Monday’s Loose Thread

279 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  nslopeofw on November 23 at 3:57 p.m.

  Lessee,
  After a 3 month rehab from surgery, i have been released to go back to the world of the living. Now i get to travel!!! Nothin’ more fun than getting on a plane every couple o weeks and flying to Alaska. All those germs. I wonder if pilots, flight attendants, and frequent flyers are on the high risk list for H1N1 vaccines? I wonder if the person who makes up the high risk list has had their shot?

• 

  richard on November 23 at 10:26 p.m.

  Interesting article about “research documents” related to global warming research being stolen off a server in Britain. Seems that at least some of these documents reveal possible “manipulations” of findings by … global warming scientists.

  No … .! Could not possibly be true; scientists would never “sell” themeselves for fame, riches and glory!

  Now Dirty Harry Reid may have “paid off” a Louisiana Senator for her “yes” vote … but not scientists! I mean … they are scientists; they are above such things. Aren’t they?

  A short article on what was just revealed a few days ago - - - -

  “The material was taken from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit – a world-renowned climate change research centre – before it was published on websites run by climate change sceptics.

  It has been claimed that the emails show that scientists manipulated data to bolster their argument that global warming is genuine and is being caused by human actions.

  One email seized upon by sceptics as supposed evidence of this, refers to a “trick” being employed to massage temperature statistics to “hide the decline”.

  The university yesterday confirmed that research data had been stolen and published online and said it had reported the security breach to police.

  A spokesman said: “We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.
  “Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all this material is genuine.

  “This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and have involved the police in this inquiry.”

  The files were apparently first uploaded on to a Russian server and then mirrored across the internet.

  An anonymous statement accompanying the emails said: “We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 24 at 9:14 a.m.

  First of all, Tom Starr. If financial institutions are “regulated,” that is a move to socialism. I had contacted the FTC concerning my long standing battle with Capital One. Most recently, the FTC had sent literature regarding the Fair Credit Billing Act of 1999. That “socialist” regulation that was put into law by way of an excuse me, GOP majority controlled Congress and signed onto by a Dem president. And the FCBA could be regarded as a consumer protection bill. Whereby, if a lending company mishandled payments by for example as Capital One admitted to 2 years and 10 months after the fact of refusing to post a payment because it was “two days late,” Capital One would then have violated THAT law. By refusing to correct the matter in an appropriate and timely manner whereby 2 years and 10 months later they were trying to justify an over 2,800.00 in demands for my hard earned cash AFTER initially violating the law… Maybe Mr. Starr should consider himself grateful if he hadn’t been subjected to such abuses but then again is it “socialism” if he gets robbed and a cop + the judicial system takes care of the bad guy for him?

  Instead of regarding this as “bad” or “evil” regulation that assumes the gvt ultimately takes complete control of everything… Try thinking in terms that laws are necessary when without them, individuals and society as a whole begins to suffer as a consequence. Capital One, in the wake of bankruptcy reform laws that yes, REGULATED when and under what circumstances individuals could file for bankruptcy and thus AFFORDED PROTECTION to companies such as Capital One. Is one regulation, that of the individual MORE preferable to regulations of companies? Or should companies welcome such laws as guidelines to formulate the better business practices and relationships with their customers? Capital One may have taken advantage of a bankruptcy reform law but it did not choose to strictly follow the FCBA law and that is where that company now has a serious legal problem. ALL accounts are now thrown into dispute because of their misconduct and all I have to do is settle original debt.

  While he might have some valid points about the H1N1 vaccine, swine flu is what, in its second year now. But H1N1 flu vaccinations IS a private/public partnership. As for carping about the auto industry, the auto industry ALSO employed Congress to actually delay for 30 odd years having to actually advance in radical engine design to decrease dependence on foreign oil. At a time when the auto industry WANTED gvt involvement, did Mr. Starr have any objections?

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 24 at 9:16 a.m.

  As for Mr. Cal Thomas, when it was a gvt pushing his agenda, he wasn’t doing any moaning or whining or wringing his hands. Now the gvt is in the hands of the opposition. His arguments are strictly partisan and are hardly honest.

• 

  garyc on November 24 at 10:28 a.m.

  Regarding the hacking of emails:

  Plenty of discussion here.

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853

  <<so far=”” it=”” hasn’t=”” been=”” debunked=”” which=”” says=”” some=”” thing=”” because=”” of=”” the=”” power=”” of=”” the=”” net=”” to=”” fact=”” check=”” these=”” sort=”” of=”“ things.=”“>>

  What is “it”? The fact that there was a hacking? Or this:

  <<it has=”” been=”” claimed=”” that=”” the=”” emails=”” show=”” that=”” scientists=”” manipulated=”” data=”” to=”” bolster=”” their=”” argument=”” that=”” global=”” warming=”” is=”” genuine=”” and=”” is=”” being=”” caused=”” by=”” human=”“ actions.=”“>>

  It has been claimed that we never landed on the moon. So what?

• 

  garyc on November 24 at 10:30 a.m.

  From the link:

  “One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.”

  More context and explanation is at Real Climate.

• 

  richard on November 24 at 12:30 p.m.

  So let me get this straight, Gary, you are so defensive about the possiblity that the “science” has been fixed … that you discount the significance of what was “hacked” as “taken out of context?

  Really? That simply and that easily?

  Is this the standards being used today in journalism? Impulsively defend the “scientists” who claim they were taken out of context?

• 

  empyrius on November 24 at 1:02 p.m.

  Well give us a link to that story brother Richard!

  C’mon, give us that link to the WorldNetDaily . . .

• 

  gmorton on November 24 at 1:10 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “Plenty of discussion here.

  … .www.realclimate.org/index.php/…”

  Er, Gary, that site is owned and operated by the “Team,” i.e., Michael Mann *et al* – the same crowd whose emails have come to light. Hardly an impartial source. Rather like asking an accused swindler’s lawyer whether his client is guilty.

  Try these instead:

  http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/cru-hack-whats-next/

  http://www.drroyspencer.com/

  (Spencer runs the UAH Climate center, which maintains the UAH satellite temperature database, and is Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Radiometer on NASA’s AQUA satellite).

  http://camirror.wordpress.com/

  http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/

  (Pielke is Senior Scientist at CIRES, a climate research insititute jointly operated by NOAA and the U. of Colorado).

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/

  Instead of parroting the “consensus” fiction regarding the AGW theory, the S-R would do its readers a service by undertaking a bit of investigative reporting.

• 

  gmorton on November 24 at 1:13 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “It has been claimed that we never landed on the moon. So what?”

  Easy enough to verify the “claims.” Read the emails.

• 

  gmorton on November 24 at 1:16 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  [Re: “Mike’s Nature Trick”]

  “More context and explanation is at Real Climate.”

  No. More CYA and obfuscation at RealClimate.

  Real explanation here:

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/

• 

  gmorton on November 24 at 1:24 p.m.

  Gary C.,

  Here is an email relating to the creation of the Realclimate blog:

  http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=446&filename=1102687002.txt

• 

  garyc on November 24 at 4:28 p.m.

  <<really? that=”” simply=”” and=”” that=”” easily?=”” is=”” this=”” the=”” standards=”” being=”” used=”” today=”” in=”” journalism?=”” impulsively=”” defend=”” the=”” “scientists”=”” who=”” claim=”” they=”” were=”” taken=”” out=”” of=”“ context?=”“>>

  No, that would be your M.O.

• 

  garyc on November 24 at 4:41 p.m.

  Gmorton,

  I’m familiar with those outliers like Spencer and Pielke? Are you seriously offering them up as objective sources? They are longstanding combatants.

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/

  When the skeptics can turn the relevant science academies around on the issue, they will gain more credibility.

  The S-R does no investigative reporting on national issues. You know that.

  I don’t believe there is a global conspiracy that has ensnared the world’s science academies.

• 

  garyc on November 24 at 5:02 p.m.

  <<here is=”” an=”” email=”” relating=”” to=”” the=”” creation=”” of=”” the=”” realclimate=”” blog:=”” http:=”” www.eastangliaemails.com=”“ email…=”“>>

  Disprove the science.

  Here are the academies agreeing on anthropogenic global warming.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

  There are none on the other side. Why?

  This is what matters. Emails do not prove that the huge volume of peer-reviewed literature and research that these determinations are based upon are systematically fraudulent.

  If reporting/investigations show that these emailers were involved in fraud, then they should face the music.

  But it doesn’t change the science, which is much broader than is reflected in the emails.

• 

  richard on November 24 at 6:38 p.m.

  So, Gary, since you are a “true believer” who denounces anyone with challenges to the science, why is the data at East Anglia not accessible to anyone else in the world, except those connect directly with the research they are doing there?

  Do you know that there have been many attempts to see the data to verify the “findings” they say they have made? Why should anyone believe such a “closed cabal” as this group to the point that we should completely revamp our world?

  And why, after all these years of Al Gore and Hollywood, media, popular culture, Democrats, big corporate interests all pushing the notion that we “must” relent to the forces who want to control another large sector of the economy, do only 30% of Americans accept or believe that they are being told the truth about global warming?

  Why?

• 

  gmorton on November 24 at 8:47 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “I’m familiar with those outliers like Spencer and Pielke? Are you seriously offering them up as objective sources?”

  No, they are not. There are no “objective sources” on this issue. They not among those involved in the conduct these emails have uncovered, however, as are the Realclimate crew.

  “When the skeptics can turn the relevant science academies around on the issue, they will gain more credibility.”

  Then your standards for assigning credibility are flawed. It relies on the *ad vericundiam* argument, and also on the mistaken notion that scientific truth derives from majority rule. In fact, the second belief is doubly false in the case of the “academies,” since none of them polled their members before issuing their statements of support. There is substantial dissension in most of those “academies.”

  “I don’t believe there is a global conspiracy that has ensnared the world’s science academies.”

  There isn’t. There is only a pressure to conform (examples of which are evident in those emails) driven by the appetite for government research funds and the usual drivers of group dynamics (same factors which drive fashions in dress and slang) – the desire to be among the “in” crowd.

  The emails reveal a small conspiracy, however, to keep data out of the hands of skeptics and see to it that results contrary to the official dogma are not published.

  There is widespread disagreement regarding the AGW theory within the scientific community. There is nothing like a “consensus.” That means the science is not settled. Until it is, no public policies should be based on it.

• 

  gmorton on November 24 at 8:57 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “Disprove the science.”

  As I’ve said in other threads, is not the responsibility of skeptics to disprove hypotheses. It is the responsibility of their advocates to prove them.

  Nonetheless, several elements of the AGW hypothesis have already been disproved.

  * There has been no net decline of polar sea ice, as predicted by the IPCC’s models.

  *There has been no increase in hurricanes/tornados, as predicted by the models.

  *The stratospheric “hot spot” predicted by the models has not been observed.

  * The models are now 20 years old. The observed warming over the last 20 years is less than half that predicted by the models. If they can’t predict the climate for the first 20 years, they cannot be relied upon for future predictions.

• 

  gmorton on November 24 at 9:13 p.m.

  A cute “Climategate” video:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 25 at 3:27 a.m.

  – There has been no net decline of polar sea ice, as predicted by the IPCC’s models. –

  Your authority for this contention?

  I admit that I’m not an expert on the science. But I am an armchair naval strategist. For the first time in recorded history, there is now an ice-free ‘Northwest Passage’ owing to the retreat of the polar ice cap. This is not a hypothetical based on some modeled projection. You can see the photographic (and statistical) proof right here.

  http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/arcticice_decline.html

  See also: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/iceshrink_marine.html

  Several of the world’s navies (including the U.S.’s) are gearing up to extend their influence for the first time into these new areas of open ocean.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 25 at 4:11 a.m.

  Found this on Atlantic hurricanes while researching polar sea ice. Again, I don’t pretend to understand all the science, but I can read the conclusions.

  http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

  – i) It is premature to conclude that human activity—and particularly greenhouse warming—has already had a discernible impact on Atlantic hurricane activity.
  ii) It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes. –

  The “Consensus statements by the workshop participants” (located about 2/3rds of the way down the page) is also worth reading.

  I take this paper to say, ‘There’s no definitive proof *either way*, but there is persuasive evidence *on both sides* of the argument. Therefore it’s simply too soon to say that global warming either is or isn’t impacting the severity and frequency of Atlantic hurricanes. More study is needed.’

• 

  gmorton on November 25 at 1:24 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “For the first time in recorded history, there is now an ice-free ‘Northwest Passage’ owing to the retreat of the polar ice cap. This is not a hypothetical based on some modeled projection. You can see the photographic (and statistical) proof right here.”

  No. The Arctic Ocean has been navigable several times in the last century or so.

  http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

  Scroll down to “The Changing Arctic” (1922).

  “I take this paper to say, ‘There’s no definitive proof *either way*, but there is persuasive evidence *on both sides* of the argument.”

  No. Model predictions and hypotheses are *not* evidence. *Evidence* is observed hurricane activity. And there has been no change in that since records have been kept.

  N. Hemisphere:

  http://www.junkscience.com/Hurricanes/decadal_hurricanes.png

  S. Hemisphere:

  http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/29/tropical-cyclones-down-under/

  No one is claiming that have actually been more, or more intense, hurricanes. The alarmists are only *predicting* there will be more. If the models are reliable, we should already see more. We don’t.

• 

  richard on November 25 at 5:04 p.m.

  gmorton, I believe your assessment is quite accurate. There really is no consensus; it is a consnsus of political figures. And that consensus is very much geared to using the global warming as a strategy to redesign the world’s economy, includihng a redistibution of wealth around the world.

  Now you can agree or disagree that this a good policy; but I don’t recall Obama campaigning on this agenda. He really did promise transparency; but I have not seen that as yet.

  I have not had time to research it myself, but I was listening to a scientist from MIT who explained how there are 5 main research locations in the world which have been responsible for most of the data collection, designing computer models and projecting the research on global warming. This individual said that there have been attempts for years to obtain data primarily from East Anglia and those in authority have refused every attempt … even legal attempts to make the data public.

  I would really like to know why they believe they have no responsibility to share the data with skeptics. It would be much more reassuring if they invited the skeptics in to be part of the analysis. if the “evidencve” was so compelling, then most of the skeptics would be reassured and the skepticism would be reduced.

  Instead; they mock, attack and try to delegitmize the credentials of any scientist with questions and concerns.

  And even more disturbing is the compliant media does the bidding for those politicians who want quash all challenges.

  I remain very much a non-scientist skeptic … as do about 70% of Americans. But this points to an even bigger problem of a huge disconnect between the views of the public and the “official” policies of our leaders. As well as a disbelief on the part of the public that our media is actually committed to bringing us the truth without political bias.

• 

  gmorton on November 25 at 6:34 p.m.

  A group in New Zealand obtained raw temp data from stations in that country dating from 1850 and compared them with the official, “adjusted” trend prepared by the government weather service (and supplied to to such global databases as HADCRUT and GISS).

  Results are here:

  http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html

  NZ weather office is supposed to release an explanation later today.

• 

  richard on November 25 at 8:49 p.m.

  I am afraid Gary - who seems to not ever have any questions at all about the veracity of global warming research and consclusions - seems to be hiding under his desk.

  That probably isn’t fair; I know he has been a “one-armed paper-hanger” lately. We will see how he comes back next week on this topic.

  Ron, there has been serious questions for several years about the “gimmicks” being played at the termperature stations aorund the country - and the world, it seems. I recall reading a couple of years ago an article how so many stations were changing the locations of the temperature gathering equipment.

  I recall pictures from the southwest - before and after pictures - which showed that the equipment had been located for years in an area that was sitting above ground in a grassy area. And then all of a sudden, the equipment was placed … in the parking lot, erected above asphalt; Everyone knows the temperature above asphalt in summer in the southwest is going to read higher than the air temperature.

  I just read an article which reviewed how the networks and each of the morning shows, made several reports alleging that the Bush administration was leaving out scientific findings from the global warming advocates.

  Since this story broke … not one peep from the networks, the morning shows, or any other news reports from the Big Three.

  If this story blows up in the face of the global warming advocates … it may be the very last hurrah of mainstream media because it will be so easy to demonstrate their complicity. They have obvioulsy been absent from asking any pointed questions from the experts.

• 

  gmorton on November 26 at 2:13 a.m.

  If Gary C wishes to understand the motives of greenies, perhaps this will help:

  http://green-agenda.com/

• 

  MatthewRoot on November 27 at 9:29 a.m.

  The hacked emails seem much ado about nothing.

  In science, it is the responsibility for anthropogenic climate change skeptics to disprove the hypothesis of human-caused climate change. All of the conspiracy theory hocus pocus, is just that. The consensus is just that, it is not fiction.

  The article in Nature seems pretty solid to me. Mann, Bradley & Hughes indicate that solar irradiance forcing of Northern Hemisphere temperatures from the mid-seventeenth to early eighteenth century corresponds to a documented cold period. The increase in solar irradiance from the early nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century corresponds to a warm period that peaked in the mid-nineteenth century. There is no evidence that greenhouse gases produced any climate forcing until the twentieth century. Increases in global temperature correlate very strongly with increases in greenhouse gases in the twentieth century until the 1995, which is the end-date of the time series that Mann et al. used. Solar irradiance stays the same after the mid-twentieth century.

  What is wrong with Figure 5, where they show raw data along with the reconstructed data?

  Mann et al (1998:786) conclude:
  “A variety of general circulation and energy-balance model experiments as well as statistical comparisons of twentieth century global temperatures with forcing series suggest that, although both solar and greenhouse-gas forcings play some role in explaining twentieth-century climate trends, greenhouse gases appear to play an increasingly dominant role during this century.”

  The hacked emails do nothing to indicate any flaws in the paper. But, I actually read the article in the journal “Nature,” not just a bunch of blogs.

  If someone can link to a peer-reviewed journal, not a blog, that shows flaws in the paper, that would be great.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 27 at 9:33 a.m.

  I find several of the e-mails to be troubling. And I’m not entirely sure I buy the explanations for some of the most troubling of them.

  But Gary’s right, there’s just too much hard science backed evidence on the other side to be overwhelmed by a handful of bad actors. As one commentator said, “Isaac Newton might well have been a pompous pain in the ass, but that doesn’t disprove his Theory of Gravity.”

  At this point, it’s all starting to have the same old ‘shoot the messenger’ feel.

  Again, what about the science? What about the literally thousands of reputable scientists whose reputations haven’t been called into question? What about all the evidence that hasn’t been touched upon by the leaked e-mails?

  Speaking of evidence…

  Richard, the ‘Urban Heat Island’ rationalization was long ago discredited. There are far too many data sources located in areas where “UHI” simply isn’t a factor (on mountain tops, in the Antarctic, in orbit for heaven’s sake!) that all display the same increase in global mean temperature.

  And besides, let’s say some nefarious ‘green-ie’ did sneak a temperature measuring station from a nice shady spot in the park to the middle of some parking lot. If the temperature observed in the parking lot is higher this July than it was last July, and last July’s parking lot temperature was higher than the parking lot temperature the July before - then the mean temperature is still rising.

  And that’s just what’s been observed.

  gmorton, first off - ‘navigable’ is a word and a half-word. Several vessels have indeed traversed the Northwest Passage in the past. But there’s a *big* difference between a small handful of vessels designed for the arctic managing to pick their way through a serendipitous passage and the large-scale operations going on these days.

  (see for example: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261240,00.html. And note the source, please - hardly an organization likely to slant the story in favor of a socialistic liberalist agenda. see also: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/12818 and once again, notice the source.)

  In any event, there’s little serious challenge to the observation that the Arctic sea ice is indeed retreating at a never-before-observed rate in the 40 or so years since observation of the kind that is now possible.

  So the question becomes; what’s making the ice melt?

• 

  MatthewRoot on November 27 at 10:12 a.m.

  yes Jeffrey, the content of emails is not the issue (I only read the few that were in the SR story). The issue is the peer-reviewed science. Anyone can submit an article for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Where is the published science that disproves a human component to global warming?

  You can not scour thousands of emails, and take a couple out of context that seem suspicious, and use that to demonstrate anything. Perhaps the story wasn’t reported on TV because it is really not much of a story as far as climate science is concerned. Much like we haven’t heard much about the ACORN videos once it was learned that they were edited, and the film makers would not turn over the raw footage.

  I have not heard the meme about a weather station that was moved (and we only know it was in an “article”), but a single data point won’t make any difference in studies that incorporate world wide data.
  Anecdotal exceptionalism is not a valid form of scientific argument.

  Deforestation, especially of tropical rain forests, is a major cause of increases in green house gases. It is not just burning fossil fuels.

• 

  gmorton on November 27 at 10:57 a.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  “In science, it is the responsibility for anthropogenic climate change skeptics to disprove the hypothesis of human-caused climate change. ”

  No. The burden of proof rest with he who holds the affirmative.

  ” Increases in global temperature correlate very strongly with increases in greenhouse gases in the twentieth century until the 1995 . . .”

  No, they don’t. The correlation is weak (about 0.44, I believe). Moreover, the land temp data is questionable. The correlation between GHGs and satellite SSTs and LT temps is even weaker.

  Since you didn’t include a link, no way to comment on the Fig. 5 you cite.

• 

  MatthewRoot on November 27 at 11:36 a.m.

  wrong smorton. You do have an equal responsibility to demonstrate that that there is no relationship. That is the hypothesis that you are proferring. This is not high school debate class. Cite the peer-reviewed publications that indicate there is no correlation. Even if r = .44, that means 20% of temperature increase is explained by increases in greenhouse gases. The vast majority of peer-reviewed science indicates there is a strong correlation between temperature increases and rising levels of greenhouse gases. Climate scientists have met your “burden of proof,” you just don’t like the conclusion.

  Cite the source of your data. I was summarizing the conclusions in the Mann et al. article. That was their finding.

• 

  gmorton on November 27 at 12:30 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “Richard, the ‘Urban Heat Island’ rationalization was long ago discredited. There are far too many data sources located in areas where “UHI” simply isn’t a factor (on mountain tops, in the Antarctic, in orbit for heaven’s sake!) that all display the same increase in global mean temperature.”

  Certainly not.

  http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/M&M.JGR07-background.pdf

  Nor is UHI the only problem with the land temp records. Changes in land use affect the readings also. Perhaps the best overall measure of these affects is the difference in temp trends between the N and S hemispheres. The anomaly in the N is over twice as great in recent decades as in the south. The N hemisphere is, of course, by far the most heavily urbanized half of the globe.

  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif

  Your Fox News story was from March, 2007 – when Arctic sea ice was at its lowest in several decades. In 2008 it increased, and increased again in 2009, closing about half the difference with the 1979-2000 average.

  http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

  http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

• 

  gmorton on November 27 at 2:05 p.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  “wrong smorton. You do have an equal responsibility to demonstrate that that there is no relationship.”

  I never claimed there was no relationship. Nor do most skeptics. The alarmists claim that recent warming is *primarily* driven by GHGs, and that, therefore, that increasing GHG concentrations will lead to disastrous consequences in the present century. That is the hypothesis at issue. That conclusion is not supported either empirically or theoretically. It is not supported empirically because the observed temp trend does correlate with the IPCC’s model predictions. It is not supported theoretically because the *theoretical* sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, based on the IR absorption behavior of CO2) is only 1 degree C – a figure which agrees with empirical observations to date.

  http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

  The IPCC’s “best guess” of the sensitivity is 3C – a figure obtained by adding positive feedbacks which have no empirical basis.

• 

  garyc on November 27 at 3:34 p.m.

  Here is the executive summary of the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

  http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/download/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_ES_English.pdf

  Here is the entire report

  http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/download/default.html

  And the press release

  http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/press.html

  “Global ice-sheets are melting at an increased rate; Arctic sea-ice is disappearing much faster than recently projected, and future sea-level rise is now expected to be much higher than previously forecast, according to a new global scientific synthesis prepared by some of the world’s top climate scientists.

  “In a special report called ‘The Copenhagen Diagnosis’, the 26 researchers, most of whom are authors of published IPCC reports, conclude that several important aspects of climate change are occurring at the high end or even beyond the expectations of only a few years ago.

  “The report also notes that global warming continues to track early IPCC projections based on greenhouse gas increases. Without significant mitigation, the report says global mean warming could reach as high as 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

  “The Copenhagen Diagnosis, which was a year in the making, documents the key findings in climate change science since the publication of the landmark Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.

  “The new evidence to have emerged includes:

  ” * Satellite and direct measurements now demonstrate that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea level rise at an increasing rate.
  ” * Arctic sea-ice has melted far beyond the expectations of climate models. For example, the area of summer sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average projection from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
  ” * Sea level has risen more than 5 centimeters over the past 15 years, about 80% higher than IPCC projections from 2001. Accounting for ice-sheets and glaciers, global sea-level rise may exceed 1 meter by 2100, with a rise of up to 2 meters considered an upper limit by this time. This is much higher than previously projected by the IPCC. Furthermore, beyond 2100, sea level rise of several meters must be expected over the next few centuries.
  ” * In 2008 carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were ~40% higher than those in 1990. Even if emissions do not grow beyond today’s levels, within just 20 years the world will have used up the allowable emissions to have a reasonable chance of limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

  “The report concludes that global emissions must peak then decline rapidly within the next five to ten years for the world to have a reasonable chance of avoiding the very worst impacts of climate change.

