only ten, dropping still further to just five in 1995. Without an explanation of how the selection of this sample of the available data had been performed, the suspicion of `cherrypicking' would linger over the study, although it is true to say that Hantemirov also had very few cores in the equivalent period, so it is possible that this selection had been due to the Russian and not Briffa.

The lack of twentieth century data was still more remarkable when the Yamal chronology was compared to the Polar Urals series, to which it was now apparently preferred. The ten or twelve cores used in Yamal was around half the number available at Polar Urals, which should presumably therefore have been considered the more reliable. Why then had climatologists almost all preferred to use Yamal? Could it be because it had a hockey stick shape?

None of these questions was likely to be answered without an answer to the question of which trees came from which locations. Hantemirov had made it clear in his paper that the data had been collected over a wide area - Yamal was an expanse of river valleys rather than a single location. Knowing exactly which trees came from where might well throw some light onto the question of why Briffa's reconstruction had a hockey stick shape but Hantemirov's didn't.

...

At the same time, McIntyre's rough cut approach assigned 103 cores to Taimyr, a number which meant that there were still over 100 cores still unallocated. The only way to resolve this conundrum was by a brute force technique of comparing the tree identification numbers in the dataset to tree ring data in the archives. In this way, McIntyre was finally able to work out the provenance of at least some of the data.

Forty-two of the cores turned out to be from a location called Balschaya Kamenka, some 400 km from Taimyr. The data had been collected by the Swiss researcher, Fritz Schweingruber. The fact that the use of Schweingruber's data had not been reported by Briffa was odd in itself, but what intrigued McIntyre was why Briffa had used Balschaya Kamenka and not any of the other Schweingruber sites in the area. Several of these were much closer to Taimyr -- Aykali River was one example, and another, Novaja Rieja, was almost next door.

By this point then, McIntyre knew that Briffa's version of Yamal was very short of twentieth century data, having used just a selection of the available cores, although the grounds on which this selection had been made was not clear. It was also obvious that there was a great deal of alternative data available from the region, Briffa having been happy to supplement Taimyr with data from other locations such as Avam and Balschaya Kamenka. Why then had he not supplemented Yamal in a similar way, in order to bring the number of cores up to an acceptable level?

The reasoning behind Briffa's subsample selection may have been a mystery, but with the other information McIntyre had gleaned, it was still possible to perform some tests on its validity. This could be done by performing a simple sensitivity test, replacing the twelve cores that Briffa had used for the modern sections of Yamal with some of the other available data. Sure enough, there was a suitable Schweingruber series called Khadyta River close by to Yamal, and with 34 cores, it represented a much more reliable basis for reconstructing temperatures.

McIntyre therefore prepared a revised dataset, replacing Briffa's selected 12 cores with the 34 from Khadyta River. The revised chronology was simply staggering. The sharp uptick in the series at the end of the twentieth century had vanished, leaving a twentieth century apparently without a significant trend. The blade of the Yamal hockey stick, used in so many of those temperature reconstructions that the IPCC said validated Michael Mann's work, was gone.

rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1254253317294

It is interesting in the chart above, how McIntyre's black line follows Briffa's red plot line up until the last century, where McIntyre used the full data set, instead of the cherry-picking 12 or 5 samples that Briffa did!

AGW "science" seems highly fraudulent!

Here is the original McIntyre blog:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is an article about it written by The Register:

http://www.theregist.../yamal_scandal/

Treemometers: A new scientific scandal

If a peer review fails in the woods... By Andrew Orlowski

29th September 2009 16:03 GMT

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers. At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC's assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

...

In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.

How could this be? Scientists have ensured much of the measurement data used in the reconstructions remains a secret - failing to fulfill procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious peer reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.

At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal's mystery is no more.

From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.

...

And when Yamal is plotted against the wider range of cores, the implications of the choice is striking:

rcs_chronologies_rev.gif

A comparison of Yamal RCS chronologies. red - as archived with 12 picked cores; black - including Schweingruber's Khadyta River, Yamal (russ035w) archive and excluding 12 picked cores. Both smoothed with 21-year gaussian smooth. y-axis is in dimensionless chronology units centered on 1 (as are subsequent graphs (but represent age-adjusted ring width).