  “To stabilize climate, global emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases need to reach near-zero well within this century, the report states.

• 

  garyc on November 27 at 3:46 p.m.

  I see a Patrick Michaels citation above: He takes industry money.

  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels

  And another libertarian, Ross McKittrick, is cited above.

  His work discussed here.

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-ii/

  Most peer-reviewed work says AWG is real.

• 

  garyc on November 27 at 3:52 p.m.

  And then there is junkscience.com run by Steve Milloy.

  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy

  Cato would improve its credibility on the topic if it didn’t use these kinds of sources.

• 

  garyc on November 27 at 4:01 p.m.

  >> So, Gary, since you are a “true believer” who denounces anyone with challenges to the science, why is the data at East Anglia not accessible to anyone else in the world, except those connect directly with the research they are doing there? .>>

  Such the drama king. “Denounces”? “True believer”?

  From what I understand, East Anglia did not have the authorization from The Met Office to release data. I’m all for its release. But I am not privy to the scope of the public records request. As we well know, there are exceptions to public records requests. Don’t know the ins and outs of England’s law.

  But data are available. Go to realclimate.org. Gavin Schmidt has linked to data repeatedly.

  In fact, he’s answering all kinds of questions.

• 

  garyc on November 27 at 4:05 p.m.

  Here is Michael Mann’s response.

  http://www.desmogblog.com/michael-mann-his-own-words-stolen-cru-emails

  OK, back to the grindstone

• 

  gmorton on November 27 at 4:37 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “I see a Patrick Michaels citation above: He takes industry money.”

  Tsk, tsk. Sorry, Gary, but that is an egregious *ad hominem*. It always amazes me that the standard leftist response to substantive criticisms is to point to their sources of funding. *That is utterly irrelevant to the validity of the arguments or the science*.

  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

  It is also curious why those who invoke this “argument” against skeptics don’t invoke it against the alarmists – “Ignore what Michael Mann says. He is funded by the government.” I suppose there is an assumption that the motives of governments are “purer” than those of ExxonMobil, or that they don’t have vested interests – an assumption wholly at odds with history (remember WMDs?)

  Do you have some substantive complaints with Michael’s paper?

  “And another libertarian, Ross McKittrick, is cited above.”

  And,

  “And then there is junkscience.com run by Steve Milloy.”

  Are you questioning Milloy’s hurricane graphic?

  Gotta give up on the *ad hominems*, Gary.

• 

  gmorton on November 27 at 6:49 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “* Satellite and direct measurements now demonstrate that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea level rise at an increasing rate.”

  Not Antarctica, according to the Aussies.

  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13253

  “* Arctic sea-ice has melted far beyond the expectations of climate models. For example, the area of summer sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average projection from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.”

  Probably true. That is because 2007 ice was very low. Since then it has been increasing, and is about 40% back to the 1979-2000 mean. 2009 antarctic sea ice is above the 1979-2000 mean.

  http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

  http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/nsidc_s_timeseries_091909.png

  “* Sea level has risen more than 5 centimeters over the past 15 years, about 80% higher than IPCC projections from 2001.”

  That is because there was a change in methods of measurement in 1993 from tide gauges to satellites. The average annual increase over the 20th century per the gauges has been 1.8 mm/year; the average per satellites is 3.2 mm/yr. The discrepancy has not been resolved. There has been no change in rate of increase since the beginning of the satellite period.

  http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.pdf

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

  That paper is the “team’s” (Mann, Rahmstorf, Schneider et al) pre-Copenhagen “sky is falling” pitch.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 28 at 3:03 a.m.

  gmorton,

  Near the end of that long dissertation on why surface temperature measurements are unreliable, McKitrick and Michaels say this:

  – We can use the statistical model to estimate what the observed temperature trends would have been if everyone had as good circumstances for monitoring climate as the US does. The average trend at the surface in the post-1980 interval would fall from about 0.30 degrees (C) per decade to about 0.17 degrees. This shows that the problems identified in the statistical model add up to a net warming bias, and its removal could explain as much as half the recent warming over land. –

  So even viewing the data in its most conservative, ‘best case scenario’ light, doesn’t that say that the global mean temperature is still rising? If even ‘as much as half’ of the recent warming trend can be dismissed with the argument ‘my statistical model is better than your statistical model’, *what’s causing the other half?*

  “What’s making the ice melt?”

  And speaking of Arctic ice…

  – In 2008 it increased, and increased again in 2009, closing about half the difference with the 1979-2000 average –

  Maybe not. At least not when you go up and actually look at the ice.

  – Arctic sea ice has duped satellites into reporting thick multiyear sea ice where in fact none exists, a new study by University of Manitoba researcher David Barber has found. In 2008 and 2009 satellite data showed a growth in Arctic sea ice extension leaving some to reckon global warming was reversing. But after sailing an ice breaker to the southern Beaufort Sea this past September Dr. Barber and his colleagues found something unexpected: thin, “rotten” ice can electromagnetically masquerade as thick, multiyear sea ice. And contrary to what satellites recently suggested, we are actually speeding up the loss of the remaining, healthy, multiyear sea ice.
  …

  “Our results are consistent with ice age estimates that show the amount of multiyear sea ice in the northern hemisphere was the lowest on record in 2009 suggesting that multiyear sea ice continues to diminish rapidly in the Canada Basin even though 2009 aerial extent increased over that of 2007 and 2009,” the paper concludes. –

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 28 at 3:18 a.m.

  gmorton,

  With respect to the NSIDC’s graph you cite: Here’s some of the text that accompanies that graph.

  – Sea ice extent grew throughout October, as the temperature dropped and darkness returned to the Arctic. However, a period of relatively slow ice growth early in the month kept the average ice extent low—October 2009 had the second-lowest ice extent for the month over the 1979 to 2009 period. –

• 

  richard on November 28 at 10:56 a.m.

  You are wrong Chip … it is not up to the skeptics to prove their position. Think about it. That would require skeptics to prove a negative.

  And while on the subject of proof … can anyone explain why the data is so secretive that avoidance of FOIA requests have become such a high priority to the researchers? None of you - Chip, Gary, Jeff - are skeptical enough to demand that the “evidence” be produced for the world to see before we are forced to fundamentally change our lives, pay out trillions of dollars, and learn to adjust our lifestyles downward?

  Read Krauthammer today on the health bill issue; now apply his conclusions to this issue. It is about control!

  I just have to wonder what it is about some people - take the Germans in the 1930’s - who are so easily led down a path of their destruction?

  Promises of a “new world” is the only answer. How many nations and cultures must suffer self-destruction because so few demanded answers?

  And I have said it before; if you want to accept that we have changed the temperature by 1 degree over the last century; fine. I have also said that the politicians are okay with the debate being center on the question of “why” the temperature rise, because that keeps it away from the even more important questions of … so what? Are the oceans really going to rise 30’ as Al Gore has predicted? Can we really reverse it to reverse the supposed “destruction” of the world?

  And how much wealth is too much to spend on something that no scientist can predict?

  Just as with the health bill, the stimulus bill, this is more about wealth redistribution than it is about changing the temperature.

  Call it a “conspiracy” theory if you must. That does not change the fact that it is YOU who refuses to demand more than the mere promises from … politicians.

  Demand that the scientists produce the evidence! And not “filtered” through one source. Gary, your lack of demand for “transparency” stands in stark contrast to your position on even the most mundane examples of local government. Why so lackadaisical when the cost is so high.

  I get very strong vibes that most alarmists would be quite disappointed if the evidence for warming was debunked. I have to believe it would ruin their day, somehow. I know how leftists think; I know they become very emotionally attached to the issues they cherish. I have been down that road.

• 

  MatthewRoot on November 28 at 1:37 p.m.

  wrong again richard. One can demonstrate that the data support a hypothesis that increases in greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming, or one can demonstrate that the data support a hypothesis that increases in greenhouse gases are NOT a cause of global warming.
  The logic of hypothesis testing is the same.
  Actually, evidence either leads to a rejection of a hypothesis, or a failure to reject a hypotheses. There really is no “proving,”

• 

  gmorton on November 28 at 2:42 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “So even viewing the data in its most conservative, ‘best case scenario’ light, doesn’t that say that the global mean temperature is still rising?”

  Yes. No one questions that. The questions are, What is the rate of increase? How does that rate compare with previous rises and declines? What are the causes of the recent increase? What is the relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and temps?

  “In 2008 and 2009 satellite data showed a growth in Arctic sea ice extension leaving some to reckon global warming was reversing … Dr. Barber and his colleagues found something unexpected: thin, “rotten” ice . . .”

  You don’t see anything wrong with the thrust of that claim? The latter observation does not refute the former. The ice added in 2008 and 2009 cannot be “multiyear ice,” by definition. It is only 1-2 years old. Did Barber *expect* ice formed in the last 2 years to be thick ice?

  And then,

  “multiyear sea ice continues to diminish rapidly in the Canada Basin even though 2009 aerial extent increased over that of 2007 and 2009.” [I assume that latter should be “
  2008”]

  Let’s see … ice cover is increasing, but older ice is thinning? How does that happen, exactly? If it is cold enough for new ice to form, how can it also be warm enough for old ice to melt?

  That is typical of much AGW reporting. Reporters seem to have lost all their critical faculties when reporting on this issue.

  And of course the public are clueless. They swallow whatever nonsense the witless reporters feed them.

• 

  gmorton on November 28 at 2:49 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “– Sea ice extent grew throughout October, as the temperature dropped and darkness returned to the Arctic. However, a period of relatively slow ice growth early in the month kept the average ice extent low—October 2009 had the second-lowest ice extent for the month over the 1979 to 2009 period. –”

  So? Even though 2009 ice is up from 2008, which was up from 2007, you’re gonna cling to doomsday because the rate of increase in one October was lower than previous Octobers?

• 

  gmorton on November 28 at 3:02 p.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  “One can demonstrate that the data support a hypothesis that increases in greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming, or one can demonstrate that the data support a hypothesis that increases in greenhouse gases are NOT a cause of global warming. The logic of hypothesis testing is the same.”

  Yes, it is. But that was not the issue. The issue was, Upon whom does the burden of proof fall?

  Also, you have the hypothesis wrong. The hypothesis to be tested is, Will doubling of atmospheric CO2 raise global mean temperature by 3C?

  No one denies that CO2 is an IR absorber. The issue revolve around the nature and magnitude of the response of the Earth’s many systems to a given increase in CO2, including the changes in the radiation budget.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 28 at 4:03 p.m.

  gmorton,

  The proponents of climate change have collected their data and created a hypothesis based on that data. That hypothesis has withstood peer review and have been accepted by other scientists. Does that necessarily mean the hypothesis is correct?

  No.

  But the climate change skeptics can’t just say, ‘We don’t like your hypothesis and we have a hypothesis of our own - *and the fact that we have a hypothesis in and of itself disproves your hypothesis.*’ It’s the last part that doesn’t fly in real science.

  The proponents of climate change have a hypothesis that conforms to the data observed. To compete against that, the skeptics have to create a workable hypothesis of their own that explains the data as well as the hypothesis it seeks to counter. That’s how real science works.

  Like you, the skeptics (or at least the threshold reputable ones) freely admit that the Earth’s temperature is rising. (They have to since the evidence is simply incontrovertible these days.) If they want to say that the cause of that warming isn’t man-caused, *they* have to come up with a model that explains why the second most significant greenhouse gas (CO2) isn’t driving the change.

  And to date, the skeptics simply haven’t come close to meeting the burden.
  
  Or did I miss the memo where global climate change was explained as being completely unrelated to the activity of Man and the whole greenhouse gas issue was definitively laid to rest?

  As Chip has correctly pointed out, the proponent of the hypothesis bears the initial burden of proof. But once that burden has been met - once a workable hypothesis has been advanced - then the burden does shift. To disprove the hypothesis, you actually have to ‘prove’. Not just dispute.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 28 at 4:14 p.m.

  – You don’t see anything wrong with the thrust of that claim?–

  No I don’t.

  – The latter observation does not refute the former. –

  Except it does. Your mistake is in thinking that there’s just one type of Arctic sea ice.

  Of course if the ice formed this year, it can’t be ‘multi-year’ ice. That’s obvious. The problem and the whole point is that it is of a character *that won’t ever be* multi-year ice. That is; the kind of ice that will survive the summer melt.

  That kind of ice is “effectively gone.”

  – [Dr.] Barber spoke shortly after returning from an expedition that sought — and largely failed to find — a huge multiyear ice pack that should have been in the Beaufort Sea off the Canadian coastal town of Tuktoyaktuk.

  Instead, his ice breaker found hundreds of miles of what he called “rotten ice” — 50-cm (20-inch) thin layers of fresh ice covering small chunks of older ice.

  “I’ve never seen anything like this in my 30 years of working in the high Arctic … it was very dramatic,” he said. –

  http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE59S3LT20091029

• 

  spokelooneh on November 28 at 4:45 p.m.

  “I just have to wonder what it is about some people - take the Germans in the 1930’s - who are so easily led down a path of their destruction? “
  -Richard

  Wow, took almost 60 comments before Richard evoked something Nazi related as applying to the case at hand.

  Not bad.

• 

  gmorton on November 28 at 7:33 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “The proponents of climate change have a hypothesis that conforms to the data observed.”

  Well, no it hasn’t. That’s why there are skeptics.

  The hypothesis in this case are the models. These models make various predictions, including

  * Temperature trends given various concentrations of CO2. The actually temps are well below what the models predicted 20 years ago.

  http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/hansen20.gif

  * Increases in hurricane frequency and intensity. Neither has occurred.

  * A “hotspot” in the lower troposphere as a “signature” of GHG-induced warming. No such hotspot has ever appeared.

  In 1988, James Hansen, Chicken-Little-in-Chief of AGW, when asked what would be different in New York City in 20 years, predicted, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change. There will be more police cars – you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

  http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/stormy-weather-salon.pdf

  The AGW hypothesis has been thwarted by reality at every turn, Jeffrey.

• 

  gmorton on November 28 at 7:50 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “But once that burden has been met - once a workable hypothesis has been advanced - then the burden does shift. ”

  Certainly not. Once you have formulated a “workable” hypothesis, the it is *up to you* to test it, and produce some *empirical* evidence that it has passed the test. Until you do, then others are entitled to ignore it. There is no presumption that the hypothesis is true until those tests are performed. Until then it is presumed to be *false*.

  “If they [skeptics] want to say that the cause of that warming isn’t man-caused, *they* have to come up with a model that explains why the second most significant greenhouse gas (CO2) isn’t driving the change.”

  They indeed have to supply an alternative source for the energy.

  BTW, most skeptics are not ruling out some anthro contribution to 20th century warming. They are claiming that it is not the principal driver – solar variability is – and that CO2 is not the only component of the anthro contribution (land use changes are also an important factor). They are also claiming that the likely rise in temperatures will fall far short of “disastrous,” and may even be beneficial.

• 

  gmorton on November 28 at 7:54 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “The problem and the whole point is that it is of a character *that won’t ever be* multi-year ice. That is; the kind of ice that will survive the summer melt.”

  That is question-begging. If temperatures are falling (as they have for the last 2 years) then *of course* more of that ice will survive to become “multiyear” ice. The increased ice we’re taking about *is* summer ice.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 29 at 4:12 a.m.

  Ah, the finger points once again at James Hansen as proof positive that the climate change models are faulty.

  – In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph — part of a paper published soon after. This graph had three lines on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism.

  Line A was a temperature trend prediction based on rapid emissions growth and no large volcanic event; it was a steep climb through the year 2000 and beyond.

  Line B was based on modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption in the mid 1990s.

  Line C began along the same trajectory as Line B, and included the same volcanic eruption, but showed reductions in the growth of CO2 emission by the turn of the century — the result of hypothetical government controls.

  As it happens, since Hansen’s testimony, emissions have grown at a modest rate and Mt. Pinatubo did in fact erupt, though in the early 1990s, not the middle. In other words, the Line B forcings scenario came remarkably close to predicting what actually came to pass.

  Not coincidentally, the observed temperature trend has tracked closely with the Line B prediction as well.

  Hansen was right on the money, and the models he used proved successful.

  Unfortunately, when Patrick Michaels made his testimony before Congress in 1998, ten years later, he saw fit to erase the two lower lines, B and C, and show the Senators only Line A. He did so to make his testimony that Hansen’s predictions had been off by 300% believable. He lied by omission. –

  http://www.grist.org/article/hansen-has-been-wrong-before/

  Since then this lie of omission has been repeated ad nauseum. The ‘Line B’ prediction that basically ‘got it right’ is universally discarded and the worst case scenario of ‘Line A’ (and it’s effects - Manhattan underwater, etc) is all that is ever cited by the skeptics.

  Seems to me that if your policy is to ‘thwart’ a model by grossly misrepresenting it at every turn, then it’s the policy that’s suspect, not the model.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 29 at 4:27 a.m.

  – Once you have formulated a “workable” hypothesis, the it is *up to you* to test it, and produce some *empirical* evidence that it has passed the test. –

  As the advocates of climate change have consistently done. Their predictions based on their hypothesis - though far from infallible - have produced easily as many successes as failures.

  And this is so even despite all the attempts to discredit those successes. (ala Dr. Hansen’s grossly misrepresented work - see above)

  – Until you do, then others are entitled to ignore it. –

  ‘Ignore it’? No. Science doesn’t work that way. You don’t ‘ignore’ hypotheses you don’t like. You amass your own evidence and advance your own theories that disprove them.

  And speaking of which… Now we come to the very interesting part:

  – BTW, most skeptics are not ruling out some anthro contribution to 20th century warming. They are claiming that it is not the principal driver – solar variability is – and that CO2 is not the only component of the anthro contribution (land use changes are also an important factor). –

  So, let’s see if I have this right. The AGW crowd is wrong. Their hypothesis doesn’t conform to actual measurement (it does, but let’s let that pass for a moment), rather it’s all just theory and speculation and nothing to do with the real world. On the other hand, the skeptics are justified in ‘ignoring’ that hypothesis in favor of their own; solar variability.

  – The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over the first half of the 20th century, *but not with the more rapid warming seen over the past three decades*. The latter more closely resembles modeled warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, *it was probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the past three decades*. – [emphasis mine]

  http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/

  There are many other reports from equally recognized, reputable sources who have taken the ‘solar variability’ hypothesis, have gone out and amassed data, studied it, and used the results to seriously challenge the hypothesis.

  It seems that when you use real science, the only theory that is ‘thwarted at every turn’ is the one advanced by the skeptics.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 29 at 4:30 a.m.

  – The AGW hypothesis has been thwarted by reality at every turn, Jeffrey. –

  And yet the Arctic sea ice continues to melt.

  – If temperatures are falling (as they have for the last 2 years)… –

  Your evidence? (Every data source I’ve seen says they’re continuing to rise.)

  – … then *of course* more of that ice will survive to become “multiyear” ice.–

  So when someone actually does go and look and produces tangible evidence (versus depending on statistical models), and when that evidence contradicts your position, you just deny it? ‘Nope. Can’t be right so you must be wrong.’

  Dr. Barber went up and looked. He measured. He observed. And he says the whole problem is the ice he observed isn’t of the kind that will survive to become multi-year ice.

  But that can’t be right so he must be in error? It’s just that simple? And he can’t be right on the assumption he doesn’t know something as simple as ‘ice that doesn’t melt doesn’t go away’? I mean, jeeze… This guy is a 30-year arctic veteran with a PhD in the field of study and you think he doesn’t know that if ice doesn’t melt it becomes multi-year ice?

  And yet he’s saying there’s a *big* problem with multi-year ice formation.

  And he’s hardly the only one saying that. You yourself have cited as authoritative people who are saying multi-year pack ice is at the lowest level ever observed, *and still declining.*

  http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  Read any of the articles on that page on several subjects relating to current conditions in the Arctic and you won’t find one that says things are getting better. Quite the contrary. *Every* observed, measured, verified trend is toward the bad, not the good.

• 

  gmorton on November 29 at 4:55 a.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “Seems to me that if your policy is to ‘thwart’ a model by grossly misrepresenting it at every turn, then it’s the policy that’s suspect, not the model.”

  The graph I linked did not delete any of Hansen’s scenarios. The actual temps fall below all 3 – including C, which assumed strict CO2 emission controls. They fall well below B, which most closely represents what has actually occurred re: emissions.

  In what way does that graph “misrepresent” Hansen?

  Here is a more detailed graph:

  http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hansencomparedrecent.jpg

  Here is Hansen’s own graph, with the satellite data overlaid:

  http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html

• 

  gmorton on November 29 at 6:22 a.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “As the advocates of climate change have consistently done. Their predictions based on their hypothesis - though far from infallible - have produced easily as many successes as failures.”

  Hmmm. Which successes are those?

  “… ala Dr. Hansen’s grossly misrepresented work - see above)”

  Please point out the misrepresentation. Be sure to focus on what I said, not what Pat Michaels said 10 years ago.

  ” You don’t ‘ignore’ hypotheses you don’t like. You amass your own evidence and advance your own theories that disprove them.”

  Yes, that is the way science works. Until the promulgators of an hypothesis produce some evidence supporting it, you assume it to be false.

  “– The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over the first half of the 20th century, *but not with the more rapid warming seen over the past three decades*.”

  You are overlooking something: the recent warming does not correlate with *modeled* temp changes induced by solar variability. That is question-begging. *It is the validity of the models which is in question*.

  That is very common in the AGW debate – offering model projections as though they are evidence.

  The fact is that the IPCCs models do not represent at all the atmospheric response to solar activity – cloud formation. They model the solar flux only.

  http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/01/new-paper-supports-a-cosmic-rays-clouds-climate-link/

  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5599/1732

  http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N47/EDIT.php

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 29 at 8:18 a.m.

  Wait a second, Hansen’s “B” got it wrong and your graph proves that?

  It looks to me that generally speaking and according to your graph, Hansen’s 20-year-old prediction missed the mark by something on the order of .2 to .6 degrees - not a bad performance in my opinion.

  Just where did you find your graph, if I may ask?

  Here’s another set of data plotted on a graph:

  http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg - along with this commentary (which looks fairly accurate to me):

  – The bottom line? Scenario B is pretty close and certainly well within the error estimates of the real world changes. And if you factor in the 5 to 10% overestimate of the forcings in a simple way, Scenario B would be right in the middle of the observed trends. It is certainly close enough to provide confidence that the model is capable of matching the global mean temperature rise! –

  But far more importantly, *ALL* of these sources show a distinct upward trend in temperatures! With respect to the fundamental point in dispute, how is an *accurate* prediction of an upward trend in temperatures ‘getting it wrong’?!

  As for all the rest - what’s making the ice melt? Where is your *evidence* that multi-year ice is being replaced rather than lost at an ever increasing rate? My evidence comes from an expert who went and looked and took measurements **on site** of the actual ice in question. Where is your evidence derived from on-site examination proving that my evidence is in error?

• 

  gmorton on November 29 at 2:44 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “Dr. Barber went up and looked. He measured. He observed. And he says the whole problem is the ice he observed isn’t of the kind that will survive to become multi-year ice.”

  Jeffrey, there is only one kind of (water) ice. It is all frozen H2O. There is no “kind” that will “survive to become multiyear ice.” Ice which made it through the summer to October has already survived. If it makes it through next summer it will be 2-year ice. Etc. More ice survived the summer this year than last. More survived in 2008 than in 2007.

  Barber was looking at the *newly formed ice” which had appeared on the satellite images. He found it to be thin. Of course it is – it is new ice. He also found that the multiyear ice which had melted through 2007 had not returned. Did he expect it to magically reappear? Once multiyear ice melts, it requires several years to replace it.

  Get it?

• 

  gmorton on November 29 at 3:20 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “It looks to me that generally speaking and according to your graph, Hansen’s 20-year-old prediction missed the mark by something on the order of .2 to .6 degrees - not a bad performance in my opinion.”

  Jeffrey, the entire difference from 1900 to 2008 is only 0.6C. I.e., the error in 20 years is as large as the entire 20th century signal.

  http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hansenlineartrend.jpg

  “http://www.realclimate.org/images/Han… - along with this commentary (which looks fairly accurate to me) . . .”

  You realize that Realclimate is James Hansen’s mouthpiece, don’t you? The site is owned by Michael Mann (of “hockey stick” fame) and Hansen is Gavin Schmidt’s boss at NASA (Schmidt runs the site).

  You oughta trust your eyes, Jeffrey, not Gavin’s spin. The figures speak for themselves.

  “Just where did you find your graph, if I may ask?”

  Here:

  http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ordinary-eyeball-how-did-hansens-predictions-do/comment-page-1/

  Read the entire discussion.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 30 at 2:32 a.m.