"The majority of these trees (like the Graybill bristlecones) have a prolonged growth pulse (for whatever reason) starting in the 19th century," wrote Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre on his blog on Sunday. "When a one-size fits all age profile is applied to these particular tries, the relatively vigorous growth becomes monster growth - 8 sigma anomalies in some of them."

McIntyre's determination to reproduce the reconstructions has resulted in the Yamal data finally coming to light.

All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who mutually support each other's work. All use Yamal data. And without the Yamal data, the temperature record shows a very different shape.

...

The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it.

...

When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did here?

The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results. Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive for almost a decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is an article about it written by The Register:

http://www.theregist.../yamal_scandal/

Science is the new religion. As we have seen on other forums there is a significant number of people that choose a side without even faintly having the rudimentary knowledge to ascertain whether they have chosen the side that is correct.

Then they get all excited and read the articles they want to read.

I do feel sorry for science (as an anthropological entity) though.

There are so many supporters of "science" that are so bad for the reputation of the real scientists that it is no wonder we have people taking advantage of the money and fame that can be garnered from "science".

One only has to look at boingboing (denizens of which I have many problems with) to see this kind of nonsense in action.

Shame really.

A fun thing is trying to get the worshippers at the alter of science to admit they are worshipping. By the end of a thread you can normally make a lovely comparison to a religious spiel by one of their foresworn enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the two years before this one I lived through record cold, frost most days, anything even remotely damp outside turning into an icecube and widespread crop failure due to cold. My car looks lovely with an inch thick layer of ice crystals, glinting in the 9am sun. The people down the road clocked -20 on their shed thermometer, my verandah only got to -10 but I've got 50cm thick stone walls with good thermal mass keeping it toasty warm there.

This year wasn't so bad, but we had enough hail last week to leave a lovely white carpet over everything. The first 4 years I had my old house a few things froze, but not THIS bad.

So I call global cooling B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very much in favour of moving towards sustainable and renewable energy sources.

I am very much against an Emissions Trading Scheme, as it seems to be based on many shaky assumptions.

Even though it is obvious that the global climate change naturally with time, I am highly suspicious of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

Steve McIntyre (a mathematician) has now debunked the 'hockey stick' chart that formed the basis for IPCC's position and the subsequent Climate Change research bonanza. This has been discussed in layman's terms here:

Laymans terms, lol, I am afraid not layman enough for me Anders.

Anyway you do not need tree rings, ice cores or any physical evidence of a warm period after the turn of the last millenium. Look at Greenland and you will see plenty of evidence of farms, homesteads, roads etc that would never be habitable today in the way the land was used by the Nords 800 to 1000 odd years ago. Inuits can survive there due to living off the fruits of the sea rather than agricultural pursuits but the former Nordic residents after a very productive few hundred years pulled up stumps and left. Anyway I am not even sure what side of the argument is arguing there was not a warm period 1000 odd years ago, but I think the evidence is certainly pointing to there having been one hotter than the present climate.

Anyway, then on human generated CO2 causing warming, I had this discussion with artie over on GHPC so I am glad I get to follow on here on a more suitable site for such discussions, I am no expert but I am afraid it seems reasonably simple to me:

1. 500Million years ago the world was a much warmer place with higher levels of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere.

2. This CO2 was locked up in swamps, and much got bedded down and now exists as coal and oil.

3. The remaining carbon is on the surface and sits in the carbon cycle.

4. While the human generated carbon dioxide is small compared to that in the natural cycle it is not being all taken up in plants etc as it is not getting bedded down quick enough in new oil deposits etc which took 100,000's years to develop. Anyway we know for a fact that CO2 levels are increasing with industrialisation, right, from ice cores?

5. Light reflects off planet earth, some passes through the atmosphere not even hitting the land etc. Dust, gas particles, especially heavy ones are going to have an effect on climate the same way smog does already as a local affect. The difference is this will be of a global nature, as we know CO2 is nice and random throughout the atmosphere, it does a good job of dispersing itself around the globe once it is airborne.

6. Finally if the planet heats up, the oceans will heat up, if fluids heat up they expand. Good thing our water is not mercury. lol. Now I know water has a pretty low thermal coefficient of expansion but when it is a few km deep in parts, even one degree makes a difference.