  – The period of slow ice growth at the beginning of the month helped to keep October average ice extent low. Arctic sea ice extent was 950,000 square kilometers (367,000 square miles) below October 2005 and 890,000 square kilometers (340,000 square miles) below that measured in 2008. Although ice extent for October 2009 was 730,000 square kilometers (282,000 square miles) above the record low for the month in 2007, it steepened the linear trend for October slightly to -5.9 % per decade. –

  http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  The ice isn’t recovering. It’s declining. Multi-year ice isn’t ‘surviving.’ It’s disappearing.

  “Get it?”

  – You realize that Realclimate is James Hansen’s mouthpiece, don’t you? The site is owned by Michael Mann (of “hockey stick” fame) and Hansen is Gavin Schmidt’s boss at NASA (Schmidt runs the site). –

  I thought we didn’t deal in ad hominem, only in evidence. But maybe that only applies to climate change skeptics? Climate change proponents are fair game?

  – You oughta trust your eyes, Jeffrey, not Gavin’s spin. The figures speak for themselves. –

  I can read a graph.

  And *every* graph I have seen to date shows the average temperature going up, not down or staying flat. So what should I believe? My eyes or the spin that says there’s no such thing as global warming. It’s just that the Earth is getting warmer.

  And that’s what’s making the ice melt.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 30 at 2:34 a.m.

  Ron,

  Does hacking or leaking (or whatever) e-mails make Arctic ice melt?

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 30 at 4:03 a.m.

  Ron,

  Again - I’m not disputing the fact that, at the very least, some folks have been engaging in some questionable activity. It needs to be looked into and if data has been fudged, it needs to be corrected and the real data brought to light.

  But the problem with this as ‘the smoking gun proof’ of the lie of global climate change is there’s *a lot* of independent, verified ‘good’ data out there that still supports the theory.

  Now I need to repeat something I said earlier. I’m not a climatologist. I don’t know all the science. I don’t pretend to. But I’ve been told that all I really need to do is just believe my eyes and I’ll see the truth. Okay. So I go and I look at all the charts and graphs and try to sort out the wheat from the chaff. ” ‘B’ is wrong and ‘C’ is wrong and 0.1 degree difference is significant here but not here and this measurement is to be trusted for this but not for this…” Etc, etc.

  Mostly I’m left scratching my head and trying to figure out what I’m supposed to believe.

  So then I do as I’m told and use my eyes and I notice something. gmorton’s chart above is a good example so you can use it to see what I’m talking about. But generally speaking, any of the charts will do. (And as I say there seem to be *a lot* of them out there.)

  Just about every one of those charts has a ‘median base line.’
  They also have a lot of data that’s plotted hither and yon and it’s the ‘hither and yon’ that everyone is usually wrangling over. But lean back for a moment (away from all the nitpicking over details) and look at where all the ‘hither and yon’ is with respect to that median baseline.

  I know that having shared that observation, I’m immediately going to get pounced on with a snarled, ‘The Earth warms and cools as part of a natural cycle. The fact that it’s getting warmer now is not significant. It’ll cool down again eventually.’

  Now it’s certainly true that this natural cycle is a fact. Again - ‘standard eyeball technology’ bears that out. But I’ve heard some folks say, ‘Yes, there’s a natural cycle. But according to the pattern of that cycle, we should be in a cooling trend right now. Furthermore, there’s no evidence in the cyclical record for the magnitude of the changes we’re currently seeing.’

  So on the one hand, I have people saying, ‘There’s a serious problem here and we need to do something!’ And on the other hand there are people saying, ‘Don’t worry. It’s all a hoax and if we just conduct business as usual all these alarmist fears will correct themselves and we’ll be just fine. You’ll see. And furthermore, don’t be fooled by people who argue soley from predictions!’

  Given that, what’s the prudent course?

  The decision is further complicated because as you and others say and given what I know about the foibles of human nature, there could well be a ‘cult’ out there determined to prove their case no matter what the actual evidence says.

  But again, knowing what I know of human nature, it seems to me it would be a little naive to assume that such cults only exist on one side of the debate.

  For example and regarding that arctic ice: ‘Oh, don’t worry. It’s just a natural cyclical pattern that every body knows about and some people are blowing out of proportion for their own ends.’

  Once again - who do I believe, Ron? Who do I look at with some suspicion about motives and ‘cults’? The people who went up and took measurements, published the results and now say, ‘This is not natural! This is a problem!’ Or the people who dismiss the data out-of-hand with a surly, ‘Oh, twaddle! There’s nothing to it. I’m sure there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation so why even worry.’

  You were a cop, Ron. When you were working a case, if one person said, ‘I’ve got proof!’ and another person said, ‘Don’t worry about it. It’s nothing. It’s all just a misinterpretation and someone trying to make something out of nothing’ - what was your usual instinct?

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 30 at 5:31 a.m.

  Ron,

  Another point of yours that bears touching on:

  – There is observational evidence re the ice decline but is it the result of the AGW model? –

  No. It’s not the result of some suspect modeling. As you say, it’s ‘observational’. People have actually gone and actually measured.

  Take a look at some of those N.S.I.D.C. reports. And once again - I’m not a scientist so I can’t definitively say they’re right or wrong based on my own personal knowledge. I just know that the N.S.I.D.C. is supposed to be the authoritative source for all things ‘Arctic Ice’. And they say this isn’t part of a well understood pattern that’s been going on “…previously since time out of mind.”

  They say what’s currently going on is both unprecedented and cause for alarm.

  So again - who do you believe? Are these folks right? Or are they just another cog in some vast conspiracy designed to advance some sinister agenda? (And at what point does the cry of ‘conspiracy!’ get repeated so often it starts to sound more like paranoia or agenda pedaling of its own?)

  And if we’re supposed to believe our own eyes, does that extend to anecdotal evidence? If so, and if the claim is that this is all very routine and nowhere near out of the ordinary enough to pay any significant attention to…

  Ever heard of the town of Churchill, Manitoba? It’s not surprising if you haven’t. Up until a few years ago nobody had and there wasn’t any reason anyone should have.

  But that seems to be changing.

  – At the moment the port is ice-free for only four months of the year, but that’s one month more than a decade ago. Ships are making it through the Arctic waters earlier each year.
  …
  Dr. Rob Huebert [is] an expert on the Arctic. He says that the current owners of Churchill — a rather secretive American railway company called OmniTRAX — bought the port specifically in the hope that it would benefit from global warming.
  …
  Russia might use it to ship oil and minerals into North America. European exporters could be interested too as a way of avoiding the congested Atlantic ports of New York, Baltimore and Boston. Churchill could in time generate revenues of $100 million a year. Not bad, says Dr. Huebert, when you consider that OmniTRAX bought it as a derelict facility from the provincial government of Manitoba for just $10.–
  http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/frozenassets/frozenassets_beard_portboom.html

  Now as I say, that’s just anecdotal and there’s more speculation there than actual hard evidence. For now, anyway.

  But still…

• 

  MatthewRoot on November 30 at 10:31 a.m.

  What gets conflated here is the scientific debate in peer-reviewed journals and the political debate in the media. Those are two very different things. Ron is correct in stating that if a hypothesis is not correct, then it will be eventually be scientifically rejected. All scientific hypotheses are always subject to constant testing and rejection if empirical evidence does not support it. That is how science works. If any scientist published any fraudulent data, they will be fired and will never publish anything again in a peer-reviewed journal. Their career will be over.

  As a peer reviewer for several major scientific publications, I know first hand that the process is not always perfect, but it does eventually work.

  I wonder how many people commenting here have actually read any of the published science in journals such as “Nature,” “Science,” “Quaternary Science Reviews,” “Quaternary Research,” or “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences?” A few emails taken out of context or links to magazines with a clear political agenda are irrelevant to the scientific questions; they are only part of the political debate.

• 

  garyc on November 30 at 10:58 a.m.

  gmorton,

  Suggest you head over to realclimate and get into the comments section. They apparently could use your help on the science end of this.

  Post your assertions and if they stand, great. I am not a climate scientist and certainly don’t have the time fo debate the data, graphs, charts, etc.

  If the Douglass study is important to your belief that the models have failed, you should read this.

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

  I do believe there is actual science behind the assertions of all the major academies’ endorsement of AGW with GHG being the main culprit. If you choose to believe a conspiracy or something else, I cannot disprove that.

  I do not think it’s a good idea to take money from the very industries that could be affected. If you’re OK with that, there’s nothing I can do. Heck, Fred Singer used to do “junk science” work for the tobacco companies. Perhaps he even still believes what he said.

  There is no government position on AGW, unless you see some upside to that. I don’t. What government wants this to be true? And why?

  Ron,

  If you want to rely on bloggers and WSJ editorialists, go for it. It’s not like it takes much for you to believe a conspiracy.

  But WSJ’s past work hasn’t been very “sciency.”

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/the-wall-street-journal-vs-the-consensus-of-the-scientific-community/

• 

  garyc on November 30 at 11:02 a.m.

  Richard,

  I am for transparency. What part of that confuses you?

  Reams of data here.

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

  What’s missing that’s needed to disprove AGW?

• 

  garyc on November 30 at 11:33 a.m.

  Statisticians fed data without being told what is was for. None of them supported the notion that the globe is cooling.

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/

• 

  garyc on November 30 at 12:05 p.m.

  Ron,

  Your analogy is just another creative attempt to press your silly conspiracy. Try another analogy if climate change is your real concern.

  You don’t care about the issue. If you did, you would read up. You care about conspiracies for conspiracies’ sake.

  If you were transparent, you would admit that.

• 

  spokelooneh on November 30 at 1:05 p.m.

  “And at what point does the cry of ‘conspiracy!’ get repeated so often it starts to sound more like paranoia or agenda pedaling of its own?)”
  -Jeffrey

  That was about 8-10 years ago. The delusion has continued to grow since then. At the core, the deniers believe as articulated thusly:

  “”God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”
  -Mann Coulter–Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

• 

  richard on November 30 at 1:11 p.m.

  Gary, and what part of … (paraphrasing Chip Jones) “I just “tricked” the numbers to hide the declines in temperatures” do you not understand? We are talking about data that has very likely been “tricked” up. And that seems to give nary a pause to those who put so much stock in the global warming alarmists.

  And this why I believe there is an element of secular religious fervor in many of those who discount and dismiss anyone who challenges the “science.” Belief in Global Warming science has become sacred to those who have no doubts or questions.

  They have elevated these scientists to the stature of “priestly goodness.” Their word is above rebuke; their honor and integrity is unquestionable.

  And yet we had Rachael Carson and her own “tricked” up numbers which also created a religious fervor amongst the environmental extremists. And that “fervor” has added 50 million to the death tolls (mostly amongst children) from malaria since her “landmark” work.

  And who can forget the Mother of Anthropology, Margaret Mead and her “landmark” work? Work which was mostly fabricated to fit the views of her and academia at the time. Her works was revered for decades. She was a scientist, you know; their motives are driven only by a “pursuit” of knowledge.

  Right!

  And of course there was the “ground making” work of Dr. Kinsey and his “myth-shattering” reports on sex. Again; much was pure fabrication to satisfy his own sexual deviant pursuits. And Hollywood made a movie about his “landmark” work.

  But the greatest of all perhaps, was the scientist Trofim Trysenko, the man who “created a science which linked Marxism to human characteristics. And he created a huge following, even amongst academia here in the US and Europe.

  So history is full of examples of (mostly leftist workings) “sciences” which have been fashioned to po0litical beliefs and pursuits. And I have no doubt that at least some of those involved in the research view it the same way.. The question is; how much influence have they had and in what positions of authority do they hold.

  Believe as you may; but there is every reason to believe that global warming scientists are subject to the same personality failings you find in bankers, stock brokers, insurance executives, investors; and all the other professions that are so easily and readily associated with greed, personal gain, personal gratification, personal recognition, jealousy, etc

  You can’t stand behind the “science” and the “data” if it is tainted with possible manipulations.

  Or can you?

• 

  MatthewRoot on November 30 at 1:30 p.m.

  Nice “trick” richard – trying to discredit people with a couple of anecdotes and sloganeering.

• 

  gmorton on November 30 at 2:26 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “– You realize that Realclimate is James Hansen’s mouthpiece, don’t you? The site is owned by Michael Mann (of “hockey stick” fame) and Hansen is Gavin Schmidt’s boss at NASA (Schmidt runs the site). –

  “I thought we didn’t deal in ad hominem, only in evidence.”

  That is not an *ad hominem*. Realclimate does not have a merely incidental connection to someone with an interest at stake. It is run by the very people whose models are in question. Realclimate and the “hockey team” are one and the same.

  Doesn’t mean their spin is invalid, but don’t mistake it for an independent opinion.

  “The ice isn’t recovering. It’s declining. Multi-year ice isn’t ‘surviving.’ It’s disappearing.

  “Get it?”

  Egad. You don’t get it. Multiyear ice cannot recover *as multiyear ice* in 2 years. Nor can it “decline” when the temps are low enough for new ice to form.

  “And *every* graph I have seen to date shows the average temperature going up, not down or staying flat.”

  You switched questions. No one is denying temps have gone up. Temps have been slowly rising on a fairly linear trajectory since 1850 or so. Take a look at Lucia’s 100-year graph again:

  http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hansenlineartrend.jpg

  The question was whether the models understand the reasons for that rise well enough to accurately predict the trend. They don’t. They predicted a rate of increase which is not occurring.

• 

  gmorton on November 30 at 3:09 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “So on the one hand, I have people saying, ‘There’s a serious problem here and we need to do something!’ And on the other hand there are people saying, ‘Don’t worry. It’s all a hoax and if we just conduct business as usual all these alarmist fears will correct themselves and we’ll be just fine.”

  Neither of those positions is defensible. The AGW theory is not a hoax (which does not mean it may not embrace or encourage some hoaxing). It is a plausible theory. It is plausible because:

  1. CO2 absorbs IR radiation in certain bands, which will effect the Earth’s radiation budget (the rate at which solar radiation is absorbed and re-emitted).

  2. Humans have been adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and

  3. Temps have been rising for the last 150 years or so (at least).

  So it is perfectly natural to try and explain 3) in terms of 1) and 2).

  Whether there is a “serious problem,” however, depends upon how high temps will rise, and at what rate. Making those predictions depends upon a thorough understanding of the behavior of the climate system. Unfortunately, that is a massively complex system, and there are hundreds of factors besides 1-3 involved. So researchers try to construct models which emulate the behavior of that system. How well they do so is reflected by the accuracy of the predictions they make.

  *And they have not been very accurate to date*. That means that we *don’t know* how high temps will rise, or how fast they will rise, and so *don’t know* whether there is a *serious problem* or not.

  There is no overall conspiracy among warming alarmists (though there are clearly mini-conspiracies within in, as the “hacked” emails show). There is only a bandwagon effect, exacerbated by the endless supply of government research money available to anyone who can add a few decibels to the alarm bell. Over the last 20 years the US government alone has doled out $79 billion for AGW research and “green” technology boondoggles. By comparison, ExxonMobil has spent $23 million over the last 10 years.

• 

  garyc on November 30 at 3:11 p.m.

  <<it concerns=”” me=”” the=”” cru=”” may=”” have=”” “smoothed”=”” the=”” data=”” using=”” algorithms=”” that=”” may=”” now=”” be=”” suspect=”” flawed=”” based=”” on=”” the=”” released=”” emails=”” et=”” al=”” and=”” then=”” the=”” cru=”” dumped=”” the=”” raw=”” data=”” for=”” whatever=”” reason.=”” thanks=”” to=”” the=”” internet=”” this=”” data=”” is=”” still=”” around=”” and=”” time=”” will=”” tell=”” as=”” others=”” who=”” do=”” not=”” have=”” a=”” vested=”” interest=”” in=”” the=”” debate=”” begin=”” to=”” crunch=”” the=”” data.=”” this=”” is=”” just=”” not=”” good=”” science=”” and=”” the=”” cru=”” should=”” be=”” held=”” accountable=”” for=”” this=”” by=”” their=”“ peers.=”“>>

  Yes, the data are around. So they haven’t been dumped. “Smoothed” is a scientific term. It doesn’t mean cheating.

  What of the data and research that isn’t done through CRU? You claim independence and not having a position. What do you need to form an opinion? Why is every relevant scientific academy on one side? Think these emails will change that?

  <<gary, and=”” what=”” part=”” of=”” …=”” (paraphrasing=”” chip=”” jones)=”” “i=”” just=”” “tricked”=”” the=”” numbers=”” to=”” hide=”” the=”” declines=”” in=”” temperatures”=”” do=”” you=”” not=”“ understand?=”“>>

  I understand all of it. And you? The decline does not refer to temperatures. Is there some reason you won’t read the links to get the answers you seek?

  From the Mann link:

  Email:

  “1. “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i. e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” (from Phil Jones).

  Explanation:

  “Phil Jones has publicly gone on record indicating that he was using the term “trick” in the sense often used by people, as in “bag of tricks”, or “a trick to solving this problem …”, or “trick of the trade”.

  “In referring to our 1998 Nature article, he was pointing out simply the following: our proxy record ended in 1980 (when the proxy data set we were using terminates) so, it didn’t include the warming of the past two decades.

  “In our Nature-article we therefore also showed the post-1980 instrumental data that was then available through 1995, so that the reconstruction could be viewed in the context of recent instrumental temperatures. The separate curves for the reconstructed temperature series and for the instrumental data were clearly labeled.

  “The reference to “hide the decline” is referring to work that I am not directly associated with, but instead work by Keith Briffa and colleagues.

  “The “decline” refers to a well-known decline in the response of only a certain type of tree-ring data (high-latitude tree-ring density measurements collected by Briffa and colleagues) to temperatures after about 1960.

  “In their original article in Nature in 1998, Briffa and colleagues are very clear that the post-1960 data in their tree-ring dataset should not be used in reconstructing temperatures due to a problem known as the “divergence problem” where their tree-ring data decline in their response to warming temperatures after about 1960.

  “Hide” was therefore a poor word choice, since the existence of this decline, and the reason not to use the post 1960 data because of it, was not only known, but was indeed the point emphasized in the original Briffa et al Nature article. There is a summary of that article available on this NOAA site.”

  Got it?

  P.S. Nice broadside in your other attacks. Feel better?

• 

  gmorton on November 30 at 3:20 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “Suggest you head over to realclimate and get into the comments section. They apparently could use your help on the science end of this.”

  Well, Gary, that does not happen on Realclimate. They routinely delete comments critical of AGW theory. Always have. You do realize that Realclimate is run by the “hockey team,” don’t you?

• 

  garyc on November 30 at 3:46 p.m.

  I see plenty of challenges and responses over there. You seriously don’t see any? Check the link I left regarding Douglass, for instance. Or any thread, for that matter.

  Anyway, from page 13 of Copenhagen Diagnosis, regarding the solar influence:

  “Year-to-year differences in global average temperatures are
  unimportant in evaluating long-term climate trends. During the
  warming observed over the 20th century, individual years lie
  above or below the long-term trend line due to internal climate
  variability (like 1998); this is a normal and natural phenomenon.

  “For example, in 2008 a La Niña occurred, a climate pattern
  which naturally causes a temporary dip in the average global
  temperature. At the same time, solar output was also at its
  lowest level of the satellite era, another temporary cooling
  influence. WITHOUT ANTHROPOGENIC WARMING THESE TWO FACTORS SHOULD HAVE RESULTED IN THE 2008 TEMPERATURE BEING AMONG THE COOLEST IN THE INSTREMENT DATA, WHILE IN FACT 2008 WAS THE WARMEST ON RECORD ”

  “This underpins the strong greenhouse warming that has occurred in the atmosphere over the past century. The most recent ten-year period is warmer than the previous ten-year period, and the longer-term warming trend is clear and unambiguous.”

  So if not GHG, then what?

• 

  gmorton on November 30 at 3:49 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “There is no government position on AGW, unless you see some upside to that. I don’t. What government wants this to be true? And why?”

  What? Who do you think Jim Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Phil Jones, et al, work for? Who did Al Gore work for most of his life? Who does John Holdren (former running mate of Chicken Little nonpareil Paul Ehrlich) work for? Who do Angela Merkel and Kevin Rudd work for? Who do Barack Obama and Lisa Jackson work for?

  Why do governments – meaning the pols and the apparatchiks who run them – want AGW to be true? Because it will increase their power, status, and wealth – the same motives that have driven all kings, emperors, popes, potentates, poobahs and politicians since Hammurabi.

• 

  gmorton on November 30 at 4:20 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “In their original article in Nature in 1998, Briffa and colleagues are very clear that the post-1960 data in their tree-ring dataset should not be used in reconstructing temperatures due to a problem known as the “divergence problem” where their tree-ring data decline in their response to warming temperatures after about 1960.”

  You need to read a little further.

  http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/i-only-show-the-series/

  The prob was not *not using* post-1960 data (although if you have a divergence between a reconstructed trend and the instrumental trend, your proxy method has a problem). The issue was showing an *artificial* upward trend by padding the proxy trend with instrumental data and *pretending* the result was the proxy trend.

  To do a smoothed trend, you average data at each data point with the data some distance to either side. At the end of a data record, however, there is no data to the right side. So the trend has to be padded to do the smoothing. Jones padded the Briffa proxy trend with instrumental data, and then passed it off as a continuation of the proxy trend (which actually showed a decline).

• 

  garyc on November 30 at 4:23 p.m.

  <<because it=”” will=”” increase=”” their=”” power,=”” status,=”” and=”” wealth=”” –=”” the=”” same=”” motives=”” that=”” have=”” driven=”” all=”” kings,=”” emperors,=”” popes,=”” potentates,=”” poobahs=”” and=”” politicians=”” since=”“ hammurabi.=”“>>

  Oh. That. Sorry, but I don’t see why scientists would go along for this ride. The research predated governments saying we need to act.

  Bush’s administration edited research findings to downplay AGW. He wasn’t interested in power/status/wealth?

  <<there could=”” very=”” well=”” be=”” a=”” warming=”” trend=”” but=”” there=”” are=”” a=”” multitude=”” of=”” factors=”” that=”” are=”” interrelated=”” that=”” may=”” be=”” the=”” casual=”” factors=”” beyond=”” just=”” co2.=”” cru’s=”” agw=”” model=”” seems=”” to=”” be=”” failing=”” in=”” its=”” predictability.=”” in=”” order=”” for=”” a=”” model=”” to=”” be=”” relied=”” upon,=”” it=”” must=”” be=”” able=”” to=”” predict=”” future=”” events=”” within=”” a=”” margin=”” of=”” statistical=”“ significance.=”“>>

  Very well be? As in, there might not be? Come on. All of the warmest temps ave been since 1998. If solar influence is down and temp is up, then what?

  Why do you say the models aren’t holding up?

  <<the application=”” of=”” the=”” statistical=”” tools=”” to=”” a=”” research=”” problem=”” question=”” is=”” more=”” of=”” an=”” art=”” form=”” than=”” a=”” science=”” and=”” subject=”” to=”” bias=”” of=”” the=”” researcher.=”” this=”” is=”” why=”” it’s=”” so=”” very=”” important=”” that=”” the=”” underlying=”” data=”” are=”” available=”” so=”” that=”” others=”” can=”” do=”” the=”” math=”” to=”” weed=”” out=”” either=”” intentional=”” or=”” unintentional=”” biases.=”” if=”” these=”” cru=”” folks=”” wielding=”” these=”” stat=”” tools=”” were=”” in=”” the=”” specialized=”” field=”” of=”” epidemiology=”” where=”” lives=”” are=”” literally=”” at=”” stake,=”” they=”” would=”” be=”” drummed=”” out=”” of=”” the=”” profession.=”” their=”” work=”” is=”“ shoddy.=”“>>

  And if you based this conclusion on these emails, you’d be out of work as an investigator.

  <<the problem=”” is=”” that=”” the=”” “2,500=”” scientists”=”” she=”” refers=”” to=”” were=”” relying=”” on=”” data=”” and=”” models=”” that,=”” it=”” now=”” appears,=”” may=”” have=”” been=”” fake.=”” garbage=”” in,=”” garbage=”” out.=”” plenty=”” of=”” scientists=”” believed=”” in=”” piltdown=”” man,=”” too,=”” for=”” a=”“ while.=”“>>

  Show me the errors in all of the data I linked to. Gisstemp, NOAA … take your pick. You make it sound like there is one data stream. That there is some special instrument that only one scientist could use. And all the others trusted him.

• 

  garyc on November 30 at 4:25 p.m.

  <<be careful=”” this=”” is=”” something=”” i=”” do=”” really=”” know=”” about=”” from=”” my=”” thirty-five=”” years=”” as=”” a=”” criminal=”“ investigator.=”“>>

  Finally! Something you know about. Other investigators don’t concur.
  The rehash isn’t happening here.

• 

  gmorton on November 30 at 4:40 p.m.

  Ron_the_Cop wrote,

  “Yes, I know what “smoothing” of the data are. The application of the statistical tools to a research problem/question is more of an art form than a science and subject to bias of the researcher.”

  You use smoothing on a data series to remove short-term variations, so that longer-term trends are more evident. For example, the daily CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa vary semi-annually (plants absorb CO2 in the summer, not in the winter). So you get a wavy trend line. But if you’re not interested in those semi-annual variations, but only in the decadal trends, you smooth the data by averaging summer/winter differences.

• 

  gmorton on November 30 at 5:06 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “Oh. That. Sorry, but I don’t see why scientists would go along for this ride.”

  You don’t? You don’t think tens of $billions in grants annually supplies any incentive? You don’t think the status and prestige of being a “climate expert” whose advice and comments are demanded daily by governments and media provides any incentive? Phil Jones at CRU collected $22 million in grants between 1990 and 2008.

  ” The research predated governments saying we need to act.”

  Of course. The early research was entirely legitimate, an attempt to investigate a plausible hypothesis (see my comment to Jeffrey, above). As soon as the hypothesis’s potential as a pretext for seizing political power became evident, the politicians, especially those on the Left, jumped aboard.

  I posted this link before. You might read it more carefully.

  http://green-agenda.com/

• 

  MatthewRoot on November 30 at 7:18 p.m.

  Ron, of course science is a human undertaking, and therefore subject to biases and errors. Knowledge always changes. Many things that I was taught as facts in graduate school are now known not to be correct. Sometimes the facts do change, just as they did when science moved from a Newtonian world into one of Einstein’s understanding. That does not imply, however, that all published climate science is wrong.
  Those on blogs, their own web sites, and political magazines, along with right wing politicians and energy company execs and employees are also human and have just as much motive (or more) to obfuscate and use dishonest “tricks” to demonstrate that the published science is wrong. This is exactly what happened in the so-called debates about tobacco and even second hand smoke.
  Science operates under strict ethical guidelines, which those on the side of “its natural” or the “scientists are dishonest” do not have to adhere to. Any Ph.D. student who actually did “tweak their data so as to fit the politically correct picture” would have their degree revoked. One disgruntled guy does not make it so.
  Gary C. cites peer-reviewed science, others cite blogs, political magazines, and unreviewed web sites run by energy company employees. Where is the peer-reviewed science that shows current warming is all natural, or that it is not even happening? To think that 90% (or more) of all climate scientists are somehow lying just to gain fame and fortune is preposterous. Even Reid Bryson’s Center for Climatic Research has concluded that some of current climate change is likely anthropogenic.

• 

  richard on November 30 at 7:48 p.m.

  And Chip, where is the raw data that seems to been “tossed” by the scientists and researchers? From what I understand, all that is left is data that has been formulated for the computer models.

  If this is true, is that the way “ethical” science is supposed to work?

  You cite “ethical standards” that science works within; which I have no doubt is true. But so do lawyers. Would you trust some group of attorneys working in what amounts to be a wall of near secrecy, when it comes to the raw “evidence,” and once they have analyzed the evidence and ran it through the necessary legal theories, they then dumped the raw evidence?

  Would you willing adopt a national policy that will no doubt cost trillions upon trillions of dollars, which would shift - or redistribute - hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars and fundamentally weaken our economy; all on the legal analysis put forth by this group of attorneys, and which, incidentally, fits all very nicely with the agenda of a group of politicians both nationally and internationally?

  No cause for pause; say you?

  Science, as I pointed out priory, has many, many dark episodes where “ethics” were not all that important in the scheme of things, and ethical standards were not enough to stem the tide of acceptance by those who saw the “evidence’ fitting nicely into their worldviews.

  I sometimes think I am blogging with a group of very naive and innocent people. As a citizen, you must demand total transparency relative to the “cost” or value of what is at stake.
  I don’t see that with media and I don’t see it with the typical amateur global warming enthusiast. It always seems more like a “political” issue with all too many.

  I find myself quite dismayed by all this.

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 30 at 7:59 p.m.

  Interesting, “Richard,” so what was your take on not so ethical science during the atomic age/cold war from the late 40s through at least the 1950s? Maybe I’m a Hanford Mutant because of the scientific release of nuclear radiation from Hanford to test its effects on a human population. And afterwards, the ideological denial (politics) that the radiation had any effect. For what, because it would hurt capitalistic ventures in commercial radiation use? Best to see both sides.

• 

  gmorton on November 30 at 8:10 p.m.

  Ron, here is the complete exchange re: Nordic temps:

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/

• 

  gmorton on November 30 at 8:14 p.m.

  This one is amusing:

  http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

• 

  gmorton on December 01 at 5:17 a.m.

  Here is the unadjusted NOAA temp data for Spokane and several nearby stations. See any hockey stocks?

  http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100AJanDecI188020080900410AR42572785003x42572785005x42572786004x42572786006x

• 

  gmorton on December 01 at 5:20 a.m.

  “stocks” should be “sticks,” of course.

• 

  garyc on December 01 at 9:28 a.m.

  <<you don’t?=”” you=”” don’t=”” think=”” tens=”” of=”” $billions=”” in=”” grants=”” annually=”” supplies=”” any=”” incentive?=”” you=”” don’t=”” think=”” the=”” status=”” and=”” prestige=”” of=”” being=”” a=”” “climate=”” expert”=”” whose=”” advice=”” and=”” comments=”” are=”” demanded=”” daily=”” by=”” governments=”” and=”” media=”” provides=”” any=”” incentive?=”” phil=”” jones=”” at=”” cru=”” collected=”” $22=”” million=”” in=”” grants=”” between=”” 1990=”” and=”“ 2008.=”“>>

  So when I point out industry sources that is ad hominem, but this is a-OK?

  How is it that industry-funded scientists never publish articles that attribute warming to GHG? Just lucky, I guess. I’m sure they would trumpet those studies and keep those scientists’ checks rolling in. Sure.

  Climate scientist Stephen Schneider said if they wanted to keep the grant “gravy train” rolling, the best course of action would be to introduce uncertainty so that endless studies would ben needed.

  BTW, Schneider believed in global cooling in the 70s, then his mind was changed by the data and peer reviewed work. So where is this peer reviewed work that points to solar variation?.

• 

  garyc on December 01 at 11:31 a.m.

  Ron,

  Since you referenced Richard Lindzen, what does your 30 years of investigative experience tell you about this?

  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen

  Or this:

  “Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC’s reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990’s. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.

  “Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen “charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC.” (“The Heat is On: The warming of the world’s climate sparks a blaze of denial,” Harper’s magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. ”

  Think he’d get paid if he said otherwise?

  So if I link to Greenpeace studies or Sierra Club sponsored research, that’s more credible than those glory hounds taking government grants!

  He’s quite a character. Will even argue that the link between smoking and cancer is tenuous. But, hey, he’s from M.I.T. End of story.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 01 at 12:42 p.m.

  “gmorton on Monday’s Loose Thread on December 01 at 5:17 a.m.

  Here is the unadjusted NOAA temp data for Spokane and several nearby stations. See any hockey stocks?

  http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming…”

  And this has what to do with the issue of global climate change?

  Nothing.

  ––––––––––––––––—

  Lindzen is a professional liar, and a good one.

• 

  richard on December 01 at 1:00 p.m.

  Another email -

  Can they all be “explained away”?

  From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
  To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
  Subject: 1940s
  Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
  Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

  <x-flowed>
  Phil,

  Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
  explain the 1940s warming blip.

  If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
  land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

  So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
  then this would be significant for the global mean — but
  we’d still have to explain the land blip.

  I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
  ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
  ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
  forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
  these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
  1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
  plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
  consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

  Removing ENSO does not affect this.

  It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
  but we are still left with “why the blip”.

  Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
  effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
  ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
  in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

  The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
  MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
  get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
  solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
  (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
  makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
  currently is not) — but not really enough.

  So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
  (SH/NH data also attached.)

  This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d
  appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

  Tom.

  </x-flowed>

  Attachment Converted: “c:eudoraattachTTHEMIS.xls”

  Attachment Converted: “c:eudoraattachTTLVSO.XLS”

• 

  richard on December 01 at 1:15 p.m.

  Gary seems to trying the “good-offense is a good-defense” strategy when he tries to bad-mouth one of those less than reputable critiques of bad science. (as if scientists or researchers are supposed to work fror free if they work for an oil company.

  I think we are beginning to see a pattern here; Phil Jones seems to always be a participant in the emails where it appears collusion is being discussed.

  He seems to be “quite a character.”

  From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
  To: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
  Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
  Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

  Mike,
  Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
  2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
  for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
  to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
  I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
  that you have the pdf.
  The attachment is a very good paper - I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
  to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
  for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
  obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
  out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
  The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
  losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
  it.
  I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
  them
  out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
  Cheers
  Phil
  Mike,
  For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
  shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn’t that strongly worded as the first author
  is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
  It isn’t peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
  because
  the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn’t
  happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn’t) and doing
  this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40’s trends in the lower atmosphere
  are all physically consistent where NCEP’s are not - over eastern US.

  I can send if you want, but it won’t be out as a report for a couple of months.
  Cheers
  Phil

  Prof. Phil Jones
  Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
  School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
  University of East Anglia

• 

  richard on December 01 at 1:25 p.m.

  Note the discussion about trying to get a researcher “ousted” because it appears he might be in the “greenhouse skeptic’s camp.”

  Get rid of those who have skepticism? Skepticism about what? I thought scientists and researchers were supposed to be skeptics.

  At 04:30 PM 1/20/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:
  >> >
  >> > Mike,
  >> >
  >> >
  >> >
  >> > This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.
  >> > I
  >> >
  >> > think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful
  >> >
  >> > dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have
  >> >
  >> > on glaciers — it was well received by the referees, and so is in
  >> > the
  >> >
  >> > publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was
  >> >
  >> > trying to keep it from being published.
  >> >
  >> >
  >> > Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that
  >> > Saiers
  >> >
  >> > is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find
  >> > documentary
  >> >
  >> > evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get
  >> >
  >> > him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
  >> >
  >> >
  >> > How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the
  >> >
  >> > authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass
  >> >
  >> > is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously
  >> >
  >> > rejected was submitted to GRL.
  >> >
  >> >
  >> > Tom.
  >> >

• 

  richard on December 01 at 1:41 p.m.

  Read this about a German Climatologist:

  From Reason magazine -

  <<climatologist eduardo=”” zorita=”” at=”” the=”” german=”” institute=”” for=”” coastal=”” research=”” has=”” publicly=”” declared=”” that=”” “editors,=”” reviewers=”” and=”” authors=”” of=”” alternative=”” studies,=”” analysis,=”” interpretations,=”” even=”” based=”” on=”” the=”” same=”” data=”” we=”” have=”” at=”” our=”” disposal,=”” have=”” been=”” bullied=”” and=”” subtly=”” blackmailed.”=”” zorita=”” adds,=”” “in=”” this=”” atmosphere,=”” phd=”” students=”” are=”” often=”” tempted=”” to=”” tweak=”” their=”” data=”” so=”” as=”” to=”” fit=”” the=”” ‘politically=”” correct=”” picture’.”=”” zorita=”” evidently=”” believes=”” even=”” after=”” the=”” email=”” scandal=”” that=”” he=”” will=”” be=”” punished=”” by=”” editors=”” and=”” reviewers=”” for=”” denouncing=”” the=”” cru=”” crew:=”” “by=”” writing=”” these=”” lines=”” i=”” will=”” just=”” probably=”” achieve=”” that=”” a=”” few=”” of=”” my=”” future=”” studies=”” will,=”” again,=”” not=”” see=”” the=”” light=”” of=”“ publication.”=”“>>

  The wheels are coming off.

  If mainstream media does not do its job regarding this story,it will have declared itself to be completely irrelevent.

• 

  gmorton on December 01 at 4:34 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “So when I point out industry sources that is ad hominem, but this is a-OK?”

  Tsk, tsk. It is an *ad hominem* when one cites a researcher’s source of funds (or his religion, nationality, taste in music, etc.) as a reason to dismiss his research. But we were not discussing the merits of Jones’s research. You asked whether he had a *motive* for supporting the AGW theory. He clearly does.

  That does not imply that his research is flawed. That would have to be determined by examining the research.

  Check this for a a discussion of comparative motives:

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html

  “So where is this peer reviewed work that points to solar variation?”

  I cited some of it in a post above.

  http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/01/new-paper-supports-a-cosmic-rays-clouds-climate-link/

  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5599/1732

  http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N47/EDIT.php

  BTW, if you’ve read some of those emails you’d have some questions about the integrity of the peer review process as it relates to AGW theory.

• 

  gmorton on December 01 at 4:52 p.m.

  Spokanlooneh wrote,

  “And this has what to do with the issue of global climate change?”

  Not a whole lot, by itself. But Appinsys has the complete NOAA raw database online. You might set aside, say, a half-hour, check the trends on some random sampling of stations (try to avoid those in the middle of cities, and only select those with complete records from 1900 or earlier to the present) and see how many show a hockey stick curve.

  Here’s the site link:

  http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climate.aspx

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 01 at 7:56 p.m.

  richard, I have been involved all day doing research for a study, hence the delayed response. I have seen unethical behavior by scientists, and I assure you it is dealt with swiftly and harshly. More than a decade ago, a person in my department at a major university was summarily fired for unethical behavior after more than 15 years of working at the university. We do not tolerate scientific dishonesty.
  It is you that I find incredibly naïve and gullible, and willing to believe any right-wing conspiracy theory du jour without even understanding basic scientific methods yourself. There are no “secret” data. Gary C has provided the links.
  It is true that much is uncertain about the current climate models. Everyone agrees with that. There are huge uncertainty factors. I am not a climate scientist, but I do read some of the original published science and the reviews in the major journals by climate scientists. That is where my opinion comes from.
  How much of the original published research have you read?

• 

  gmorton on December 01 at 11:39 p.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  “It is you that I find incredibly naïve and gullible, and willing to believe any right-wing conspiracy theory du jour . . .”

  I’m sure Richard can speak for himself, but no one is alleging a conspiracy among climate scientists generally. There was clearly one among the CRU “hockey team” to blackball skeptical scientists, withhold data from them, and pressure editors not to publish them, however.

  I assume you’ve read Judith Curry’s comments. If not, here:

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 02 at 5:49 a.m.

  gmorton,

  I decided to spend some time and really try to delve into the facts with respect to Arctic ice before I posted again. As a result of my investigations, I now freely admit to a changed premise on my part.

  At least to some degree.

  Part of that changed premise is what I now believe to be the truth about the recovery of multi-year ice. I have previously insisted that you were absolutely wrong when you said that ice is surviving through the melt season to become multi-year ice. It turns out that I was the one who was wrong.

  At least to some degree.

  In the end, it all depends on how you define ‘recovering’.

  2007 was nothing short of a disaster with respect to the Arctic polar ice cap. The melt that year was utterly unprecedented within the modern data set. (And equally unprecedented in most of the anecdotal record stretching back as far as reliable anecdotes have been reported.)

  You may challenge that assertion if you wish. Frankly, I have done sufficient reading and research at this point that I’ll just smile and nod and remain utterly convinced in what I’ve just said. 2007 was an unprecedented disaster.

  More to the point, even the most die-hard skeptics - or at least the reputable ones who have brought themselves to discuss the matter - have admitted that 2007 was… What word shall I use? ‘Noteworthy’?

  Since 2007, the Arctic ice cap has once again expanded. Ice has formed and has survived to become multi-year ice. On that point at least, you were right and I was wrong.

  Now, if you want to term that ‘recovery’, you can plausibly do so.

  The problem is, it’s a ‘recovery’ from a disastrously low level. To view it in another perspective, based on the data from 2007, the rate of arctic ice decline was calculated at something like 11% / decade. Calculated today, based on the ice that has reformed, the rate of decline has slowed to something like 6% / decade.

  And here we come to the crux of it. The skeptics say, “And that rate of decline will itself continue to decline. 6% this year will become 5% next year as the ice continues to recover. And so on until there’s no decline.”

  But I say it could just as easily be argued that’s using a statistical anomaly to assert something that simply isn’t the case.

  Remember, the trend is indisputably *downward*.

  What if that 6% decline once again stabilizes at 6% after the statistical anomaly of 2007 is reconciled?

  That possibility is what has folks like N.S.I.D.C. alarmed. *And they’re basing that alarm on a proven trend supported by an exhaustive, consistent data set.* Furthermore, remember that the only ‘noteworthy’ transient to date has been a disastrous *decline.*

  So, yes - I now grant you that, depending on how you define ‘recovery’, it could be argued that the Arctic ice cap has ‘recovered’ to some degree. But I stand by my concern and my assertion that the true state of affairs is, ‘the ice is melting.’ There is NO current evidence based on the observed trends that Arctic ice will ever ‘recover’ to the pre-2007 levels. Rather, all the evidence to date suggests that some fraction of the disastrously low 2007 levels might be recouped… only to eventually melt in some subsequent season as the downward trend continues.

  That being so, it is dangerously wishful thinking to paint what’s going on as any kind of true ‘recovery’.
  
  And that being the case, and given that even you will allow that the activities of Man are contributing to that disaster in the making at least to some as yet undefined degree, I say the only prudent course is we must act now to curb those things that we can control, no matter what the expense. In the end, the failure to do so will be more expensive by a thousand fold.

  That premise of mine hasn’t changed.

• 

  garyc on December 02 at 10:24 a.m.

  <<tsk, tsk.=”” it=”” is=”” an=”” *ad=”” hominem*=”” when=”” one=”” cites=”” a=”” researcher’s=”” source=”” of=”” funds=”” (or=”” his=”” religion,=”” nationality,=”” taste=”” in=”” music,=”” etc.)=”” as=”” a=”” reason=”” to=”” dismiss=”” his=”” research.=”” but=”” we=”” were=”” not=”” discussing=”” the=”” merits=”” of=”” jones’s=”” research.=”” you=”” asked=”” whether=”” he=”” had=”” a=”” *motive*=”” for=”” supporting=”” the=”” agw=”” theory.=”” he=”” clearly=”“ does.=”“>>

  Taking money for directly affected industries isn’t a motive?

• 

  garyc on December 02 at 10:26 a.m.

  <<(as if scientists or researchers are supposed to work fror free if they work for an oil company.>>

  They’re not on staff. It’s not their sole source of income. Think the industry would post results that show AGW on its Web site and publicize it?

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 02 at 11:30 a.m.

  Gary,

  You seem to be forgetting the cardinal rule: labels can only be accurately viewed through the lens of partisan bi… uh… enlightenment.

  One man’s ‘ad hominem’ is another man’s fair comment - and it’s certainly not an ad hominem if it’s true! (Regarding ‘truth’ - see ‘cardinal rule’ above.)

  It’s not a ‘conspiracy’ just because a whole bunch of people are apparently colluding to achieve the same goal.

  And there’s no such thing as ‘global warming.’ It’s just that the Earth is getting warmer.

• 

  garyc on December 02 at 11:55 a.m.

  <<btw, if=”” you’ve=”” read=”” some=”” of=”” those=”” emails=”” you’d=”” have=”” some=”” questions=”” about=”” the=”” integrity=”” of=”” the=”” peer=”” review=”” process=”” as=”” it=”” relates=”” to=”” agw=”“ theory.=”“>>

  Peer review as opposed to what?

• 

  garyc on December 02 at 11:57 a.m.

  Richard,

  The blog Dot Earth has some extensive discussions of the emails in “comments.” As does realclimate, which I’ve linked to before.

  Just in case you actually are interested in explanations.

• 

  garyc on December 02 at 12:54 p.m.

  Roger Pielke Sr., a consistent critic of the climate change “oligarchy” says the emails don’t change the 2007 IPCC assessment. The effects of C02 are real.

  http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/

  Nature’s editorial:

  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

  The death of AGW has been greatly exaggerated.

  >> I am not a climate expert. I am an expert in fraudulent activity and what motivates people to commit frauds. These are base human behavioral traits. In short a good principle to follow in conflict of interest cases/frauds is, “follow the money honey.” >>

  If you followed money back to industries or their front groups what would you conclude?

  Would the PR campaigns of Big Tobacco denying nicotine addiction and industry denying a CFC-ozone link be instructive? Here is the playbook from the CFCs lobby:

  http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389

  - Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.

  - Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.

  - Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don’t publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.

  - Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.

  - Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.

  - Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.

  - Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.

  - Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.

  - Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.

  - Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.

  How well we all remember the calamity that ensued when the world acted on CFCs. It’s a wonder we still have an economy.

• 

  richard on December 02 at 2:28 p.m.

  That is great, Chip, that a dishonest scientist was discovered and fired at a university. This topic of global warming has ramifications way beyond front line researchers and scientists.

  Do fail to see that something this politically charged, and where trillions of dollars are involved, would not be ripe for “fudging” – if not out right fraud – just berceuse it involves “scientists;” then I don’t know what that could be called if not naïve. Blind allegiance?

  Look, I am not trying to point fingers at anyone on these pages; but the one thing that frustrates me more than anything else, is when I see intelligent people fail to use a common sense test when addressing topics like this one.

  I don’t believe right-wing conspiracy theory … but I I sure know that where there is smoke there is likely to be fire.

  Case in point; I have heard several intelligent people this past weekend say that nothing they “heard from the news reports” is convincing that this matter was anything more than a simple car accident. “Tiger Woods would not be stupid enough to be seeing another woman; besides, you can’t believe anything that the Enquirer prints!”

  My assessment is that they did not want to believe what was apparent, because of their view of Tiger Woods. Now they know they were wrong.

  I don’t read the original reports because I am not a scientist – that would serve no purpose. I don’t really concern myself with the science; it is the politics which really matter. And I simply do not trust those who are pushing this agenda. There is way too much $, power, control, prestige, etc. for warming science to come up empty. They have gone way beyond the point where “failure” is not an option.

  This all results in the situations where a scientist is rebuked for his work which “should not have been done” because it conflicted with what the “group” scientists had otherwise concluded. Work was no longer evaluated on its merits … but by its results.

  We have read and heard these kinds of reports from individuals for years – and it was all just lost up in the swirl of ongoing debate – and no one ever had much reaction about them. Media just brushed it off.

  And now we have things like this starting to pile up. Serious questions, serious issues, all which need to be addressed; and as I said earlier, if media does not rise to the occasion and perform a thorough and unbiased investigation, it will have declared itself irrelevant or worse.

  So far though I have not seen anyone who claims to be a “believer,” step forward and acknowledge that there is a very serious issue at hand and call for a thorough review.

• 

  richard on December 02 at 2:52 p.m.

  So Jeff and Gary, nothing you have read (if you have even bothered to read) in the links provided by Ron, gmortoin or myself, creates any question in your minds about the integrity of the global warming science community or the believers or advocates - whatever you wish to call them? to you it is just something that can be “explained away.”

  And you insinuate that our views are extremist or unreasonable! Even to the point that Jeff mocks, and is dismissive in a childish way, those of us who question - and have been questioning - the integrity of this whole movement!

  Now who is it that really is silly looking here?

• 

  gmorton on December 02 at 2:55 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “2007 was nothing short of a disaster with respect to the Arctic polar ice cap. The melt that year was utterly unprecedented within the modern data set.”

  The modern data set only extends from 1979. No one was measuring arctic ice extent before then.

  “(And equally unprecedented in most of the anecdotal record stretching back as far as reliable anecdotes have been reported.)”

  Nope. Though no one was doing measurements, we know that the NW Passage was open for several years in the early 1920s and again for a few years in the late 1940s.

  Arctic ice extent, BTW, is not a function of global temps, at least not directly. It is a function of ocean currents. Sometimes the Gulf Stream and other currents move a bit further north, warming arctic waters and melting ice.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

• 

  gmorton on December 02 at 3:22 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “Taking money for directly affected industries isn’t a motive?”

  Yes, it is. *But the researcher’s motives for undertaking the research are irrelevant to the quality of the research*.

  Virtually everyone who does research (or anything else) has some motive for doing it, beyond mere satisfaction of curiosity – the desire for fame, status, admiration of one’s peers, direct financial rewards, securing of future funding. All of those introduce a “confirmation bias” – a bias in favor of obtaining positive results.

  There is a difference in the strength of the these motives, however, between guys like Lindzen and guys like Phil Jones and Michael Mann. For Lindzen, an Exxon grant represents only a small part of his motivational package. If he never gets another Exxon grant his life will change very little. In contrast, if Jones and Mann received no more government funds, their jobs would be abolished. If that occurred because their version of AGW theory was shown to be untenable, their professional status would be in the toilet.

  But in either case, the motives are irrelevant to the value of the research. That can only be judged by examining the research.

• 

  gmorton on December 02 at 4:01 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “Roger Pielke Sr., a consistent critic of the climate change “oligarchy” says the emails don’t change the 2007 IPCC assessment. The effects of C02 are real.

  “http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/”

  Er, Gary, I think you missed the point. Pielke Sr is saying that the emails do not affect the IPCCs temp trends, because other organizations not involved with CRU’s troubles have produced similar trends. But *all of them rely on the same data and similar adjustment methods, and that those data and methods, particularly land surface temp data, are flawed*.