Anyway, don't get me wrong I am not paniking about any of the above. Remember these are the reasons people do engineering, to solve problems like the above. Rising sea levels, fresh water wetlands turning into salty mangroves, these things can be fixed by engineers, or at least their impact on humanity can be reduced. This could be what keeps us civil engineers going through this century now that big infrastructure programs by our Australian government instead of, like the good old days, being hydroelectric plants, dams, bridges or ports are now just national optical fibre networks, puke. Do you think our kids in 50 years will be talking about the forward thinking rudd and his broadband network. Anyway I digress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is astonishing that a multi $trillion scheme world-wide is going to be based on such controversial "science"!!! :angry:

Here is an Australian blogger that has written a fairly simple explanation about the "hockey-stick" fraud:

http://joannenova.co...ic-proportions/

Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Historic Proportions

A big news day. It appears Steve McIntyre (volunteer unpaid auditor of Big-Government-Science) has killed the Hockey Stick a second time

tombstone-web.jpg

The details are on the last three days of Steve McIntyre’s site Climate Audit, and summed up beautifully on Watts Up. The sheer effrontery and gall appears to be breathtaking.

The Briffa temperature graphs have been widely cited as evidence by the IPCC, yet it appears they were based on a very carefully selected set of data, so select, that the shape of the graph would have been totally transformed if the rest of the data had been included.

Kieth Briffa used 12 samples to arrive at his version of the hockey stick and refused to provide his data for years. When McIntyre finally got hold of it, and looked at the 34 samples that Briffa left out of his graphs, a stark message was displayed. McIntyre describes it today as one of the most disquieting images he’s ever presented.

rcs_chronologies1v2.gif

Background

Since 1995 Kieth Briffa has been publishing graphs about temperature of the last thousand years. Like Michael Manns’ famous (and discredited) Hockey Stick graph, Briffa’s graphs were based on tree rings and appeared to show dramatic evidence that the current climate was extraordinarily warm compared to previous years. They were used in the infamous spagetti plots, and the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report, and recycled in other publications giving the impression they had been replicated. His work has even made it into school resources (Cimate Discovery, p4). His publications since 2000 are listed here.

Unaudited science

Suspiciously Briffa refused repeated requests to provide the Yamal data that his analysis was based on (something about the data belonging to the Russians). As Steve McIntyre points out, this kind of data should be archived and freely available after any peer reviewed paper is published.

Last year Briffa published a paper in a journal (Philosophical Transactions of Biology, the Royal Society) that did maintain basic standards (after being prodded) and a few days ago McIntyre noticed the data was finally up. This data had been used in papers going back as far as 2000. (And no one thought to politely inform McIntyre that the information he’d requested for years was now available?)

Hiding data in science is equivalent to a company issuing it’s annual report and telling the auditors that the receipts are commercial in confidence and they would just have to trust them. No court of law would accept that, yet at the “top” levels of science, papers have been allowed to sit as show-pieces for years without any chance that anyone could seriously verify their findings. In science, getting the stamp of Peer Review has become like a free pass to “credibility”.

Science is broken

So much for the repeat claims that peer review is a “rigorous process”. Those who keep telling us we have to “listen to the experts” and who put so much stock in a peer reviewed paper have been left hanging out to dry. Even if Briffa has a reason to exclude 2/3rds of the samples and somehow it’s just a coincidence that the ignored data were from slower growing trees, nothing changes the fact that he didn’t mention that in the paper, and nor, damningly, did he provide the data. It only takes a sentence to say (for example) “ABC tree chronologies excluded due to artificial herbicide damage” and it only takes a few minutes to email a data file.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Anders does seem very dodgy. I think both sides discredit themselves though with such dodgy science. It is not limited to the for camp, they just have more funds so, put out more dodgy science.

I suppose without that rising temperature over the post industrial world you then have to ask yourself with CO2 rising each year why has temperatures not risen? Hmmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Anders does seem very dodgy. I think both sides discredit themselves though with such dodgy science. It is not limited to the for camp, they just have more funds so, put out more dodgy science.

I suppose without that rising temperature over the post industrial world you then have to ask yourself with CO2 rising each year why has temperatures not risen? Hmmm...

Being absorbed in a buffer is the answer I think provided. I remember faintly reading about the atlantic flow in the 90's being the thing. that was going to blow up any moment.

Except the moment was a "well we don't know how much it can absorb and so the moment is on a geographic scale"

I still think if we have dodged the global recession we ought to rape the rest of the world now while we have the bucks to try it.

Pull our economy down into a recession and hope we get something cool out of it to make us the next suadi's

Even if it fails, well everyone else did too so what ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This news a couple of weeks ago is really good. It is yet another nail in the coffin of absurdity of AGW.

I have just finished reading Heaven and Earth by Ian Plimer, which I recommend for anyone who wants to get to the bottom of the real science and develop a sensible, logical understanding of how the planet works and what is really known and unknown. It baffles me how Porf. Plimer is regarded as the 'antichrist' in the AGW debate, and his work ridiculed by the media including unfortunatel the ABC. I wonder how many of these people have actually read the book or are following the 'gospel line'. Anyone who wishes to have a factual account and understanding of the science should take the time to read the book at this important time.

A second book I have just finished is The Climate Caper by Garth Paltridge. Again I recommend this small book for the interesting background of the development of the AGW religion based around very questionable and often downright deceptive 'science'. Prof. Paltridge is eminently qualified and sufficiently connected to the AGW fraternity to provide a very revealing insight.

My interest in the CC debate (or silly Monty Pythonesque argument really) is that many of the professions, tertiary institutions and the bulding industry as a whole are affected by the argument, and unfortunately the real humanity issues are not being debated or developed. Everything is either carbon-footprint or sea-level rise. We are even now bombarded with pressure to consider how we can move entire major cities due to the impending inundation of our coastal areas, and now the suggestion that this will occur suddenly within the next 10-20 years. While people are busy looking for the new overpriced home, the movement in the background is taking the supply-side considerations to the absurd, and quite frankly the unachievable. It is important to note that ongoing changes in building legislation right now are changing the built outcomes for time to come, and in many cases, within an inevitable framework of much higher costs. The AGW influence is much larger than most people realise, and in my opinion should be reigned in as soon as possible to prevent this AGW nonsense causing irreversable negative consequences to society as a whole.

My interests are not in the hypothetical 'environmental refugees', but entirely in how to accomodate the local Economic Refugees after the crash, and develop a new healthier society and relevant built environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is quite amazing that none of the major news media have done any reporting of this.

A quick search today just produced this:

http://voices.washin...climate_ho.html

Where McIntyres chart including the full data was not even shown. The article also gave good coverage of the rebuttal from climate scientists. However as usual they do not answer the issue of selective us of data, instead they go for the credibility of the McIntyre and that he is no position to be taken seriously. They also came up with a lot of other arguments why AGW is correct - but fails to address the McIntyre assertion of fraudulent use of data by Briffa. :rolleyes:

http://www.realclima.../09/hey-ya-mal/

"Apparently everything we've done in our entire careers is a 'MASSIVE lie' (sic) because all of radiative physics, climate history, the instrumental record, modeling and satellite observations turn out to be based on 12 trees in an obscure part of Siberia. Who knew?" RealClimate's scientists wrote in a group post. The RealClimate scienitsts also question the validity of what they call "Blog Science" as compared with peer-reviewed science.

"There is nothing wrong with people putting together new chronologies of tree rings or testing the robustness of previous results to updated data or new methodologies. Or even thinking about what would happen if it was all wrong," RealClimate stated. "What is objectionable is the conflation of technical criticism with unsupported, unjustified and unverified accusations of scientific misconduct. Steve McIntyre keeps insisting that he should be treated like a professional. But how professional is it to continue to slander scientists with vague insinuations and spin made-up tales of perfidy out of the whole cloth instead of submitting his work for peer-review?

"Peer-review is nothing sinister and not part of some global conspiracy, but instead it is the process by which people are forced to match their rhetoric to their actual results."