  Surface station data, and also sea surface data to some extent, are based on datasets which, when that data was being collected, were never intended to assess global warming. They were collected to inform people in the area around the weather station whether they should plan on a coat or a sweater when going out for the day, and let farmers know whether they should plant or hold off for a few more days. Stations are moved, buildings and parking lots grow up around them, instruments are changed, times readings are taken change, etc. Many of those changes were never documented. In many parts of the world they are not documented at all, and the readings were often taken lackadasically.

  None of those changes matter much for the original purposes of the weather stations. But they matter a lot for computing long-term trends.

  A reasonably good trend can probably be produced using a careful selection of stations whose histories have been well-documented and whose surroundings have not changed much over those histories. That has never been done.

  In the meantime the satellite SSTs and LT temps are the *most consistent* data we have. But they only extend back to the late 1970s.

  That was one of Revkin’s better columns, BTW.

• 

  gmorton on December 02 at 4:12 p.m.

  Richard wrote,

  “My assessment is that they did not want to believe what was apparent, because of their view of Tiger Woods. Now they know they were wrong.”

  What arouses my curiosity re: the Tiger Woods thing is, Why is anyone interested? Every MSM outlet, including the S-R, is featuring that story among their “top stories,” while utterly ignoring the Climategate story and its fallout.

  Why anyone would give a hoot whether and why Tiger Woods was involved in a traffic accident utterly eludes me. Seems like a story that should get 2 column inches on p. 3 of the Sunday sports section, if anywhere.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 02 at 6:53 p.m.

  – The modern data set only extends from 1979. No one was measuring arctic ice extent before then. –

  Not true.

  – Records assembled by Vikings showing the number of weeks per year that ice occurred along the north coast of Iceland date back to A.D. 870, but a more complete record exists since 1600. More extensive written records of Arctic sea ice date back to the mid-1700s. The earliest of those records relate to Northern Hemisphere shipping lanes, but records from that period are sparse. Air temperature records dating back to the 1880s can serve as a stand-in (proxy) for Arctic sea ice, but such temperature records were initially collected at only 11 locations. Russia’s Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute has compiled ice charts dating back to 1933.–

  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SeaIce/page2.php

  – … we know that the NW Passage was open for several years in the early 1920s and again for a few years in the late 1940s. –

  Your authority for this assertion?

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 02 at 7:27 p.m.

  “I don’t read the original reports because I am not a scientist – that would serve no purpose. I don’t really concern myself with the science; it is the politics which really matter.” thus spoke richard.

  Well, really, it is only the science that matters. If the science is wrong, it will be proven wrong. So far it has not.

  Statements like the above really crystallize the failings of science education in America. People who don’t know the science, and who are not interested in understanding the science feel qualified to make important political decisions regarding the science.

• 

  gmorton on December 02 at 8:07 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  – Records assembled by Vikings showing the number of weeks per year that ice occurred along the north coast of Iceland date back to A.D. 870, but a more complete record exists since 1600.

  Wrong kind of records. Those are anecdotal. To do quantitative comparisons, you need quantitiative data. That has only been available since 1979.

  “Currently, however, only the satellite record is considered sufficiently reliable for studying Antarctic sea ice trends.”

  You didn’t read your own cite far enough.

  “– … we know that the NW Passage was open for several years in the early 1920s and again for a few years in the late 1940s. –

  “Your authority for this assertion?”

  http://www.climatechangefacts.info/Today-Arctic-Ice-Area-and-Trends.html

• 

  gmorton on December 02 at 8:20 p.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  “People who don’t know the science, and who are not interested in understanding the science feel qualified to make important political decisions regarding the science.”

  Yes. Like Al Gore, Ed Begley Jr., Barbra Streisand, Nancy Pelosi, Carol Browner, and Barack Obama.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 02 at 9:56 p.m.

  There are some in the “denial” community who are doing legitimate scientific work.

  There’s a FAR bigger community that is trying to spin denialism to the nth political degree.

  For example, the preeminent Republican spin meister, Frank Luntz:

  “In March 2003 the Environmental Working Group obtained a copy of a memo [1] written by Republican public opinion researcher Frank Luntz, where he outlined a strategy on the environment for the Republican party. Luntz is an expert on the use of language – he wrote the book “Words That Work” [2]. This is part of his advice on global warming (pages 137–138 of the memo):
  WINNING THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE – AN OVERVIEW

  Please keep in mind the following communication recommendations as you address global warming in general, particularly as Democrats and opinion leaders attack President Bush over Kyoto.

  1. The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.
  2. Americans want a free and open discussion. Even though Democrats savaged President Bush for formally withdrawing from the Kyoto accord, the truth is that none of them would have actually voted to ratify the treaty, and they were all glad to see it die. Emphasise the importance of “acting only with all the facts in hand”  and “making the right decision, not the quick decision.”
  3. Technology and innovation are the key in arguments on both sides. Global warming alarmists use American superiority in technology and innovation quite effectively in responding to accusations that international agreements such as the Kyoto accord could cost the United States billions. Rather than condemning corporate America the way most environmentalists have done in the past, they attack their us for lacking faith in our collective ability to meet any economic challenges presented by environmental changes we make. This should be our argument. We need to emphasise how voluntary innovation and experimentation are preferable to bureaucratic or international intervention and regulation.

  […]

  The most important principle in any discussion of global warming is your commitment to sound science. Americans unanimously believe all environmental rules and regulations should be based on sound science and common sense. […]

  ***The scientific debate is closing [against us] ***but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science. … ”

  http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/pr-versus-science-the-luntz-memo/

  That’s what’s so ironic, the science indicating that AGW is occurring is stronger than ever, however, the superior propaganda techniques of Big Oil and the deluded deniers has shaped public opinion against the truth of AGW.

• 

  richard on December 02 at 10:01 p.m.

  I agree with your statement: “People who don’t know the science, and who are not interested in knowing the science feel qualified to make political decisions regarding the science.”

  I assume that you mean people such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama and probably 98% of the Democratic Party in Congress, and the hundreds and hundreds of bureaucrats working in NGO’s around the world, pushing the agenda of global warming, and who are not scientists.

  These are the folks who are making the political decisions, not me. But you want me to accept the “political decisions” of those folks.

  The real problem with the whole “global warming community,” from the public’s perspective is that there has been no separation between the science and the politics. The propaganda, the scare tactics, etc has flowed to and from these two epicenters of this phenomena without any distinction.

  You have Al Gore (who stands to profit 10’s of billions of dollars) trying to frighten people with false data that the oceans are going to rise 30 feet; and James Hansen who has proposed that “deniers” should face charges of crimes against humanity.

  And then there is media. Remember how media covered Bush’s decision back in 2002 0r 03 that he would not provide anymore government funding for stem cell research? Remember how media sought out the opinion’s of all the top scientists and researchers who stood in opposition to Bush?

  Do you recall how Bush was described by media as the “anti-science” president? Do you recall how media sought to discredit the decision based on scientific data?

  Mainstream media - GARY - has not covered this story at all. The Tiger Woods story has received 100 fold more coverage. WHY?

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 03 at 3:52 a.m.

  gmorton,

  Oh, very nice… We start out talking about *Arctic* sea ice measurements and suddenly you’re talking about *Antarctic* measurements, and doing so with a statement taken out of its context. Here’s the full paragraph discussing a pair of proxy methods that have been suggested with respect to Antarctic sea ice:

  – One is records kept by Antarctic whalers since the 1930s that document the location of all whales caught. Because whales tend to congregate near the sea ice edge to feed, their locations could be a proxy for the ice extent. A second possible proxy is the presence of a phytoplankton-derived organic compound in Antarctic ice cores. Since phytoplankton grow most abundantly along the edges of the ice pack, the concentration of this sulfur-containing organic compound has been proposed as an indicator of how far the ice edge extended from the continent. Currently, however, only the satellite record is considered sufficiently reliable for studying Antarctic sea ice trends. –

  So yes, with respect to those three, satellite records are the most reliable and are to be preferred.

  However, in the Arctic scientifically obtained *measurements* - not anecdotes - have been available since 1933. The data sets are by no means exhaustive and they are by no means as comprehensive as the satellite record that has been available since circa 1980. But it’s hard data and it’s there. To dismiss it out of hand as ‘anecdotal’ says quite a lot.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 03 at 3:53 a.m.

  Now, with respect to the Northwest Passage:

  Your authority for your claim cites the voyage of the famed explorer Roald Amundsen aboard the “Gjoa” in 1905 as the first proof of a navigable Northwest Passage existing in the past. The claim of ‘navigable’ might need to be re-examined however:

  – Roald Amundsen (1872-1928) of Norway was the first person to successfully navigate the fabled Northwest Passage.

  His journey took three years to complete - he and his crew had to wait while the frozen sea around them thawed enough to allow for navigation. –

  http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-amundsen.htm

  Frankly, I don’t see a three-year voyage that had to pause for months at a time to wait for ice to melt is quite the proof of ‘navigable’ you’re looking for. So, let’s check for some alternatives:

  The second voyage mentioned in your citation is the epic journey of “RCMPV St Roch” commanded by Corporal Henry Larsen. Once again, if this is your proof of a navigable Northwest Passage, I think the evidence is not quite what you think it is:

  – The first passage began in Vancouver in June of 1940. Through the Bering Strait and across the north coast of Alaska, the St. Roch entered the Arctic Archipelago through Amundsen Gulf. However by September the passage had begun to freeze and the crew was forced to winter on the coast of Victoria Island. Traveling out by dog sled dressed in Inuit style caribou skins, the crew spent the winter exploring the surrounding area, often covering 30 to 40 miles in a day.

  With the breakup in August 1941 the St. Roch continued its passage east. Through blizzards the vessel wound its way south of King William Island through the Franklin Strait and out into Lancaster Sound. On several occasions it seemed as though the ship would be crushed by the ice. When the situation looked perilous, the Inuit passengers would hurry to the forecastle to sing. When asked, they said they were singing to avoid being crushed - they were kindly asked to keep singing. –

  http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions

  Compare and contrast the original “St Roch’s” voyage with that of its namesake the “St Roch II” in 2000:

  – The St. Roch II has crossed through the Northwest Passage in just three weeks! When the original St. Roch went through, it spent two years trapped in Arctic ice, and it took the vessel 27 months to do what the St. Roch II did in a matter of days.

  There was so little ice that most of the trip was smooth sailing except for the occasional iceberg floating by. –

  http://www.athropolis.com/news/st-roch.htm

• 

  gmorton on December 03 at 5:46 a.m.

  Jeffrey,

  Amundsen’s Goja was a sloop (sailboat).

  The 1944 St Roch trip was completed in 86 days.

  Apparently the passage was open in 2000 also.

• 

  gmorton on December 03 at 5:59 a.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “However, in the Arctic scientifically obtained *measurements* - not anecdotes - have been available since 1933.”

  You still didn’t read far enough. NASA considers Arctic ice records “reliable” since 1953. But for quantitative comparisons, you need *comparable data*.

  My “anecdotal” remark referred to the comment of yours I quoted:

  “– Records assembled by Vikings showing the number of weeks per year that ice occurred along the north coast of Iceland date back to A.D. 870, but a more complete record exists since 1600.”

• 

  gmorton on December 03 at 6:07 a.m.

  Also, Jeffrey, don’t forget the 1922 report, which reported the Arctic Ocean ice free to the 81st parallel.

  http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 03 at 6:28 a.m.

  Yeah… I rather expected as much.

  The facts about the trips taking seveal years because of all the ice aren’t even addressed.

  Fine. Whatever.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 03 at 11:15 a.m.

  Citing WSJ idiotorials is laughable.

• 

  garyc on December 03 at 11:23 a.m.

  >> There is a difference in the strength of the these motives, however, between guys like Lindzen and guys like Phil Jones and Michael Mann. For Lindzen, an Exxon grant represents only a small part of his motivational package. If he never gets another Exxon grant his life will change very little. <<

  Pat Michaels backed out of being an expert witness in a trial, because he was going to have to reveal the funding sources of New Hope, which he described as his sole source of income (beyond his retirement package from a university). He explained to the court how important the money was and this is why he was dismissing himself. His funders didn’t want to be revealed (how’s that for transparency?. One inadvertently was, and New Hope lost that money.

  http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/GreenMtDoc521.pdf

  His lawyer: “Public exposure of the funding will therefore result in the loss of some or all of New Hope’s clients, leading either to destruction of the business or a significant curtailment of its operations. Since Dr. Michaels and other research scientists obtain a significant portion of their income from New Hope, the damage to New Hope will seriously diminish their livelihoods.”“

  Not much of a stretch to say that research that didn’t please these clients would so the same.

  From a wiki link upthread: “Michaels described the “mission” of the firm as being to “publicize findings on climate change and scientific and social perspectives that may not otherwise appear in the popular literature or media. This entails both response research and public commentary.”[2]

  Sounds like a PR operation, not a science outfit. Now, why wouldn”t these clients merely consult with the major academies, rather than seek out Michaels and others?

  Can we at least agree that peer review — however flawed — is better than this?

• 

  garyc on December 03 at 11:35 a.m.

  <<but in=”” either=”” case,=”” the=”” motives=”” are=”” irrelevant=”” to=”” the=”” value=”” of=”” the=”” research.=”” that=”” can=”” only=”” be=”” judged=”” by=”” examining=”” the=”“ research.=”“>>

  And in so doing:

  American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

  “Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.” (February 2007)

  American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

  “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (November 2007)

  American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

  “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.” (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

  American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

  “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (December 2006)

  Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change

  “The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.” (October 2006)

  American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change

  “There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century.” (July 2004)

• 

  garyc on December 03 at 11:48 a.m.

  <<the real=”” problem=”” with=”” the=”” whole=”” “global=”” warming=”” community,”=”” from=”” the=”” public’s=”” perspective=”” is=”” that=”” there=”” has=”” been=”” no=”” separation=”” between=”” the=”” science=”” and=”” the=”” politics.=”” the=”” propaganda,=”” the=”” scare=”” tactics,=”” etc=”” has=”” flowed=”” to=”” and=”” from=”” these=”” two=”” epicenters=”” of=”” this=”” phenomena=”” without=”” any=”“ distinction.=”“>>

  Really? Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and the MSM dictated the assessments of the academies listed above?

  Did they also force the Copenhagen Diagnosis to come to this conclusion?

  http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/

  Somehow got to the IPCC?

  http://www.ipcc.ch/

  And the national and international academies?

  http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf

  http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/G8_gb.pdf

  Meanwhile, the industry-funded groups toil in purity to save the world from actions that are unnecessary? They played no role in shaping public perception? They are the guys in the white hats (pay no attention to who bought those hats. Transparency isn’t a two-way street)

  Perhaps if you read this stuff, you would stop hyperventilating about “scare tactics” and “alarmism.”

  But, no, you’re not a scientist. So these assessments are of no use.
  But you can divine the intent of a tiny subset of scientists based on emails discussing technical issues. And you have no use for their explanations.

  Fascinating.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 03 at 12:21 p.m.

  Ron,

  Let me propose a hypothetical that removes this from the charged atmosphere of the climate debate and perhaps moves it into something more familiar.

  Let’s say your back on the job and investigating a crime - a burglary let’s say. And let’s say as the investigation unfolds you start amassing some good leads. Forensics comes up with some hard evidence. And you get some good eye witnesses too - solid observers with consistent, credible details to tell. After a while, you develop a suspect you like for the crime - let’s call him Joey the Fish. Nothing absolutely conclusive yet, but you’re at the point where the D.A. is considering presenting to the Grand Jury if you can just bring him a little more.

  And then into your office strolls Benny the Zit and boy, does he have a story to tell! Turns out Benny ‘…seen it all go down.’ He quotes you chapter and verse. He not only corroborates all your other evidence, he’s got a dozen other little details that tie it all up for you with a big red bow. By the time he’s done telling his story, it’s only a question of how generous the D.A. wants to be with his offer of a plea bargain for Joey the Fish.

  Except…

  Something’s not quite right with Benny’s story. It’s just little things at first. Some observations don’t quite match up. Details that should be clear are fuzzy. Details that should be fuzzy are clear. The more you dig, the more Benny’s story falls apart.

  Then you find out that Benny has a mile long grudge against Joey because of a drug deal that went bad last year.

  At this point do you throw up your hands and proclaim that ‘the wheels have sure come off this investigation!’ Do you just walk away from all your other evidence growling about how there probably wasn’t even a burglary in the first place?

  Is that how you think it should work?

• 

  garyc on December 03 at 1:34 p.m.

  Probe at East Anglia.

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125986208035474981.html

  Good. Still don’t see how this unravels any research from independent data streams.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 03 at 1:58 p.m.

  “Ron_the_Cop on December 03 at 11:22 a.m.

  Spokelooneh,

  What didn’t you see my link to the Atlantic too:-)

  http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/arc…

  Are they idiotorials too? What do you consider a reliable source in the MSM?”

  I would not look towards any faction of CCCP (Corporate Controlled Compliant Press) for insight into the science of AGW.

• 

  gmorton on December 03 at 4:34 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “His funders didn’t want to be revealed (how’s that for transparency?”

  He has no duty to be transparent regarding his financial backers. His sources of funding are no one else’s business. The notion that “the public” is entitled to know the details of everyone’s finances is a pernicious doctrine energetically peddled by the Left, mainly to enable them advance *ad hominem* arguments, which they know the snoopy but logically challenged public will swallow. It is a blatant invasion of privacy.

  Anyone asked to reveal his sources of funding should respond with a curt, “None of your bloody business.”

  The “transparency” at issue here has to do with the availability of data and methodology upon which scientific claims are based, especially those paid for with public funds. It has nothing to do with anyone’s financial affairs, religious affiliations, or sex life.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 03 at 4:55 p.m.

  The Black Rock Group are professional political hit men.

  ” … The two Republican strategists are seeking to broaden a recent FEC decision to pave the way for wealthy political players, acting as individual corporations to coordinate with no restrictions their own advertising and direct mail attacks on candidates.

  If their concept is sanctioned by the FEC, it could produce the kind of campaign finance law gutting that Republicans have been trying to win through multiple lawsuits across the country.

  And it would turn their nascent political consulting agency into a powerful new player in town.

  In January, Forti and Dubke opened Black Rock Group, a political consulting firm named after a neighborhood in their hometown of Buffalo, N.Y.

  Forti is the former communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee and was national political director for Mitt Romney’s presidential primary campaign.

  Dubke is founder of Crossroads Media, an advertising placement firm, and co-founder of Americans for Job Security, an organization designed to counter Democratic labor voices. …”

  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23511.html

• 

  gmorton on December 03 at 4:56 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “Can we at least agree that peer review — however flawed — is better than this?”

  Peer review works fine, as long as the “peers” are not all members of the same claque who review one another’s work, as has been the case with much climate science. That is one of the issues raised by the CRU emails. More importantly, however, is that the issue is a red herring. Virtually all of the papers which cast doubt on some aspect or other of the AGW theory were also peer-reviewed.

  Peer review, BTW, is in no sense a verdict on the veracity of a thesis advanced in a paper. It is only a judgment that the scientific principles invoked are valid and the methodology employed appears to be sound. It is usually cursory. Whether the conclusions hold up depends upon careful analysis and replication by others after the piece is published.

• 

  gmorton on December 03 at 5:15 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society . . .”

  Wow, leaping from one fallacious argument (*ad hominem*) to another (*ad vericundiam*).

  The committees who write position statements for organizations are as vulnerable to the bandwagon effect as reporters, pundits, and politicians. It is easy to leap aboard this bandwagon because the theory is entirely plausible, and indeed probably includes a kernel of truth. How much truth is the question, and that question is still open.

• 

  gmorton on December 03 at 5:31 p.m.

  Spokalooneh wrote,

  “I would not look towards any faction of CCCP (Corporate Controlled Compliant Press) for insight into the science of AGW.”

  Yikes. *Ad hominems* seem to be all the rage today. But of course, they have always been a staple of the Left.

  I guess that leaves you with the blogosphere, Looneh.

• 

  gmorton on December 03 at 5:47 p.m.

  Spokalooneh wrote,

  “If their concept is sanctioned by the FEC, it could produce the kind of campaign finance law gutting that Republicans have been trying to win through multiple lawsuits across the country.”

  They should not only be gutted, but the carcasses boiled in lye and washed down the drain, along with those of their statist backers. The Supreme Court may be on the verge of reaffirming the First Amendment, which makes no exceptions for either political speech or speech by persons organized as corporations.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

  Time will tell.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 03 at 7:34 p.m.

  The Founders turned over in their graves when corporations were given the same same rights a citizens.

• 

  richard on December 03 at 10:45 p.m.

  Gary - read your post directed at me. Did you purposely try to sound pompous?

  I am “divining” the intent of a tiny subset of scientists based on emails discussing technical issues … and I have no use for their explanations???

  You are brow-beating me because I take the emails at face-value (we cannot explain the recent decline in temperatures … and that is a travesty). A travesty to what?

  You don’t even have a question about that it seems. Instead you point your finger at me for having heightened skepticism? “Fascinating,” indeed.

  It is the scientists who are in question here - not me. Why should I or anyone else automatically accept their “explanations” (as you so willingly do) for some rather specific and pointed remarks? Have you read the emails about tinkering with the vaunted “peer review” system? How about quashing the views and opinions of those who do not conform to the “consensus?”

  You go ahead and accept them out of hand … but in the end it will be you who will be looking very conspicuous.

  With your views on this whole matter so “out there” for all to see, do you really wonder why the “global warming” enthusiasts are now becoming the ridiculed as the “deniers” once were?

  You have your agenda wrapped up in this science and they will have take it from “your cold, dead hands”  is what I am hearing.

  I do find your lack of skepticism - which, incidentally, is the basis for all scientific inquiry - to be rather alarming.

  This has never been about temperatures to me. This has always been about a leftwing agenda. And it still is - regardless of whether temps are going up or down. I resent the fact that Obama wants to hand deliver America’s wealth to other nations and entities. I resent the fact that Obama wants this government to grab control over ever bigger swaths of this economy. I resent the fact that Obama and the Dems really don’t care what the American people want. I resent the fact that he and his cronies believe THEY know what is best for me and my family.

  And I really don’t want a group of scientists - for whatever reason - squelching the opinions of dozens - perhaps hundreds - of other scientists just because they have opposing views. But what I really, really don’t like is when media refuses to do its job and investigate what is going on, rather than appearing as deer caught in the headlights.

  As far as I am concerned - and I know many, many other thinking Americans - mainstream media has made itself irrelevant.

  And maybe I should just accept that eventuality, and quit holding on to the notion that journalism is one of the required pillars of a free society. Maybe it is too late in the game.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 03 at 11:11 p.m.

  “The University of East Anglia’s CRU had to admit this week to destroying the underlying raw data for its anthropogenic global-warming theories, rendering their conclusions untestable — and scientifically speaking, worthless as a result.”

  Old spin, and utterly untrue.

  “At issue is raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, including surface temperature averages from weather stations around the world. The data was used in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reports that EPA has used in turn to formulate its climate policies.

  Citing a statement on the research unit’s Web site, CEI blasted the research unit for the “suspicious destruction of its original data.” According to CRU’s Web site, “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

  Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency.

  The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

  ***”When you’re looking at climate data, you don’t want stations that are showing urban warming trends,” ****

  Jones said, “so we’ve taken them out.” Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. “We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world.”

  Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.” … ”

  http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3

  This bull hockey argument about “destroying data” was refuted back in October, yet, the sensationalists continue to repeat the lie. Why is that?

• 

  gmorton on December 03 at 11:40 p.m.

  Spokalooneh wrote,

  “The Founders turned over in their graves when corporations were given the same same rights a citizens.”

  I very much doubt it, since corporations are persons, and nothing but persons. That is another piece of leftist conceptual legerdemain –- portraying corporations as some sort of abominable demons from the netherworld, alien invaders and usurpers, or perhaps just “legal fictions” with no palpable existence.

  Corporations are nothing but persons who have organized themselves in order to better pursue some mutual interest, usually by producing some product or service they believe others will find valuable and be willing to buy. There is nothing alien, inhuman, or artificial about them.

  The problem, of course, is that corporations are organized to advance the interests of their investors and employees – the self-interest of their principals – and thus eschew the so-called “public interest” as defined by the Left. Their very existence repudiates and belies the archaic tribalism at the root of all leftist Utopias.

  It is the “public interest,” not corporations, which are the fiction.

• 

  gmorton on December 04 at 2:17 a.m.

  2009 quietest year for hurricanes since 1997.

  http://www.examiner.com/x-25803-Natural-Disasters-Examiner~y2009m12d1-2009-hurricane-season-ends-as-quiet-as-it-was-all-year

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 04 at 4:15 a.m.

  Ron,

  The point being; let’s say you did encounter a snitch during your investigation. Because you got one questionable witness, do you stop listening to all the other witnesses? Because you got one suspect bit of evidence, do you throw out all the other evidence?

  Meanwhile, what’s making the ice melt?

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 04 at 4:24 a.m.

  – 2009 quietest year for hurricanes since 1997.–

  And interesting statistic coming from the person who insists that long-term observations and measurements are far more significant than short-term observations.

  http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/impacts/storms.cfm

• 

  Arch_Druid on December 04 at 6:59 a.m.