Actually, I just found another media article from the UK Telegraph:

http://blogs.telegra...ne-massive-lie/

How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie

By James Delingpole

September 29th, 2009

For the growing band of AGW “Sceptics” the following story is dynamite. And for those who do believe in Al Gore’s highly profitable myth about “Man-Made Global Warming”, it will no doubt feel as comfortable as the rectally inserted suicide bomb that put paid to an Al Qaeda operative earlier this week. Now read on.

Those of you who saw An Inconvenient Truth may remember, if you weren’t asleep by that stage, the key scene where big green Al deploys his terrifying graph to show how totally screwed we all are by man-made global warming. This graph – known as the Hockey Stick Curve – purports to show rising global temperatures through the ages. In the part representing the late twentieth century it shoots up almost vertically. To emphasise his point that this is serious and that if we don’t act NOW we’re doomed, Al Gore – wearing a wry smile which says: “Sure folks, this is kinda funny. But don’t forget how serious it is too” – climbs on to a mini-lift in order to be able to reach the top of the chart. Cue consensual gasps from his parti pris audience.

Except that the graph – devised in 1998 by a US climatologist called Dr Michael Mann - is based on a huge lie, as Sceptics have been saying for quite some time. The first thing they noticed is that this “Hockey Stick” (based on tree ring data, one of the most accurate ways of recording how climate changes over the centuries) is that it seemed completely to omit the Medieval Warming Period.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha! Here is a funny article by Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute.

It's a bit like "sorry, you can't verify my research - the dog ate my AGW data":

http://article.natio...ZWI5OWM=&w=MA==

The Dog Ate Global Warming

Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?

By Patrick J. Michaels

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense. In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were “confidentiality” agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so it would seem that the data pointing to an increase in temperatures of 0.6 degrees Celcius could be dodgy.

What do we know: CO2 emissions are increasing, and this is unlikely to be a coincidence, at least in my opinion I find it difficult to accept that human CO2 is not contributing to CO2 level increases the other hockey stick.

Now how do we find out if it effects temperature?

I would have thought we know that heavier gas particles would cause more light to be absorbed as heat and kept within the earths atmosphere. Why doesn't some institute just do a lab test and prove it? Make a half sphere 100m in diameter with the same reflective properties as the planet in roughly equal proportions, then point a heat globe across it, directly at it etc, to mimic a standard day at various points on the planet, then repeat at 500ppm CO2 levels. I suppose the problem in the test would be the qty of gas passed would be miniscule compared to the earths atmosphere. So instead maybe it is a tube 20km long filled with normal gas then a high concentration of CO2 record light / heat exchange at normal and high CO2 levels.

Clearly this is a bit scientific for me so I am out of my depth, but I really think it would not be that difficult to set up. Considering the millions we are going to spend combatting climate change why not just trial it out? Might prove it to the naysayers, or alternately prove the whole thing is a sham.

I know if I actually saw trial results it would give me peace of mind or otherwise. If we cannot replicate such a dynamic system then maybe artie is right we are going on faith, but then again are we not acting on faith if we do nothing as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you start looking into it, it looks more and more ridiculous.

The temperature sensors in the US have been there a long time, but the environment in which they were placed have developed around them.

Detroit_lakes_USHCN.jpg

http://www.heartland.org/books/SurfaceStations.html

Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?

How do we know global warming is a problem if we can't trust the U.S. temperature record?

28 pages, March 2009
The Heartland Institute

The stakes in the debate over global warming are high. If human activities are causing a major warming of the earth’s atmosphere, then actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions costing hundreds of billions of dollars would be necessary.

But how do we know if global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the temperature record?

This report, by meteorologist Anthony Watts, presents the results of the first-ever comprehensive review of the quality of data coming from the National Weather Service’s network of stations. Watts and a team of volunteers visually inspected and took pictures of more than 850 of these temperature stations. What they found will shock you:

“We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations--nearly 9 of every 10--fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements ...”

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.

Full report here with lots of pictures of ridiculous installations of temperature sensors:

http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Clearly this is a bit scientific for me so I am out of my depth, but I really think it would not be that difficult to set up.

Well it is no longer a scientific debate, too much money, too much politics. The experiment would be _very_ difficult to set up in any manner which would convince all observers. Simply because 90% of them owuldn't have a clue what they were looking at and would happily argue with it depending on which side they support.

I know if I actually saw trial results it would give me peace of mind or otherwise. If we cannot replicate such a dynamic system then maybe artie is right we are going on faith, but then again are we not acting on faith if we do nothing as well?

Science is the new religion. We _are_ going on faith alone. Look around. I find people that are the most vehement about science and anti religion are the same ones that would have been burning witches only a couple hundred years back. Most of them haven't actually ever studied a science subject beyond high school levels or did first year chem as part of their arts degree.

I admit my background is engineering and many of the people I enjoy speaking to are of a similar bent. I think engineers tend to have a lot of faith in scientists because of the way we work with approximations of their data and theories. When we see things which seem very wrong to us about the way science is being handled (see Anders obvious passion (for an engineer) about this deception as an example) it cuts very deeply for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit my background is engineering and many of the people I enjoy speaking to are of a similar bent. I think engineers tend to have a lot of faith in scientists because of the way we work with approximations of their data and theories. When we see things which seem very wrong to us about the way science is being handled (see Anders obvious passion (for an engineer) about this deception as an example) it cuts very deeply for us.

Likewise as an engineer if I dont understand something I can make a model (a physical model) break it and work out how to model the real thing. Otherwise I might go with gut feelings make something have it tested and hey if it works and is tested as safe then go with it. Hence my keeness to see an actual physical model, as I don't understand the physics, or cannot relate my understanding of physics to climate change.

On Anders findings, I am loving that report of the weather stations. But my answer would be to exclude the data from all of the dodgy stations and what do we get then. It might only be 10% of the stations but this is better than the data from all as it is compromised data.

Surely there are enough stations where the landuse has remained stable over the last 100 years to get a result? Otherwise we should get cracking on a giant trial rin in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is no longer a scientific debate, too much money, too much politics. The experiment would be _very_ difficult to set up in any manner which would convince all observers. Simply because 90% of them owuldn't have a clue what they were looking at and would happily argue with it depending on which side they support.

Science is the new religion. We _are_ going on faith alone. Look around. I find people that are the most vehement about science and anti religion are the same ones that would have been burning witches only a couple hundred years back. Most of them haven't actually ever studied a science subject beyond high school levels or did first year chem as part of their arts degree.

I admit my background is engineering and many of the people I enjoy speaking to are of a similar bent. I think engineers tend to have a lot of faith in scientists because of the way we work with approximations of their data and theories. When we see things which seem very wrong to us about the way science is being handled (see Anders obvious passion (for an engineer) about this deception as an example) it cuts very deeply for us.

Good post, tor.

AGW may very well be true, and is quite likely to some (negligible?) extent in my opinion. However, if you want to make outrageous claims and convince politicians that we should spend $trillions to fix it or else we are doomed and the sea levels will rise 6 meters

http://www.theaustra...2-11949,00.html

...then you ought to have science of the highest quality - and be willing to be totally transparent with both methodology and data.

The behaviour of the AGW proponents are everything but scientific.

Apparently now the UK Meteorological data is a state secret as reported in the UK Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph...ate-secret.html

Weather records are a state secret

By Christopher Booker

Published: 4:17PM BST 01 Aug 2009

...

When Mr McIntyre made Freedom of Information requests to see the data used to construct the HadCrut record (as he has chronicled on his ClimateAudit blog) he was given an almighty brush-off, the Met Office saying that this information was strictly confidential and that to release it would damage Britain's "international relations" with all the countries that supplied it.

The idea that temperature records might be a state secret seems strange enough, but when the policies of governments across the world are based on that data it becomes odder still that no outsider should be allowed to see it. Weirdest of all, however, is the Met Office's claim that to release the data would "damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector".

Doesn't the Met Office realise that trust in it has already been damaged enough by its batty predictions of "barbecue summers"? If it wants to restore that trust, it should first come clean about its data, and then reprogramme its computer to give us forecasts that are not skewed by its obsession with global warming – which is not happening.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise as an engineer if I dont understand something I can make a model (a physical model) break it and work out how to model the real thing. Otherwise I might go with gut feelings make something have it tested and hey if it works and is tested as safe then go with it. Hence my keeness to see an actual physical model, as I don't understand the physics, or cannot relate my understanding of physics to climate change.