  GMorton does make a rather interesting and I should add entertaining argument about corporations as persons. They are persons who do indeed organize to advance something all right, to produce and market products and services that other people wish to buy. However, to dismiss the public interest as nothing more than pure fiction does advance a problem in the public realm. If a corporation does not wish to act in the public interest then is it in fact breaking regulatory rules and laws that are indeed designed with the public interest in mind? The answer would have to be, yes.

  Morton is in fact aware of my fight with Capital One as a corporation that decided certainly in January of 2007 to advance its own interests and at my expense. In doing so and continuing to do so over the course of 2 years and more, it proceeded to violate laws clearly on the books. Laws which do indeed regulate lending, billing and payment procedures.

  The problem that Morton has is his/her utopian vision about corporations—entities that can do no wrong. Of course they can. Because corporations can as “persons” change from companies that are out to produce and market goods and services to pursuing profits for its own sake, no matter whom gets hurt in the process. Corporations are actually no better than the people who run them. And if it is fine by Morton that the thief who robs him/her of personal property gets indicted and put in prison for that very crime, then no less than corporations should recognize the need for laws that serve to give notice of when their activities can and will bring harm to others. It is in the public interest that we have laws against theft and murder. It is therefore in the same interest that corporations as persons should expect a degree of regulation to operate within this country, to abide by these laws and rules if they wish to do legitimate business. And to be held to account when they don’t.

  Morton, you do express the ultimate fallacy.

• 

  garyc on December 04 at 10:07 a.m.

  Ron,

  Think the link will stay up on the 1,000th attempt?

  Once more and all of your posts in this forum will be taken down.

• 

  garyc on December 04 at 10:11 a.m.

  Gmorton,

  So if you were a judge and the question of Michaels’ funding came up, you’d bang the gavel and say, “irrelevant!”

  And if Greenpeace produced an expert that it funded and there was an inquiry into that source, you’d bang the gavel and say, “irrelevant!”

  Ron,

  Is it OK for a jury to have funding information on an expert witness? Or is money a weak motive for actions?

  So the response as to why all the leading organizations and academies line up on one side is amateur psycho-babble.

  Guesswork.

  That, of course, means if they all flipped positions that would strengthen the argument of AGW or their statements are irrelevant, because this alleged psychology which has afflicted every singe one of them has interfered with their thinking skiils.

  And this phenomenon has not happened with any other source we should be listening to. And this is determined how?

  This is bulletproof thinking. Congrats. If the skeptics’ studies don’t flip the academies, the problem is the academies. If their studies were to flip the academies, it would be due to the studies.

  Heads you win; tails they lose.

  If there isn’t Logical Fallacy label for this, there ought to be.

• 

  garyc on December 04 at 10:14 a.m.

  <<yes you=”” are=”” correct=”” regarding=”” corporations=”” are=”” motivated=”” by=”” their=”” own=”” self-interests.=”” generally=”” this=”” is=”” a=”” good=”” thing=”” regarding=”” the=”” distribution=”” of=”” goods=”” and=”“ services.=”“>>

  Is it a good thing in determining whether human-caused activities are causing the Earth to warm and that solutions could hit their bottom line, when a CEO’s fiduciary responsibility is to the bottom line?

  Doesn’t take Columbo to see why they start these PR campaigns.

• 

  garyc on December 04 at 10:42 a.m.

  OK, so the academies and various relevant scienftic organizations are out in determining whether we should act on global warming (or whether it exists or whether man is an actor).

  So, then, who do we turn to in evaluating the science?

  How did this get done with other science-related issues? Or environmental issues? Was there a proper consensus on acid rain before we acted? Ozone and CFCs? Smoking? If so, how was that achieved? If not, how is that determined and should we reverse our actions?

  And does this psychological barrier to the truth affect other areas of science, or just this one?

• 

  garyc on December 04 at 12:45 p.m.

  <<you need=”” to=”” read=”” my=”” link=”” to=”” dr.=”” stanley=”” shapiro’s=”” article=”” i=”” link=”” to=”” in=”” the=”” january=”” issue=”” of=”” the=”“ futurist.=”“>>

  Then do a direct link.

• 

  garyc on December 04 at 1:30 p.m.

  I’m all for an investigation, review and reassessment, but it seems like folks have already cracked the case. Isn’t a probe a waste of time?

  For instance:

  “Well, well, well – it seems the UN IPCC has realized Climategate is serious and could ruin the reputations of thousands of scientists, politicians and journalists who fell down on their responsibility to verify the claims of data cookers at CRU, Penn State, NASA GIS and possibly elsewhere (UCAR/NCAR comes to mind). . .”

  Widespread data cooked? Check. Failure to check? Check.

  Case closed. What else is there to know?

  Guess this is how it was done where Ron was a cop.

• 

  richard on December 04 at 1:45 p.m.

  Why does no one discuss the “hockey-stick” which is at the basis of so much of the debate? The same hockey-stick that no one else has been able to replicate - when the ability to replicate is one of the foundations of moving scientific theory to “acceptance.”

  It seems that whenever it gets to this specific topic … the enthusiasts start double-talking. I have not heard that there has been any resolution between the two sides of this debate.

• 

  garyc on December 04 at 2:00 p.m.

  <<this is=”” what=”” we=”” do=”” in=”” a=”” free=”” society.=”” we=”” place=”” great=”” value=”” in=”” the=”” ability=”” to=”” criticize=”” those=”” in=”” power=”“ authority.=”“>>

  Uh-huh. Think you’ll ever answer this question:

  <<is it=”” ok=”” for=”” a=”” jury=”” to=”” have=”” funding=”” information=”” on=”” an=”” expert=”” witness?=”” or=”” is=”” money=”” a=”” weak=”” motive=”” for=”“ actions?=”“>>

  You are free to criticize the practice of affected industries funneling money to researchers. This is a free society. Well?

  Richard,

  << You are brow-beating me because I take the emails at face-value (we cannot explain the recent decline in temperatures … and that is a travesty). A travesty to what? >>

  Oh, you are so good at playing the victim. “Brow beat”? How would you describe your style? Understated? Graceful?

  So you ask another question, which requires an explanation, which you’ve already demonstrated a lack of interest in. Not playing that game anymore.

  Let’s do it your way.

  Here is an email. Take it at face value. No asking questions. No accepting explanations.

  From: Tom Wigley
  To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
  Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: FW: Press Release from The Science & Environmental Policy Project]]
  Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:17:14 -0700
  Cc: carl mears , Frank Wentz , Tom Wigley , Steven Sherwood , John Lanzante , “‘Dian J. Seidel’” , Melissa Free , Karl Taylor , Steve Klein , Leopold Haimberger , “Thorne, Peter” , “‘Philip D. Jones’”

  Dear all,

  I think the scientific fraud committed by Douglass needs to
  be exposed. His co-authors may be innocent bystanders, but
  I doubt it.

  In normal circumstances, what Douglass has done would cause
  him to lose his job — a parallel is the South Korean cloning
  fraud case.

  I have suggested that someone like Chris Mooney should be
  told about this.

  Tom.”

  Fraud! It’s right there! Wonder why this email hasn’t been trumpeted by skeptics? That’s because the Douglass paper is near and dear to them.

  Then there’s this email that addresses Douglass’ paper.

  http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=827&filename=1197590292.txt

  “Bottom line: Douglass et al. claim that “In all cases UAH and RSS
  satellite trends are inconsistent with model trends.” (page 6, lines
  61-62). This claim is categorically wrong. In fact, based on our
  results, one could justifiably claim that THERE IS ONLY ONE CASE in which model T2LT and T2 trends are inconsistent with UAH and RSS results! These guys screwed up big time.”

  Screwed up big time! Scientific fraud! Hope that’s part of the investigation. Don’t you?

• 

  garyc on December 04 at 2:07 p.m.

  <

  From The New York Times:

  “Sensenbrenner said the 2006 National Academy study showed Mann’s hockey stick was incorrect and that Mann’s theory was discredited. But Holdren said the NAS study had quibbles with Mann’s methods but agreed with his results.

  “The chairman of the Academy of Science panel, Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Gerald North, confirmed in an interview Wednesday that Holdren was right, not Sensenbrenner.

  ”The conclusions that we came to were essentially the same as the hockey stick” theory that Mann proposed, North told The Associated Press. North said even if Jones, Mann and others had done no research at all, the world would still be warming and scientists would still be able to show it.”

• 

  gmorton on December 04 at 2:19 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “And interesting statistic coming from the person who insists that long-term observations and measurements are far more significant than short-term observations.”

  Sorry, but pre-1966 data for Atlantic tropical storms not affecting the US is unreliable, because no one was systematically tracking them.

  From NOAA:

  “Minimum tropical cyclone activity prior to the satellite surveillance era is uncertain and likely to be underrepresented. Activity during 2005 was far above the previous records for the most number of tropical storms and hurricanes, but 1950 is still the record-holder for the maximum number of major hurricanes.”

  http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-5.pdf

  We do have good records for the US. Check Table 6 on that report.

• 

  gmorton on December 04 at 3:00 p.m.

  Arch_druid wrote,

  “If a corporation does not wish to act in the public interest then is it in fact breaking regulatory rules and laws that are indeed designed with the public interest in mind?”

  If the alleged “public interest” has been codified in law, then yes, it would. Politicians in the post-Constitutional Era can declare an interest of any constituent group to be a “public interest” and enact it into law.

  “The problem that Morton has is his/her utopian vision about corporations—entities that can do no wrong.”

  Where did I say that? Or imply that?

  Corporations (being persons) can certainly do wrong, and often do. A corporation does wrong if it fails to deliver a product for which you’ve paid, or misrepresents its products, or cheats you in some other way, or if it pollutes a river. It does not do wrong, however, if it declines to do business with you, or declines to offer you some product or service you desire to have, or demands that you pay for the products or services it does offer, or refuses to reduce its price because you can’t afford the asking price. It does no wrong in those latter cases no matter whether politicians have declared those demands to be in the “public interest” or not.

  “Because corporations can as “persons” change from companies that are out to produce and market goods and services to pursuing profits for its own sake, no matter whom gets hurt in the process.”

  You are confused, Arch. They are producing those products and services *in pursuit of profit*. The profits are the sole reason for producing them. They are *not* producing them as any kind of public service, or in order to meet yours or anyone else’s needs. They are not organs in a social organism. There is no such thing. They are acting in their own interests, not yours, not the public’s. If your interests and theirs happen to coincide, such as when they produce some product you desire to have and are willing to pay their price, then you can do business. If they don’t coincide, then you’ll have to do business with someone else.

  You and the corporation are both free agents. If you do business, then both of you have duties not to defraud one another. But neither of you has any duty to do business with the other, or do it on any particular terms.

• 

  gmorton on December 04 at 3:06 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “So if you were a judge and the question of Michaels’ funding came up, you’d bang the gavel and say, ‘irrelevant!’

  “And if Greenpeace produced an expert that it funded and there was an inquiry into that source, you’d bang the gavel and say, ‘irrelevant!’”

  Yes indeed. Irrelevant and prejudicial. Such questions should be inadmissible, just as are questions about the witness’s religion, or a rape victim’s sexual history. And for the same reasons.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 04 at 3:15 p.m.

  gmorton,

  Regarding the frequency of hurricanes / tropical storms: What is the margin of error in the data pre-1966? What is the margin of error for data post 1944 when routine aerial reconnaissance began?

  Given that the data post-1966 is reliable, what does it show with respect to frequency trends? Reference Table 7 in the document you cite.

• 

  gmorton on December 04 at 3:24 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “Is it OK for a jury to have funding information on an expert witness?”

  No. It is entitled to information necessary to establish his/her expertise, i.e., education, training, experience, publications. It is not entitled to information about his previous clients or customers. That is private information and has no bearing on his/her qualifications.

  Not sure why you are having trouble with this.

• 

  gmorton on December 04 at 3:33 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “So, then, who do we turn to in evaluating the science?”

  To the evidence. You read the key papers, check the data, verify the assumptions, and evaluate the arguments.

• 

  gmorton on December 04 at 4:51 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “Was there a proper consensus on acid rain before we acted?”

  Yes (as far as I can recall). That is a very specific and local effect, easily verified experimentally.

  “Ozone and CFCs?”

  No. But substitutes for CFCs were readily available, so opposition was minimal.

  “Smoking?”

  There was a consensus regarding the correlation. There was no consensus that it was a matter for government involvement. Still isn’t.

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 04 at 4:55 p.m.

  A quick read of “Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives” by Michael Specter provides an interesting context for much of the above discussion.

  Even if everything in the knee-jerk reactionary blogoshere about the climate data were true, it affects only a small portion of the data and a small proportion of the published science. It is no way invalidates the models (but for those who don’t care about the actual science, this will not matter).

  This all reminds me in many ways of the irrational denial of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

• 

  gmorton on December 04 at 5:24 p.m.

  Richard wrote,

  “Why does no one discuss the “hockey-stick” which is at the basis of so much of the debate? … It seems that whenever it gets to this specific topic … the enthusiasts start double-talking. I have not heard that there has been any resolution between the two sides of this debate.”

  There has been a resolution of sorts. Here is the original Mann hockey stick presented in the IPCC’s 2001 SPM:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

  and a compilation of other reconstructions (Mann’s 1998, which decorated the 2001 IPCC report, is the dark blue one).

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

  Also see the IPCC’s reconstruction in their 1990 report (top graph):

  http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

  What one should notice about the compilation is the differences among the different reconstructions. They are all over the place. That is the problem with all proxy reconstructions. Every choice of proxy or data sets (this or that set of tree rings, sediments from this or that lake) will give you a different curve. They are inherently unreliable. They should all be taken with a grain of salt.

• 

  gmorton on December 04 at 6:33 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “What is the margin of error in the data pre-1966?”

  Can’t calculate margins of error without data. Margins of error refer to errors in measurements. When there are no measurements, errors are not defined. No one knows how many tropical storms there were in the Atlantic basin < 1966. We only know about those which were reported at the time (usually the ones making landfall somewhere and causing damage).

  “Given that the data post-1966 is reliable, what does it show with respect to frequency trends? Reference Table 7 in the document you cite.”

  You are probably referring to the high 1997-2006 decade. That was due to the high numbers in 2005. Averages for 2006-2009 (2009 season just closed):

  Number storms & hurricanes: 12.5
  Hurricanes: 5.25
  Cat 3-5: 2.75

  Calculated those myself from NOAA’s annual summaries. They have no handy table through the present.

  Summaries are here:

  http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2009atlan.shtml

• 

  gmorton on December 04 at 6:39 p.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  “It is no way invalidates the models (but for those who don’t care about the actual science, this will not matter).”

  Correct. The data invalidates the models.

  http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hansencomparedrecent.jpg

• 

  gmorton on December 04 at 6:59 p.m.

  Worth reading (from a comment on an article in the Boston Globe):

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/

• 

  spokelooneh on December 04 at 11:09 p.m.

  ““So, then, who do we turn to in evaluating the science?”
  -Gary

  “To the evidence. You read the key papers, check the data, verify the assumptions, and evaluate the arguments.”

  Who is the “you” you are talking about? Lay people with no scientific training whatsoever? Pundits? Lawyers? Talking heads? CEI shills?

  Climate modeling is one of most complicated sciences that there is because the CLIMATE is incredibly COMPLEX. Chaos theory as we know it today came out of climate and weather prediction models. To think that untrained individuals can actually make any reasonable conclusion as to these complex issues by reading the actual studies themselves is just plain foolish.

  It is correct to say, from a purely scientific viewpoint, that there is no consensus about AGW, because science is always testing its hypotheses, and especially, trying to find data that is at odds with their hypothesis in order to minimize confirmation bias. There do exist some very valid studies reporting conclusions that are not in line with AGW, and they are peer-reviewed. They are but a tiny amount of the studies that have been done.

  That’s one of the many elements of how science is advanced.

  The premier scientific bodies such as the National Academy of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are quite clear in their evaluation, AGW is as real as practically anything of this complexity can be called real.

  I’ll take their considered opinion every time over some former tobacco industry lawyer or some lay person.

• 

  gmorton on December 05 at 1:38 a.m.

  Spokalooneh wrote,

  “Climate modeling is one of most complicated sciences that there is because the CLIMATE is incredibly COMPLEX.”

  Indeed it is. Many of the forces and interactions involved are poorly understood. So the modelers make assumptions, or ignore those factors entirely (such as the rate and distribution of cloud formation). The models thus become guesswork.

  “To think that untrained individuals can actually make any reasonable conclusion as to these complex issues by reading the actual studies themselves is just plain foolish.”

  Then to that extent they should be cautious in forming their opinions.

  One thing they can do is compare the model predictions with experience to date. See link 3 comments above.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 05 at 3:42 a.m.

  gmorton,

  – Can’t calculate margins of error without data. Margins of error refer to errors in measurements. When there are no measurements, errors are not defined. No one knows how many tropical storms there were in the Atlantic basin < 1966. We only know about those which were reported at the time (usually the ones making landfall somewhere and causing damage). –

  That whole statement is so *blatantly* UNTRUE it’s hard to know where to even begin!

  – No one knows how many tropical storms there were in the Atlantic basin < 1966. –

  The studies you cite quote statistics pre-1966. The studies I cite quote statistics pre-1966. If nobody knows how many tropical storms occurred pre-1966, how can 1950 be “a record year”? Mariners routinely report weather conditions they encounter. That data is collected. Routine aerial weather recon has been conducted continuously by several nations since 1944. That data is collected.

  To say ‘no one knows how many tropical storms’ is truly mind-boggling! Just how blatant is your revisionism going to be?

  Now yes, of course the data is problematic in that the methods of collection and the extent of collection has changed over the years. **But that is worlds apart from ‘no data’!** Science simply doesn’t reject data out of hand in that way! Real science takes the data is has and works to quantify and qualify it.

  The anecdotal method of collection might under-report the number of storms prior to the initiation of aerial recon in 1944? Fine. That intuitively seems to be a very safe assumption. But there are well-recognized statistical methods for quantifying the magnitude of that ‘under-reporting’. Just how greatly did the number of reported storms increase once the collection method (aerial recon) improved in 1944? By what factor did the number of reported storms increase again with the initiation of satellite surveys in 1966? Look at the studies both you and I have cited as authoritative and you can get some idea of the answers to these questions.

  ‘No data’!

  This is the same highly suspect evasion you attempted previously with respect to data regarding the decline of Arctic ice. Since 1933 Russian scientists have been collecting data and using it to generate ‘ice charts’. An ice chart is a navigational aide that in essences says, ‘In this particular region, observations indicate that there is ice here but not here.’ And with respect to the extent of ice coverage, that is *exactly comparable* to looking at a satellite photo and saying, ‘In this particular region, observations indicate that there is ice here but not here.’

  The true scientific test of ‘data or no data’ is whether or not there is data. Not whether the data that exists fits your preconceptions.

• 

  gmorton on December 05 at 5:56 a.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “The studies you cite quote statistics pre-1966. The studies I cite quote statistics pre-1966. If nobody knows how many tropical storms occurred pre-1966, how can 1950 be “a record year”?”

  We know how many storms affected the US before 1966. We know of some other storms reported from elsewhere. But we don’t know how many storms there were across the Atlantic basin each year because no one was systematically tracking them. As NOAA said in that report, the pre-1966 data “is uncertain and likely to be underrepresented.” That means *we don’t know how many tropical storms occurred pre-1966*.

  1950 was a record year for the number of major hurricanes *affecting the US*.

  “The anecdotal method of collection might under-report the number of storms prior to the initiation of aerial recon in 1944? Fine. That intuitively seems to be a very safe assumption. But there are well-recognized statistical methods for quantifying the magnitude of that ‘under-reporting’.”

  Oh? What methods would those be?

  Before you could estimate the level of “underreporting,” you’d need a means to calibrate your method. That means you’d need to know for some period the actual number of storms, and compare it to the number reported. Where will you get that actual number?

  Statistical methods can’t pull data from thin air, Jeffrey (although some climate scientists might try to persuade you otherwise).

  “‘No data’!”

  Didn’t say there were “no data.” Said the data was insufficient to allow us to know the number of annual storms pre-1966.

  Data after aircraft observation began in 1944 was better, but those flights still did not cover the entire Atlantic basin. They were concerned with storms that might affect the US or shipping lanes. (The service was launched during WWII to provide weather data for shipping between the US and Western Europe).

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 05 at 6:26 a.m.

  – But we don’t know how many storms there were across the Atlantic basin each year *because no one was systematically tracking them*. – (emphasis mine)

  Simply not true! Data was being collected systematically since the mid-19th century at the very least. Data collection increased in scope in the mid-20th century. Again, the data collection was not comprehensive. But ‘not comprehensive’ is NOT ‘not collecting’. I’m simply unaware of any requirement in the scientific method that demands amassing ‘all the data that can be known’ before analysis can begin.

  – 1950 was a record year for the number of major hurricanes *affecting the US*. –

  It is also universally cited as the ‘record holder’ for the number of named tropical storms in the Atlantic basin for any single year prior to 2005. (see eg: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=tropical-cyclones&year=2005&month=13, which by the way has this interesting comment regarding 2005: – Since reliable records began around the middle of the 20th century (1944) with routine reconnaisance aircraft missions, no season has exceeded 19 named storms until 2005 – )

  – Before you could estimate the level of “underreporting,” you’d need a means to calibrate your method. That means you’d need to know for some period the actual number of storms, and compare it to the number reported. Where will you get that actual number? –

  The ‘actual number’ is known. You yourself cite as authoritative the data being collected post-1966 by modern methods. This ‘actual number’ can then be weighted for average and compared against the data derived from the less comprehensive methods of the past to achieve a statically meaningful analysis of past data.

  – Didn’t say there were “no data.” – versus – Can’t calculate margins of error without data. –

  I think that’s all I need to say about that.

  – Data after aircraft observation began in 1944 was better, but those flights still did not cover the entire Atlantic basin. They were concerned with storms that might affect the US or shipping lanes. –

  Therefore a comprehensive data set exists for specific regions spanning some 60 plus years. Is the contention to be there is still no basis for a meaningful analysis of that data set, or that meaningful hypothesis and models might not be drawn from such an analysis?

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 05 at 8:46 a.m.

  Another point has occurred to me as I’ve thought about this further this morning.

  If I understand you correctly, gmorton, it’s your contention that there is *at best* only short-term data regarding an increase in global temperature or a decrease in arctic ice extent. As a result, the conclusions asserting unprecedented recent changes advanced by climate change advocates are premature, relying as they do upon calculations based on non-existent or uselessly equivocal long-term data.

  As a result, it is therefore your assertion that the changes observed recently could just as plausibly be the result of long-term naturally occurring cycles as the result of any human activity.

  You should see the paradox already.

  If there’s no reliable long-term data, what’s the basis for the assertion of ‘long-term natural cycles’?

• 

  richard on December 05 at 11:31 a.m.

  <<as a=”” result,=”” it=”” is=”” therefore=”” your=”” assertion=”” that=”” the=”” changes=”” observed=”” recently=”” could=”” just=”” as=”” plausibly=”” be=”” the=”” result=”” of=”” long-term=”” naturally=”” occurring=”” cycles=”” as=”” the=”” result=”” of=”” any=”” human=”” activity.=”” you=”” should=”” see=”” the=”” paradox=”“ already.=”“>>

  No paradox, Jeff, except in your thinking on the matter.

  Yes! we know there has been “long-term naturally occurring cycles” in climate. That is fact. What you are demanding is that someone prove to you that it is NOT from human activity. And that is “upside-down” thinking.

  That is a “chicken or egg” type question that has an obvious answer. Climate change came way before man.

  It is up to the “alarmists” and “enthusiasts” to prove it is from human activity. To do otherwise would require a belief that climate would never change except when there is human activity. Cleary backwards.

  And that brings us full circle back to … Did you hear about the corruption in the global warming science research centers?

  If you really want to be “alarmed” about something … you should check that out.

• 

  richard on December 05 at 11:44 a.m.

  When well respected Climate Research Journal published a paper which dissented from the global-warming alarmist “consensus” - led by Phil Jones and Michael Mann, Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor” while Mann advised that “we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.”

  So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also seemed to be straying from the “conventional wisdom,” another expert on climate change - Tom Wigley - suggested they get the goods on its editor and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted

  And when a couple of other blasphemers emerged, Jones assured cohort Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

  It seems the more fanatically they stressed “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more entrenched they became and it became a matter of “win-lose” to them; integrity of science be damned.

  The Wall Street Journal - Europe story, “How to Forge a Consensus.” describes how the façade of “peer review” was the clincher to “bag” the Ed Begley-type activists and their “friends” in media. When Steven McIntyre exposed the fraud of the ‘hockey-stick,’ Andy Revkin of the New York Times (surprise-surprise), emailed his “pal” Michael Mann (about McIntyre’s revelations), and said this:

  “I’m going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.

  “peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree?”

  And Michael Mann responded:

  “Re, your point at the end - you’ve taken the words out of my mouth.”