On Anders findings, I am loving that report of the weather stations. But my answer would be to exclude the data from all of the dodgy stations and what do we get then. It might only be 10% of the stations but this is better than the data from all as it is compromised data.

Surely there are enough stations where the landuse has remained stable over the last 100 years to get a result? Otherwise we should get cracking on a giant trial rin in my opinion.

Yup my gut feel is that adding CO2 is not likely to be particularly awesome, I certainly don't see adding it to be a Good Thing - like I can't think of benefits which aren't even dodgier than the waffle surrounding removing it.

I am a fan of not having single points of failure in systems as well.

So I figure let's work on alternate techs just because it could be good and is unlikely to be bad.

I can't see us getting out of the current crazy thoughts and talk through any logical process (i.e. too many people want to believe one wya or the other and logic won't sway them) so let's just do something that is sensible enough for other reasons.

If we solve GW at the same time, bonus.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from way back in 1997, but it is the only evidence I could find that any physical models that have been done, and this one of the ecosystem response to climate change rather than what temperature is likely to occur given higher concentrations of CO2. That said they are spraying out CO2 so I imagine they would be taking temperatures as a bit of a side note?

Modelling response to climate change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the books I mentioned above I found it staggering that the data and measurements are out there and always have been, that clearly indicate that what the planet is doing now is what it always has been doing. Problem for the AGW people is that they dont bother about that. From what I gather, every bit of information measured by contemporary and accurate methods over the past 20 years indicates business as usual for the planet. Also, every bit of evidence has been indicating slight cooling over the past ten years. Even historical information indicates how many times over the past 150 years or so, the shipping passage through the Arctic has been regularly used. Antarctic ice mass in increasing as it does, and Greenland has been 'green' quite recently. Polar bears number are in very good shape etc.

It seems clear to me that there are two types of scientist. There are those that fall into the same belief traps that all people are vulnerable of associated with those that have a financial incentive by way of grants and funding etc, and the other group that deal with the real, measurable and accurate sciences and that have no specific agenda other than to be very good scientists.

I am an Architect and not a scientist, but the science does affect my work and why I do it in these current times. Therefore, I have made it my business to learn what I can in an unbiased and logical way to determine what this all really means. As a designer, I am in a very small way part of a huge profession of many disciplines that are responsible for the future environment we live in. I feel it is irresponsible to follow an idea that is not proven in any way and with a very clear and obvious agenda that is counter to everything that mankind should be aspiring to.

If I can find all sorts of clear and concise information and research on the internet, and read a few very good technically based books that clearly define the facts and refer to an abundance of other research, I would hope that some of those that define the policies that effect us all can take the time also. The strange AGW rhetoric may then settle down to be regarded as the fringe thinking that it clearly is.

After all that, I think I'll go and make some concrete.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and Dr Briffa's method is looking more and more absurd.

Out of the 12 trees that he used for his hockey stick graph (of the available 46 trees with data), only one had any significant contribution to the hockey stick effect.

http://my.telegraph....briffa_responds

Will the IPCC resign? Briffa responds

...

It appears that your results are heavily influenced by a single tree, as Steve McIntyre has just demonstrated here.

As McIntyre points out: “YAD061 reaches 8 sigma and is the most influential tree in the world.

Seems like an outlier to me when you have one tree that can skew the entire climate record. Explain yourself on why you failed to catch this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and Dr Briffa's method is looking more and more absurd.

Out of the 12 trees that he used for his hockey stick graph (of the available 46 trees with data), only one had any significant contribution to the hockey stick effect.

AndersB, that is the funniest thing I have read in a while.

YAD061 reaches 8 sigma and is the most influential tree in the world.

I can't wait till I am next out on the piss with the boss, he is a big time climate change skeptic and when we get together (rarely) we sometimes debate the issue, but he has to hear that nonetheless!

artie, while I don't agree with you on the science a good post nonetheless. I'd give you a +1 but I have run out of +1's for the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These guys are crooks! :angry:

Al Gore's chief adviser James Hansen of NASA's GISS was caught out with falsifying producing poor quality data last year.

Who can you trust?

http://www.telegraph...al-warming.html

Nasa is out of line on global warming

By Christopher Booker

Published: 12:01AM BST 27 Jul 2008

Considering that the measures recommended by the world's politicians to combat global warming will cost tens of trillions of dollars and involve very drastic changes to our way of life, it might be thought wise to check the reliability of the evidence on which they base their belief that our planet is actually getting hotter.

There are four internationally recognised sources of data on world temperatures, but the one most often cited by supporters of global warming is that run by James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

Hansen has been for 20 years the world's leading scientific advocate of global warming (and Al Gore's closest ally). But in the past year a number of expert US scientists have been conducting a public investigation, through scientific blogs, which raises large question marks over the methods used to arrive at his figures.

First they noted the increasingly glaring discrepancy between the figures given by GISS, which show temperatures continuing to race upwards, and those given by the other three main data sources, which all show temperatures having fallen since 1998, dropping dramatically in the past year to levels around the average of the past 30 years.

Two sets of data, from satellites, go back to 1979: one produced by Dr Roy Spencer, formerly of Nasa, now at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, the other by Remote Sensing Systems. Their figures correspond closely with those produced by the Hadley Centre for Climate Studies of our own Met Office, based on global surface temperature readings.

Right out on their own, however, are the quite different figures produced by GISS which, strangely for a body sponsored by Nasa, rely not on satellites but also on surface readings. Hansen's latest graph shows temperatures rising since 1880, at accelerating speed in the past 10 years.

The other three all show a flattening out after 2001 and a marked downward plunge of 0.6 degrees Celsius in 2007/8, equivalent to almost all the net warming recorded in the 20th century. (For comparisons see "Is the Earth getting warmer, or colder?" by Steven Goddard on The Register website.)

...

It was McIntyre who last year forced Hansen to publish revised figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest years of the 20th century were not in the 1990s, as Hansen had claimed, but in the 1930s. He has now shown that Hansen had been adjusting almost all his pre-1970 global temperature figures downwards, by as much as 0.5 degrees, and his post-1970 figures upwards.

Revised GISS data:

screenhunter3qk7.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

He has produced this graph of satellite based temperature readings since 1979. It is strange that Hansen at NASA's GISS use only surface temperatures and not satellite data!

Anyway, here is Dr Spencer's graph:

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_09.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, not sure what bit you dont agree with, but AndersB's post above is the sort of thing that is known but disregarded by the AGW fraternity. This is well covered in Plimer's book, however in some fine detail regarding the discrepencies in the accurate satellite measurements and those located around antarctica, and how the anomalies have 'occurred'. There is also detailed information on not only the suspect land based measuring sites and methods (Stevenson Screens featured in many photos) and their locations worldwide. It really is quite staggering how loose the data collection and its accuracy is. I understand NASA's own temperature and atmosphere measurements even indicate realtively normal results when read in their raw form and not 'adjusted' for anomalies. Even atmospheric sampling has indicated little if any significant increased CO2.

I could quote many things, but I feel it is important for everyone to due their own research and get the unbiased facts, then draw conclusions. I am just noting the subject areas that particularly fascinated me.

And..........all this because of one tree...............blink.gif

Imagine if Briffa was a property spruiker......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I think that chart illustrates quite clearly how hard this particular bit of science is to deal with for everyone (let alone the morons that want to jump up and down on one side or the other of the argument).

Mt Pinatubo cool resulted in less than another trough. No reason given for the other trough.

Does this make the science wrong? IMFHO no, it just means there is more stuff to learn. Advocates of either side seem to not want to have that discussion and instead make a choice and stick with it.

The engineering people who, in the paraphrased words of Neal Stephenson (an engineering background type), like their facts nailed to the paper are likely to have issues with this I figure.

Hopefully engineering types (by which I mean pragmatic users of science) will work out quite quickly that there is a bunch more science to be done before we can use this bit of science.

In the meantime let's build cool sh*t. I don't give a rats arse which side is correct because at the moment they are both insane. So instead I want to see cool sh*t come from people thinking about stuff. If the GW side happen to have caused bunches of cash to be thrown at, say, solar panel technology then that is cool sh*t funded by idiots. I have no issue with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now