  So who “peer reviews” the “peer reviewers”?

• 

  richard on December 05 at 11:45 a.m.

  oops!

• 

  garyc on December 05 at 1:21 p.m.

  Richard,

  Here’s the rest of the story regarding Climate Research.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/science/earth/05CLIM.html?pagewanted=all

  The publisher blocked the editor from writing an editorial on the flaws of the study discussed in the emails. So he resigned and so did five board members. The publisher subsequently distanced himself from the study, saying that the conclusions could not be supported by their analysis.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/science/earth/05CLIM.html?pagewanted=all

  The scientists in the email are wondering what what going on at that publication based on the publishing of that study.

  Ron,

  Your posting days here are over.

• 

  gmorton on December 05 at 1:45 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “Simply not true! Data was being collected systematically since the mid-19th century at the very least.

  Oh? By whom, and by what method? The US created a hurricane warning service in 1898, based in Havana, Cuba, which reported (by telegraph) storms observed in the Caribbean. It had no clue about storms elsewhere in the Atlantic. That is not *systematic* data collection.

• 

  gmorton on December 05 at 1:56 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “This ‘actual number’ can then be weighted for average and compared against the data derived from the less comprehensive methods of the past to achieve a statically meaningful analysis of past data.”

  You mean you’d just interpolate current data into the past? That would hardly let you show there are more storms in the present than the past, since you’re projecting the present into the past.

  You’re using terms there (“weighted”) I think you really don’t understand. You have no data regarding actual storms *in the past* to compare to reported storms. And you can’t derive that ratio from the present, because in the present all storms are reported.

• 

  gmorton on December 05 at 2:10 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “If there’s no reliable long-term data, what’s the basis for the assertion of ‘long-term natural cycles’?”

  There is all kinds of evidence for long-term cycles, as well as past climate changes. It is not quantitative, however. I.e., we know that temps various places at various times were lower or higher than today, but not how much lower or higher. Thus we cannot compare current temps *quantitatively* with past temps. That is why everyone is trying to find reliable proxies.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 05 at 2:20 p.m.

  – Oh? By whom, and by what method? The US created a hurricane warning service in 1898, based in Havana, Cuba, which reported (by telegraph) storms observed in the Caribbean. It had no clue about storms elsewhere in the Atlantic. That is not *systematic* data collection. –

  No other nation on Earth was collecting storm data? (Great Britain. France. Spain. Germany. All the nations with vital interests in trans-Atlantic commerce and thus the weather in the Atlantic?) Since you single it out, it is your contention that the Hurricane Weather Service was the *only* party in the United States interested in weather data for the Atlantic? The Navy, for example, had no interest in such things and therefore was not systematically collecting and analyizing data?

  It is your assertion that all that data in all those studies you and I have cited came solely from the Hurricane Weather Service and their telegraphs?

  You really want to go with that? Before you answer, you might want to look at this: http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2342&archives=true

  And once again, bear in mind I’m *not* saying the data was comprehensive or the data collection methods were consistent from the mid-19th century to the present. I’m just saying a large body of data was collected and therefore there is data to be analyized.

  – You mean you’d just interpolate current data into the past? –

  Not at all. I’m suggesting that with respect to the topic we were at the time discussing - the magnitude of error in past under-reporting - present data can be used as ‘calibration’ and thus the magnitude of error in past observations can be calculated.

  Assuming, that is, that things like long-term natural cycles do in fact exist. Of course, if they don’t in fact exist… If previous ‘un-systematic data’ is worthless for assessing things like long term, cyclical trends…

  Is that what you’re now saying? (It’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.)

• 

  gmorton on December 05 at 2:37 p.m.

  BTW, Jeffrey, in going through NOAA’s summaries, I noticed a number of storms which had maintained hurricane-strength winds for only a few hours. E.g., Karen in 2007, which was re-designated a hurricane in the “post-season reanalysis.” It is safe to say those short-lived hurricanes would not have been counted as such in earlier decades.

• 

  gmorton on December 05 at 2:50 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “I’m suggesting that with respect to the topic we were at the time discussing - the magnitude of error in past under-reporting - present data can be used as ‘calibration’ and thus the magnitude of error in past observations can be calculated.”

  *Sigh*. You can’t derive a ratio from present data because in the present all storms are reported.

  We don’t know of any long term cycles in tropical storm frequency.

• 

  gmorton on December 05 at 4:36 p.m.

  A new measure of media interest (or media bias, depending upon your prejudices) is becoming established in the blogosphere: the Tiger Woods Index.

  The term was coined by UK blogger Richard North, here:

  http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/tiger-woods-index.html

  It was given a more rigorous formulation today by climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer of U. of Alabama-Huntsville, source of the UAH satellite temperature series, here:

  http://www.drroyspencer.com/

  The TWI is the ratio between public interest in an issue v. media interest, as measured by the number of web hits v. news stories reported by Google. Per Spencer’s version, 1000 web hits for each news story represents a ratio of 1:1, or equal interest.

  For “climategate,” the ratio is 0.14, which means the public are about 7 times as interested in that topic as the media. For “global warming,” the media are 6 times more interested than the public. For “Bush’s gaffe,” the media are 28 times more interested than the public, but for “Obama’s gaffe,” the public are 10 times more interested than the media.

  Sounds like a tool sure to become widely used.

• 

  gmorton on December 05 at 4:38 p.m.

  Oops, the public are 100 times more interested in “Obama’s gaffe” than the media.

• 

  gmorton on December 06 at 12:06 a.m.

  Attn: Jeffrey,

  Re: Arctic ice:

  http://trawlercrawler.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=103&start=10#p392

  You should also check this out:

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/07/the-surprising-real-story-about-this-years-northeast-passage-transit/

  Amazing how gullible the MSM can be on global warming.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 06 at 4:10 a.m.

  – You can’t derive a ratio from present data because in the present all storms are reported.–

  Are you contending that past data can’t be interpreted - especially with respect to estimating possible flaws in trend analysis - by comparing a current comprehensive data set against a prior less-than-comprehensive data set?

  Clearly, and despite your unsupportable contention that ‘nobody was measuring’, there is a large body of data for at least some areas of the Atlantic basin stretching back for the better part of century and a half. Are you saying that the same type of data collected for the same area can’t be compared over time to arrive at a reliable estimation of trends?

  Are you saying that is not a valid method of scientific inquiry? If you are, then you are at odds with recognized experts in the field working at places like NOAA and NASA. And if it boils down to a choice of believing your ideas about how science works versus theirs - I’ll be going with theirs.

  – We don’t know of any long term cycles in tropical storm frequency. –

  So then how do you refute scientists who claim an observed increase in tropical storm frequency in the recent past by yourself alleging such increases are normal with respect to a long term cycle? Or that the observed short-term increase in frequency is not in fact even a significant increase when matched against long-term observations?

  *That is, if there are no reliable long-term observations.*

  Now, turning once again to arctic ice:

  You are absolutely correct in the assertion that newspapers reporting *recent* ‘first time transits’ of the Northwest Passage are indeed guilty of woefully slip-shod reporting. The Arctic Sea has been a routine shipping route for the later-half of the 20th century.

  I’ve never disputed that.

  I’ve never disputed it because that’s not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is; is the Arctic sea ice decreasing? More to the point, is it decreasing to the point that a previously difficult passage for the most part accessible only for brief periods of the year and then only with the significant assistance of ice-breakers now becoming much more accessible for longer periods and with a decreasing need for ice-breakers to clear a passage?

  On that question, your ‘whatsup’ cite plays rather fast and loose with its reporting too. Follow one of their citations of ‘proof’ to here -http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/09/pictures-tell-story.html - and then consider:

  – We were not going to return immediately to the “Northeast passage” but the temptation proved too great when we found the photograph shown above. It depicts an SA-15 type multipurpose ice breaking cargo ship of the Norilsk class.
  […]
  The significance of the picture is that it was taken in 1984 when the 20,000-dwt ship made the first of several shipments of pipes from Japan to the Ob’ estuary via the “impossible” Northeast passage. It was following exactly the same route, to exactly the same destination as the much-lauded Beluga Fraternity and Beluga Foresight. [The ships cited in the faulty report of a ‘first passage’. jg] Furthermore, the ship made the journey without an icebreaker escort.–

  Do you see the problem? Or is it just because I took a Navy class in Soviet Bloc ship capabilities that I picked up on it?

  “Furthermore, the ship made the journey without ice breaker escort.”

  A “Norilsk-class” freighter wouldn’t need ice breaker escort.

  It *is* an ice breaker. (As the article does indeed mention in passing, before then apparently ignoring the fact to make a spurious point.)

  In any event, the question has been and still is not whether or not vessels routinely transit the Northwest Passage - they have been doing so for most of the 20th Century. The question is rather what conditions they have encountered recently as compared with the conditions they have encountered in the past.

• 

  gmorton on December 06 at 1:47 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “Are you contending that past data can’t be interpreted - especially with respect to estimating possible flaws in trend analysis - by comparing a current comprehensive data set against a prior less-than-comprehensive data set?”

  Yes. That is what I said. You can’t do that if what you are trying to discern is a long-term trend. If you interpolate the present into the past, you beg the question.

  “Are you saying that the same type of data collected for the same area can’t be compared over time to arrive at a reliable estimation of trends?”

  Yes. You don’t have the “same type of data collected for the same area” in the past as in the present. So you can’t compare it over time.

  “Are you saying that is not a valid method of scientific inquiry? If you are, then you are at odds with recognized experts in the field working at places like NOAA and NASA. And if it boils down to a choice of believing your ideas about how science works versus theirs - I’ll be going with theirs.”

  There are no scientists (that I know of) who are doing what you suggest. None of them are claiming there has been an increase in storms, except the 1996-2006 decade *relative to the 1966-2006 period*. None of them are asserting an increase over the long term, because the data for the US (which is relatively good) shows no such increase, and because data for the entire Atlantic basin is incomplete. The alarmists are *predicting* increasing storm activity. They are not claiming it has occurred.

  The storms shown in Table 7 are not estimated or interpolated. They are storms for which there is a record. And NOAA admits the figures underestimate the probable number of storms.

  What you seem to be trying to do here, Jeffrey, is estimate the number of past storms based on some kind of statistical voodoo, and then, on the basis of that estimate, claim the long-term trend is upward. That is circular reasoning.

• 

  gmorton on December 06 at 2:00 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “You are absolutely correct in the assertion that newspapers reporting *recent* ‘first time transits’ of the Northwest Passage are indeed guilty of woefully slip-shod reporting.”

  I assume you meant the Northeast Passage (also called the “Northern Route”). That has been navigable during the summer for at least a century. The Northwest Passage is navigable only infrequently. It was navigable this year (2009) only with difficulty.

• 

  gmorton on December 06 at 3:30 p.m.

  One of the more lucid accounts of “Mike’s Nature Trick” I’ve come across:

  http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

• 

  gmorton on December 06 at 7:10 p.m.

  Jeffrey, FYI:

  http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

• 

  gmorton on December 06 at 8:29 p.m.

  More AGW nonsense from the MSM Dept.:

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34115298/ns/news-picture_stories/displaymode/1247/?beginSlide=1

  Contrary to that story – part of a PR campaign by the Maldives government to parlay AGW hysteria into a free lunch at Western expense – sea levels at the Maldives have been *falling* (because the archipelago seems to be rising).

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/

  First the London Times’ nonsense on the “first commercial transit of the Northeast Passage,” now this.

  What happened to the old journalistic dictum,” “If your mother says she loves you, check it out”?

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 07 at 3:47 a.m.

  – There are no scientists (that I know of) who are doing what you suggest. None of them are claiming there has been an increase in storms, except the 1996-2006 decade *relative to the 1966-2006 period*. –

  Then you are not aware of what some of the most prestigious experts in the field are doing.

  Again, refer to the link to the Woods Hole Institute site above.

  – For hundreds of years mariners have recorded the weather over the world ocean. Some 100 million marine weather reports have accumulated worldwide since 1854, when an international system for the collection of meteorological data over the oceans was established. These reports include measurements of sea surface temperature, air temperature, wind, cloudiness, and barometric pressure. In the 1980s, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) compiled these weather observations into a single, easily accessible digital archive called the Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set. This important data set forms the basis for our empirical knowledge of the surface climate and its variability over the world’s oceans.

  […]

  How have the wind and temperature distributions changed with time? A statistical technique called empirical orthogonal function analysis aids in identifying regions of coherent temporal change. The results of the statistical analysis point to the area directly south and east of Newfoundland as a site of pronounced sea surface temperature variability. The figure below right shows the history of sea surface temperatures in this region since 1900.

  […]

  A composite picture of the decadal-scale variations can be formed by averaging all of the cold (or warm) periods from the figure at right and subtracting the long-term mean. – (The ‘figure at right’ has a time scale of ten years per division and stretches from 1900 to 2000.)

  I cite this article not for its direct relevance to the frequency of tropical storms in the Atlantic as that is not the principle thrust of the article. The article itself is actually about what its title suggests: “A Century of North Atlantic Data Indicates Interdecadal Change” Rather, I cite the article as proof first; that there is a large body of environmental data for the Atlantic Ocean - particularly the North Atlantic - that exists back *at least* a century. And second; that statistical analysis of the type I describe is indeed a well-recognized scientific method that has been applied to that body of data to arrive at scientifically meaningful conclusions.

  It is these conclusions that have been used as a basis for the assertion that both the frequency and intensity of Atlantic storms have increased noticeably in the last few decades, probably as a result of global warming. (see eg; http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526154.800-atlantic-hurricane-frequency-doubled-last-century.html, http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/impacts/storms.cfm )

  Now gmorton, rather than repeating what *you* ‘know’ to be the truth regarding how the scientific method works, I instead challenge you to refute my citation of recognized scientific experts who say, ‘This is how we do it’ with your own citation of an equally prestigious expert who says, ‘Nobody does it that way.’

• 

  gmorton on December 07 at 5:48 a.m.

  Jeffrey,

  The sea surface temperature analysis method has nothing to do with storm frequencies. They are not using present data to estimate past temperatures, but data available from the period in question. There is enough temperature data throughout the period (1880-present) to estimate the extent and rate of temperature change, at least over that small area where data are available. They are not using their method to generate missing data, as you are trying to do with storms.

  I assume you looked at the WHOI sampling maps. Over most of the N. Atlantic there is 1 weather report *per month* until 1940. Even over the shipping lanes, there are only 5-15. In the S Atlantic there is no data at all over most of it. That is useless for estimating storm frequencies. No statistical method can create data where there is none.

  “I instead challenge you to refute my citation of recognized scientific experts who say, ‘This is how we do it’ . . .”

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Landsea

  http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/18444/Hurricane_Upsurge_Not_Linked_to_Global_Warming_NOAA_Concludes.html

• 

  gmorton on December 07 at 6:05 a.m.

  The blog clobbered that last link. Try this one:

  http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/18444/Hurricane_Upsurge_Not_Linked_to_Global_Warming_NOAA_Concludes.html

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 07 at 9:21 a.m.

  – Observational records of tropical storm and hurricanes are essential in order to discern how climatic changes have influenced tropical storms and hurricanes and to build predictive understanding of the influence of climate of hurricanes.

  […]

  Two recent papers (Vecchi and Knutson; and Landsea et al) suggest that, based on careful examination of the Atlantic tropical storm database (HURDAT) and on estimates of how many storms were likely missed in the past, it is likely that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm frequency in HURDAT since the late-1800s is primarily due to improved monitoring. [Note the citation of author - Landsea employs analysis of past records to form his hypothesis. jg]

  […]

  Existing records of past Atlantic tropical storm numbers (1878 to present) in fact do show a pronounced upward trend, correlated with rising SSTs (see Figs. 1 and 9 of Vecchi and Knutson 2008). [ In other words, Sea Surface Temperature analysis is fundamental to an understanding of storm frequency. jg] However, the density of reporting ship traffic over the Atlantic was relatively sparse during the early decades of this record, such that if storms from the modern era (post 1965) had hypothetically occurred during those earlier decades, a substantial number would likely not have been directly observed by the ship-based “observing network of opportunity.” We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2).

  […]
  –

  http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records

  Now, **I freely stipulate this study arrives at the same conclusion you have advanced all along** - that there is no evidence for an increase in tropical storm frequency, or that if there is such an increase it can be tied to global warming.

  So, point for you.

  But to claim that point, you’re going to have to grant a point to me and my contention that there is a historical record that can be statistically analyzed to arrive at meaningful insights into assertions regarding climate change, **because clearly that’s how the first study arrived at it’s conclusions.**

  Now then, I would refute that study above with the following:

  http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526154.800-atlantic-hurricane-frequency-doubled-last-century.html

  and…

  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10796-global-warming-link-to-hurricanes-likely-but-unproven.html

  In essence, it’s my understanding that the conclusions reached in the first cited paper are challenged by studies reported in the later two citations - studies which dispute the methodology used to analyze the data in the first study and the conclusions reached as a result of that analysis.

  Therefore, taking all that into consideration, the bottom line for me has indeed altered.

  At least to a small degree.

  It appears that the consensus with respect to an increase in frequency of tropical storms attributable to global warming is not as settled as I initially thought (Put my initial misapprehension down to slip-shod journalism if that comforts you.) But I have seen no evidence that conclusively proves there hasn’t been an increase in the frequency or severity of tropical storms or that such an increase can’t plausibly be tied to human-caused global warming.

  At this point I now see it at most as a question that’s currently being debated in scientific circles. Meanwhile, and has been said repeatedly elsewhere, there is a large body of evidence and scientific consensus drawn from other areas of study supporting the assertion that human-caused global warming is a problem that must be addressed by decisive action taken soon.

  I continue to support that assertion.

• 

  richard on December 07 at 7:04 p.m.

  Jeff, why have you got yourself so wrapped up in the belief that you can take random measurements (many with questionable use of scientific standards) recorded hundreds of years ago and then created an accurate “record” of year to year, decade to decade, etc changes?

  Anyway, you could read the following from a very good link morton provided . . .

  “While historical documents (e.g., ship’s logs, diaries, court and church records, tax rolls, and even classic literature) certainly provide a glimpse into past temperature trends, such information is far too limited and generalized to be of any statistical value. So climate scientists have devised means to measure variations in such ubiquitous materials as lake sediments, boreholes, ice cores, and tree rings to evaluate past temperature trends.

  They then employ complex computer programs to combine such “proxy” data sampled throughout a region and plot that area’s annual relative changes in temperature hundreds or even thousands of years prior. By then combining the data sets, they believe they can accurately reproduce hemispheric and global temperature trends of the previous millennia.

  And while reconstructions — as past temperature interpretations from proxy data are called — can differ greatly from one source to another, those generated by the CRU have often been accepted as the de facto temperatures of the past.

  This is largely because the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proclaims them to be.”“

• 

  gmorton on December 07 at 8:33 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “But I have seen no evidence that conclusively proves there hasn’t been an increase in the frequency or severity of tropical storms or that such an increase can’t plausibly be tied to human-caused global warming.”

  You forget where the burden of proof lies, Jeffrey.

  I’ve seen no conclusive proof that Obama is not an alien from Betelgeuse, either.

  The best (by far) proxy for the number of Atlantic storms before 1966 is the number observed in the US, where records are good for 100+ years. That would assume that the US fraction of all storms has remained constant. That may not be the case, but is the most likely scenario (otherwise you’d have to explain why storm distribution over the Atlantic basin has shifted). There has been no overall increase in storms in the US during that period.

• 

  gmorton on December 07 at 8:55 p.m.

  Richard,

  You’re right about proxy reconstructions. I posted this link before showing a number of proxy temperature reconstructions:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

  They are all over the place.

  Proxies are the only method we have for estimating past temps and other climate variables. They can give an idea of past conditions, but they should never be used for quantitative comparisons to modern instrumental records. They just aren’t reliable enough. They all rely on combinations of assumptions, many of which cannot be confirmed. Tree ring widths and density, for example, are affected by moisture, sunlight exposure, and soil chemistry, as well as temperature. It is usually impossible to put values on all those variables on an annual basis 200 or more years ago. Two trees only a few feet apart can show different rates of growth, because one got more sun than the other.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 08 at 1:53 a.m.

  To both Richard and gmorton,

  If we accept the assertion that data from past eras is unreliable - that the only reliable record for the following matters begins circa 1960 or so…

  It would seem to me the the evidence for a significant up-swing in tropical storms is indisputable.

  See eg: http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/impacts/storms.cfm

  It would further seem to me that if the only accurate data for Arctic ice extent began with the collection of satellite data - again circa 1960 - that once again the proof of a sharp decline is also incontrovertible.

  See generally: www.nsidc.com

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 08 at 8:48 a.m.

  Ron,

  Question: as your American Thinker article points out, ‘modern’ temperature records are usually base-lined somewhere around 1850.

  The skeptics around here usually challenge the climate change proponents’ conclusions and predictions based on any ‘longer-scale’ base-lines with the assertion that ‘proxies’ - things like bore-hole samples and tree ring analysis and so forth are equivocal at best and more likely simply too unreliable to be of any true value.

  But if that’s true - if such data can’t be used to support the proponents’ claims…

  How then do the skeptics rely upon the very same data to prove that there is in fact no recent variance from the ‘long-scale’ statistical mean? (That is; any variance of today is comparable to the average of variance we’ve seen in the past and therefore, ‘no actual change’.)

  I still see ‘heads I win, tails you lose.’

  Another point: The American Thinker author’s primary cry of ‘foul’ seems to be that Mann & Co. used all their ‘tricks’ to make something called The Medieval Warming Period disappear because it tended to disprove their contention that the Earth’s temperature has been fairly constant over the ‘long-scale’ and has only recently risen markedly above prior levels. The existence of the MWP allegedly disproves this, instead proving that there have been warming periods in the past.

  Okay.

  If the Medieval Warming Period is in fact the smoking gun that proves that climate change to the extent we’re currently seeing can be driven by other factors besides human-induced change - ala the MWP - then what drove the warming of the MWP? Is that same factor in operation today?

  Proponents of human-induced climate change say it’s man’s emission of greenhouses gases that’s causing the change we’re currently observing. Skeptics apparently say (or at least imply) it’s just as plausibly the same thing that drove the MWP and that something - which is in operation again today and is therefore observable and measurable today - is… ?

• 

  Arch_Druid on December 08 at 9:26 a.m.

  I really do not care to get into climate change arguments, statistics and theories. However, taking a glance at the Cal Thomas editorial in which he takes issue with Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of England… The moment you engage in name calling, you lose the argument. This is how Thomas initially presents his editorial. I guess he should know, since he has been doing exactly that; engaging in mockery and name calling and therefore continually losing the argument; ever since it became clear to him that the Dems would likely obtain majority control of Congress and it became increasingly clear that Obama would win the presidency. Such name calling as “socialism,” and etc. has ALWAYS risen out of many a Thomas’ editorial. So, can we then discount the REST of his editorial? And settle on his childish attack on Prime Minister Brown who should simply join the “flat head society.” Thomas proves again his capacity to resoundingly lose an argument.

  Quite frankly, anyone can come up with a theory, they can always experiment with computer models. What PM Brown was looking at were the CONSEQUENCES to his country of Great Britain if we don’t reduce what by theory is green house gas emissions that could over time produce global warming. Just as the Maldives looks at those consequences too. It doesn’t bother me if industry types like Thomas rely on the claims of other industry types to dispute climatologists. The fact that glaciers are disappearing, the ice sheets of the North and South Pole are disappearing is a consequence, no matter how we got there. THAT is the truth.

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 08 at 9:29 a.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey,
  It is my understanding that any link between tropical storm and hurricane frequencies and global climate change is very uncertain at present. There are just too many variables that are currently poorly understood to make that link. That may change, but I am not aware of any published science that presently demonstrates such a link.

  There is a good article in this week’s journal “Science” that studies the Medieval Warming Anomaly and the Little Ice Age (not a smoking gun at all).

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 08 at 9:43 a.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey,
  Global climate proxy network analysis indicates that the Medieval Climate Anomaly displays warmth in some regions that equals or exceeds the anomalous warmth of the past decade, but the warmth of the Medieval Climate Anomaly falls below that of the last decade on a global scale. The Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age changes were probably due to natural radiative forcing that involved El Niño and the NAO-AO, but there are many uncertainties.
  Looks like there will be some exciting new studies using expanded global climate proxy network analysis.

• 

  Arch_Druid on December 08 at 10:09 a.m.

  There you go again, GMorton, slip sliding around the issue. And at the same time, with plenty of LOL!s here, you ultimately create the stinker argument that undermines in its entirety everything that you have tried to say in the defense of your beloved “free market.”

  Just how does the business EXPECT to pursue profits if it does not produce products or services that MEET MY NEEDS? I NEED food, therefore I shall go to a grocery store and BUY it. In BUYING it, that GROCERY STORE will ENCOURAGE MY BUSINESS with SPECIFIC SALES. THE PRICE OF THE ITEM I wish to buy ALSO meets my needs. Apparently, Morton, you leave the shopping to others or you are of sufficient wealth that you don’t CARE what the price is.

  When a business SPENDS MONEY advertising, IT ASKS people who view the advertisement to come do business with that store, lending company and etc. Yeah, people can always MAKE A CHOICE, but what is an advertisement after all but to ENTICE PEOPLE to do business WITH ME? I guess, Morton, that you must not watch ADVERTISEMENTS much.

  And the biggest chuckle of them all? The post constitutional era. Your problem is, that we were facing a post constitutional era with the GW presidency. We may in fact return to a constitutional construct if the GOP sufficiently learn to grow up instead of engaging in childish behavior because they lost in 2008. A very BIG if.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 08 at 10:17 a.m.

  Chip,

  As my reading on the topic progresses, I have come to the realization that you’re right. The question of Atlantic storm frequency and the link - if any - between hurricanes and global warming is indeed a very vexed question. Emphasis on ‘question’. It would seem that there are proponents of climate change who assert that there is a casual link and there are opponents who assert just as forcefully that there is none.

  It’s the surety with which *BOTH* camps assert their contentions and the fact that they *BOTH* rely on what I now grant is problematic evidence that I find troubling.

  As to the question of temperature and temperature averages…

  I guess my question at this point is two-part:

  First - with respect to the scientific method; does the assertion that the same forces that drove the Medieval Climate Anomaly are also driving the current temperature variance amount to a ‘hypothesis’ in the classical sense of the word?

  Second - if so, how does the current proof for that hypothesis stack up against the proof for the hypothesis of anthropogenic warming? Is the character of the proof for the former fundamentally different (more to the point: ‘superior’) in kind and quantity from the proof for the latter?

  Also, as I’ve said repeatedly now, I’m just a layman with no claim to an expert’s understanding of the intricacies of the science behind it all.

  But I can read a graph.

  And as someone who can read a graph, while the contention among the experts swirls over this detail or that detail and the significance of this calculation versus that calculation - it looks to me like the temperature is higher today than it ever was in the past. And though the data points vary upward and downward over time no matter what scale you use - and sometimes vary significantly… The median line lately continues to climb. (see eg: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html)

  I’d call that ‘warming.’ But then I’m just a layman.

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 08 at 10:47 a.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey,

  yes, good summary of complex issues. In my reading of the journals (nor am I a climate science), the warming of the past decade (which is the warmest on record) can not be explained by non-anthropogenic factors alone. The warming is greater than expected for the increases in natural radiative forcing and other natural factors alone. That is some warming is due to natural factors, some is anthropogenic.

  The global proxy data set includes ice core, coral, sediment, and many other proxy measures over both oceans and land, as well as tree rings. Global surface temperatures are reconstructed by calibrating the all of the complex proxy data sets against instrumental mean surface temperatures.

  gmorton’s link above seems to show only some of the older Northern Hemisphere reconstructions, and doesn’t include any of the CIs. Look at some of the 2008 and 2009 scientific journal publications for more up to date information (alternatively, you can rely on blogs with political agendas and wikipedia with outdated or unverified info). The recent studies use a much larger proxy data set, updated instrumental data, and have undergone additional testing of model simulations.

  These studies show that warmth of the past decade for the Northern Hemisphere is likely anomalous compared to the last 1300 years, without tree ring proxy data. Adding the tree ring data just extends the anomaly to the last 1700 years. The more recent studies use climate field reconstructions, which compliment the earlier studies that used only CPS methodology.

  These conclusion have uncertainties (hence, the qualifier “likely”)

  Southern Hemisphere reconstructions are very uncertain because of the paucity of proxy data, and this means that global reconstructions are also uncertain. Climate scientists need to clear up some of the Southern Hemisphere uncertainties to be more confident in the role of anthropogenic greenhouse warming

• 

  garyc on December 08 at 11:07 a.m.

  Slate Explainer on data sets.

  http://www.slate.com/id/2237253/

  Interesting that the set in question used to be the one favored by many skeptics.

  And, yes, lot more work to be done on hurricanes/storms.

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/are-storms-becoming-more-frequwents-or-severe/

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 08 at 11:24 a.m.

  Just to clarify my statement above. Most climate scientists conclude that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are likely or very likely causing a significant part of the present warming episode. There is never absolute, 100% certainty about anything in science.

  Having a healthy scientific skepticism (which is what the stolen emails seem to show) is very different than being a contrarian, which is what Cal Thomas relies on (you are right AD. Cal, pot meet kettle). Contrarians can publish their findings in real journals if they can demonstrate their findings. They don’t because those findings generally fall apart when analyzed by other climate scientists who understand the models and the data.

• 

  garyc on December 08 at 12:10 p.m.

  I’m sure these guys would trade threats for a ittle mockery.

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/hacked-climate-emails-death-threats

• 

  garyc on December 08 at 12:11 p.m.

  Or even a “little” mockery.

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 08 at 12:44 p.m.

  maybe the FBI will see that those emailers will get to spend an ittle time in jail.

• 

  gmorton on December 08 at 2:36 p.m.

  Arch_druid wrote,

  “Quite frankly, anyone can come up with a theory, they can always experiment with computer models.”

  And then says,

  “What PM Brown was looking at were the CONSEQUENCES to his country of Great Britain if we don’t reduce what by theory is green house gas emissions that could over time produce global warming.”

  Er, Arch, where do you you the “consequences” you mentioned are found?

  In computer models, and nowhere else.

  Your ability to overlook the obvious always amazes me.

• 

  gmorton on December 08 at 3:00 p.m.

  Arch_druid wrote,

  “Just how does the business EXPECT to pursue profits if it does not produce products or services that MEET MY NEEDS?”

  It doesn’t. If tries to produce products that will meet your needs, so that you will buy them. You are confusing ends with means. For the producer, your needs are a means to his end, which is profits. If he could make more profit without meeting any need of yours, then he would do so and leave you to meet your own needs. I.e., your needs are important to him only insofar as they create an opportunity for profit.

• 

  gmorton on December 08 at 3:54 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “How then do the skeptics rely upon the very same data to prove that there is in fact no recent variance from the ‘long-scale’ statistical mean?”

  They don’t. The evidence for the MWP is mainly historical, not proxy (although it does appear in many proxies). The historical evidence is written accounts of agricultural practices during the period, the colonization of Greenland, etc. Those portray a warmer period, but it is only semi-quantitative. We can say (with some confidence) that it was at least as warm, and maybe warmer, than now, but not how much difference there is.

• 

  gmorton on December 08 at 4:35 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  [from the Slate piece]:

  “It’s important, but hardly a sine qua non. Three organizations assemble global temperature data sets, which researchers then use to identify long-term trends: CRU, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.”

  That is incorrect. All three use the *same* data sets, with some minor exceptions. They all use the *adjusted* land data sets provided by the GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network) which is maintained by NOAA. CRU adds some additional data. The three organizations then process that data according to their own algorithms. The three datasets are not independent.

  http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/further-comment-on-the-surface-temperature-data-used-in-the-cru-giss-and-ncdc-analyses/

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 08 at 4:40 p.m.

  gmorton - “The evidence for the MWP is mainly historical, not proxy”

  That is absolutely not correct.
  Sure, there is historic evidence from Europe, but there is no historic evidence for much of the world for that period.
  There are proxy data from across the world, though the Southern Hemisphere data are not as good as the Northern Hemisphere. The pioneering studies of Lamb, Wendland, and Bryson in the 1960s all documented the period using proxies (I just pulled the volumes from my personal library to double check, yup, proxies). Proxy indicators are used for the thousands of studies that investigate the Medieval Warm period across the globe (now called the Medieval Climate Anomaly because global temps do not change in the same magnitude or direction everywhere at the same time).
  How many citations to scientific publications can you provide (not blogs and ExonnMobil-funded web sites) that mainly use historic evidence to document the period?

• 

  gmorton on December 08 at 4:45 p.m.

  Arch,

  I wrote,

  “Er, Arch, where do you you the “consequences” you mentioned are found?”

  Should be, “Where do you think the “consequences” you mentioned are found?”

• 

  richard on December 08 at 5:08 p.m.

  “… [In] the technological revolution during recent decades … research has become central … complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government … the solitary inventor … has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields …

  … the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

  The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. … we must … be alert to the … danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite [ii].”

  The words of a “flat-earther” denouncing the fraud of climate change science, in 2009?

  Nope; part of the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in 1960. The same farewell address that liberals love to quote … when it suits their purposes. Well, it SHOULD suit their purposes now … but not if they are tied to ideology.

  Too bad so many are.

• 

  gmorton on December 08 at 5:47 p.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  “gmorton’s link above seems to show only some of the older Northern Hemisphere reconstructions, and doesn’t include any of the CIs.”

  I assume you are referring to this, e.g.:

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527990/

  Yes, you can do wonderful things with composite series, such as mask differences among datasets. But the composite is no more accurate than the datasets from which it was constructed.
  Even the composites differ by up to 0.5C – nearly the difference between 1900 and 2000.

  “Just to clarify my statement above. Most climate scientists conclude that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are likely or very likely causing a significant part of the present warming episode. There is never absolute, 100% certainty about anything in science.”

  “Significant” is the key word there.

• 

  gmorton on December 08 at 5:54 p.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  “The pioneering studies of Lamb, Wendland, and Bryson in the 1960s all documented the period using proxies (I just pulled the volumes from my personal library to double check, yup, proxies).”

  I said that the MWP was indicated in many proxies. The historical data provides grounds to trust those proxies on that period, and distrust the proxies which do not show it (such as MBH99).

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 08 at 7:03 p.m.

  you stated that “The evidence for the MWP is mainly historical, not proxy” The evidence is not simply not “mainly historical.”
  There is no historical evidence for North America to provide any grounds for anything (unless you include Greenland). The grounds that climate scientists accept the proxies is that the tree rings, pollen, sediment, isotopes in closed basin lakes, and other proxies all indicate basically the same thing for North America and most of the world. It has nothing to do with the European historical records, especially because the North American climate is different than the European climate during the MCA.

  The MBH99 reconstruction shows increased Northern Hemisphere mean temps during the MCA, like all other reconstructions.
  The newer 2008 and 2009 reconstructions are more accurate, that much is true.

• 

  gmorton on December 08 at 11:01 p.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  “The MBH99 reconstruction shows increased Northern Hemisphere mean temps during the MCA, like all other reconstructions.”

  Which MBH99 are you looking at? Mine is here:

  http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MBH1999.pdf

• 

  Arch_Druid on December 08 at 11:14 p.m.

  I’m sure that if you watch the History Channel on global warming, that would probably clue you in, GMorton. Otherwise, I don’t generally get into these discussions.

• 

  Arch_Druid on December 08 at 11:25 p.m.

  GMorton, to further add, your arguments become increasingly like the theory of the perpetual motion machine. A perfectly balanced wheel on top of a self-contained unit. A gentle shove as the only impetus for the wheel to begin revolving and then as it revolves generates enough self-created energy to continue revolving. The problem was, the perpetual motion machine was debunked over a century ago.

  The perpetual motion machine as ideological theory was next tried by Karl Marx, and ultimately debunked by the early 1990s.

  Apparently, you are trying to repeat the mistakes of pseudo science and political theory as applicable to a poor understanding of capitalism. No business could long survive without, Morton, both labor and consumer. REAL business owners know that. And REAL business owners will find gvt involvement welcome when convenient. So, quit boring me to tears with your ramblings that have little to no basis in fact.

• 

  gmorton on December 08 at 11:49 p.m.

  Arch_druid wrote,

  “I’m sure that if you watch the History Channel on global warming, that would probably clue you in, GMorton.”

  That’s your definitive source, Arch?

  Oh, well – it’s probably more reliable than Al Gore.

• 

  gmorton on December 08 at 11:52 p.m.

  Arch_druid wrote,

  “Apparently, you are trying to repeat the mistakes of pseudo science and political theory as applicable to a poor understanding of capitalism.”

  I asked you earlier to set forth your understanding of “capitalism.” You still haven’t answered.

  You lost me completely with the perpetual motion machine.

• 

  Arch_Druid on December 09 at 12:26 a.m.

  GMorton, it might surprise you but videos of melting glaciers isn’t exactly something that can be politically spun one way or another. Studies of water temps in the Arctic and Antarctic oceans isn’t based on anything that Al Gore said. Red tides that become an increasing danger to sea life, animal life and human life perhaps because of pollution and also probably as the result of global warming does exist and has been documented. All that Al Gore did was document and make public what had been a known fact already and was increasingly alarming climate scientists. The data is not LESS credible just because of the spokesman.

  Good that you got lost with an analogy of the perpetual motion machine. That is why I end up rolling my eyes any time you spout and start going off the deep end. Anyone who actually THINKS would have understood it already.

• 

  gmorton on December 09 at 12:49 a.m.

  Arch_druid wrote,

  “GMorton, it might surprise you but videos of melting glaciers isn’t exactly something that can be politically spun one way or another.”

  That is unbelievably naive, Arch.

• 

  Arch_Druid on December 09 at 12:58 a.m.

  So speaks one who should look in the mirror.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 09 at 3:46 a.m.

  Ron,

  – … the media and pols are not capable of grasping the subject matter, let alone determining which side has the stronger case –

  I think that’s very true and is a very important issue within the larger issue of addressing climate change. The media is covering and the politicians are making decision with respect to what I’m coming to understand is a very complex, very nuanced issue in science.

  That being the case, we - the people who don’t know for ourselves - of necessity have to depend on what the people who do know tell us.

  As a result, I think ‘Climate-gate’ (and God, how I **loathe** sound-bite, no thinking involved - just visceral response labels for complicated issues)… Anyway, I think because of our dependence on ‘those who know’ for the truth, Climate-gate has confused the issue, because while media and politicians don’t know science, they sure know scandal. (In the case of many politicians, they know about scandal from personal experience.)

  But the important, core questions aren’t about scandal. They are and always will be about science. The core question - as you say - boils down to who has the stronger case.

  When it comes to science, there is in fact a way of determining who has the stronger case - at least if you believe the ability of scientists to judge such things. And since the ability to judge such things is the fundamental basis for science, if you distrust that ability then you distrust science on a fundamental level and we might as well go back to wearing furs and hunting bison with spears.

  The way to determine if the scientists have decided who has the stronger case is to simply ask them and then judge the reply on the basis of simple common sense factors like counting the number of people who believe what. That’s called an opinion poll.

  Now let me once again state parenthetically that I think opinion polls are only good for proving one thing and that is that people have opinions. An opinion poll doesn’t prove underlying objective facts. However, in this case since what we’re asking is ‘how many people hold this opinion’, then I would say that an opinion poll is a valid tool.

  I refer you to the following:

  http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

  – A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
  […]
  Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

  About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
  […]
  Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.” The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.–

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 09 at 7:00 a.m.

  gmorton,

  After all the lecturing I’ve gotten about the ‘unreliably anecdotal’ data supporting the assertions of an increase in Atlantic storm frequency and the decrease in Arctic ice - including scientifically gathered data relating to both that you dismiss as being not comprehensive enough to allow for any scientifically meaningful conclusions…

  – The evidence for the MWP is mainly historical, not proxy (although it does appear in many proxies). The historical evidence is written accounts of agricultural practices during the period, the colonization of Greenland, etc. Those portray a warmer period, but it is only semi-quantitative. We can say (with some confidence) that it was at least as warm, and maybe warmer, than now, but not how much difference there is. –

  So Russian Academy measurements of ice packs and weather recon data from the first half of the 20th century is insufficient to draw any meaningful conclusions, but several hundred year-old stories about what Olaf was supposedly planting in Greenland allow for ‘confident’ conclusions about the temperatures then relative to now?

  Are you [expletive] kidding?!

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 09 at 9:36 a.m.

  gmorton, you really need to read the Mann et al. article that you link. First, the paper used MBH98, not, MBH99. Look at the reconstructions in the MBH99 model. Really though, look at the 2008 reconstruction, which is much more accurate. Why are you fixated on old reconstructions that are no longer used in the latest publications?
  In the paper that you link, Mann et al. (1999) conclude that the MWP was indeed warm, though punctuated by cooler episodes (as did Lamb, Bryson, and everybody else). They also caution about uncertainty before A.D. 1400 in the MBH98 reconstruction (NOT MBH99).
  Even on a decadal scale, climate is always characterized by short, sharp punctuated change in all directions. I learned that principle in the first week of paleoecology, paleoclimatology, palynology, and geomorphology classes.
  You seem to have a poor understanding of the literature and the subject.
  You see only what you want to see, and do not even really read the scientific literature. Therefore, I shall leave you in your own set of erroneous, contrarian preconceptions about the world. Have fun.

  Anybody see the latest global temperature data from the 2000-2009 decade? Looks like warmest on record.
  Why don’t the science denialists just admit that all they really want to do is maximize all profits now, and they just don’t care about what may happen 30 years down the road. Short-term profit maximization for corporate America instead of long-term decision making for the benefit of all is all we are really debating here. All else is pretext. Too many Ayn Rand novels, and not enough paying attention in science classes.
  Keep up the good work Gary C. and Jeffrey

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 09 at 9:52 a.m.

  … and speaking of e-mails, I just received an email from the American Society for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, of which I have been a member for 25 years).

  it reads in part:

  The scientific community has begun to issue responses to the e-mail controversy. The AAAS Board of Directors released a statement on December 4. AAAS CEO Alan Leshner stated, “AAAS takes issues of scientific integrity very seriously. It is fair and appropriate to pursue answers to any allegations of impropriety. It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science.” Twenty-five climate scientists sent an open letter to Congress stating, “The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen e-mails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.”

• 

  Arch_Druid on December 09 at 9:57 a.m.

  Saw this in the S-R letters column about this very topic, in order for Arctic, etc. glaciers to calve (at an alarming rate) they must first INCREASE. Uh, by calving at an alarming rate, not only is more ocean water becoming visible but so is the land mass long buried under the ice sheets. Now that would be a letter after GMorton’s own heart.

• 

  garyc on December 09 at 10:03 a.m.

  >>All three use the *same* data sets, with some minor exceptions. They all use the *adjusted* land data sets provided by the GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network) which is maintained by NOAA. CRU adds some additional data. The three organizations then process that data according to their own algorithms. The three datasets are not independent. >>

  So then the data that have been “dumped” isn’t “raw” and is still available at GHCN.
  .

• 

  garyc on December 09 at 10:05 a.m.

  <<it reads=”” in=”” part:=”” the=”” scientific=”” community=”” has=”” begun=”” to=”” issue=”” responses=”” to=”” the=”” e-mail=”” controversy.=”” the=”” aaas=”” board=”” of=”” directors=”” released=”” a=”” statement=”” on=”” december=”” 4.=”” aaas=”” ceo=”” alan=”” leshner=”” stated,=”” “aaas=”” takes=”” issues=”” of=”” scientific=”” integrity=”” very=”” seriously.=”” it=”” is=”” fair=”” and=”” appropriate=”” to=”” pursue=”” answers=”” to=”” any=”” allegations=”” of=”” impropriety.=”” it’s=”” important=”” to=”” remember,=”” though,=”” that=”” the=”” reality=”” of=”” climate=”” change=”” is=”” based=”” on=”” a=”” century=”” of=”” robust=”” and=”” well-validated=”” science.”=”” twenty-five=”” climate=”” scientists=”” sent=”” an=”” open=”” letter=”” to=”” congress=”” stating,=”” “the=”” body=”” of=”” evidence=”” that=”” human=”” activity=”” is=”” the=”” dominant=”” cause=”” of=”” global=”” warming=”” is=”” overwhelming.=”” the=”” content=”” of=”” the=”” stolen=”” e-mails=”” has=”” no=”” impact=”” whatsoever=”” on=”” our=”” overall=”” understanding=”” that=”” human=”” activity=”” is=”” driving=”” dangerous=”” levels=”” of=”” global=”“ warming.”=”“>>

  “Bandwagon” charge in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 …

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 09 at 10:07 a.m.

  Arch – gmorton gets his information from an ExxonMobil funded website (one that also still denies many of the dangers of smoking) and from blogs.
  The History Channel has its faults, but it seems that gmorton is the naïve one.

  re: glaciers. that letter writer does not understand anything about glaciology. boy, talk about an uninformed, naïve letter.

• 

  Arch_Druid on December 09 at 10:18 a.m.

  No kidding, Chip Jones. Between the History Channel and what I have seen on PBS, for ice sheets or glaciers to break off at the measurable speed that they have within the last decade, that has to do with an INCREASE in warming temps. Maybe we should take the guy around to witness first hand an avalanche (at a safe distance, of course) and ask him exactly why snow can suddenly let go from high peaks and thunder down hillsides. Because of temp variations, of course that produces unstable snow packs. Wouldn’t be much difference between one and the other.

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 09 at 10:35 a.m.

  Arch – I am not well read on the issue of Antarctic glaciers, but a couple of recent papers do indicate that increasing snow and concomitant growth of glaciers in parts of Antarctica are due to warming temperatures in the Antarctic. Increased calving may also be due to melt water at the bottom of some Antarctic glaciers, which causes them to move more quickly (but still at a glacial pace).
  So yes, it seems that increases temperature, which can cause increased precipitation in some regions (but drought in others), may result in increased glacial calving.
  Funny how science is sometimes counterintuitive to what some uninformed people want to call “common sense.”

• 

  gmorton on December 09 at 1:43 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “So Russian Academy measurements of ice packs and weather recon data from the first half of the 20th century is insufficient to draw any meaningful conclusions . . .”

  No, Jeffrey. We can perhaps draw some “meaningful” conclusions, i.e., some comparative conclusions. We just can’t draw any *quantitative* conclusions.

  The historical records re: Greenland (which are supported by extensive archeological evidence) tell us the climate there at the time was warm enough to permit raising certain crops.

  http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

• 

  gmorton on December 09 at 2:38 p.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  “First, the paper used MBH98, not, MBH99. Look at the reconstructions in the MBH99 model.”

  To which paper do you refer? The reconstruction shown as Fig. 3 in the paper I linked – which is MBH99 – is the graphic in question. That was the graph which decorated IPCC 2001. The MBH98 reconstruction began with AD 1400, thus did not cover the MWP.

  “In the paper that you link, Mann et al. (1999) conclude that the MWP was indeed warm, though punctuated by cooler episodes (as did Lamb, Bryson, and everybody else).”

  It is “warm” in their analysis only because it occurs early in a declining trend. It is not *anomalously* warm. The anomaly relative to the trend line is no more than 0.1C – indistinguishable from noise, and from the variance during any other period of similar duration. That is contrary to the historical evidence and many other reconstructions.

  “Really though, look at the 2008 reconstruction, which is much more accurate.”

  Yes, Mann et al “rediscover” the MWP in 2008. Sort of. Mann 2008 is hardly “more accurate,” however. Without an independent criterion with which to compare, any claim of “accuracy” is gratuitous.

  You might check this delightful animated GIF McIntyre cooked up. It cycles among the 33 non-tree-ring proxies used in Mann 2008. They are even less coherent than the list I cited earlier. If you think there is a signal there, then you either have a very vivid imagination or impute remarkable powers to statistics.

  http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/03/mann-2008-mwp-proxies/

  Be sure and read that entire discussion.

• 

  gmorton on December 09 at 2:56 p.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  “They also caution about uncertainty before A.D. 1400 in the MBH98 reconstruction (NOT MBH99).”

  Er, no. MBH98 did not cover the period before AD 1400. That was the reason for extending the analysis to AD 1000 in MBH99. The higher uncertainties mentioned are for the period pre-1400 *in the present analysis* (MBH99).

• 

  gmorton on December 09 at 3:14 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “So then the data that have been “dumped” isn’t “raw” and is still available at GHCN.”

  Impossible to know exactly what was dumped unless they tell us. But most of the data, both raw and adjusted, is indeed available from GHCN. CRU apparently did have some additional data from stations not included in the GHCN.

  It is still unfortunate that they dumped some data, however, because in order to replicate their analysis you need the data *they used*.

  You can get raw data (and adjusted also) from stations in the GHCN network here:

  http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climate.aspx

  I posted this link before. Worth looking at a few of those at random (check those with records extending from 1900 or earlier to the present).

  I posted this link before.

• 

  gmorton on December 09 at 3:42 p.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  ” …recent papers do indicate that increasing snow and concomitant growth of glaciers in parts of Antarctica are due to warming temperatures in the Antarctic.”

  Except that there has been no warming in the Antarctic except for the peninsula since 1965. In fact, they have cooled over most of the continent. A recent paper (Steig et al 2009) reported a larger rise from the beginning of the instrumental period (about 1950) to 1970, but no increase since then. Continental ice sheets and sea ice have also increased since 1979.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 09 at 4:27 p.m.

  gmorton,

  The simple fact remains: you dismiss out of hand scientific measurements of pack ice (the 1930’s Russian ice charts) and collated data of storm frequency (NOAA’s collected data from the 1850s on), branding them as too anecdotal and equivocal in one breath.

  And in the very next you assert that hundreds-of-years old stories about what was planted where allow for ‘confident *quantitative* (“…at least as warm, and maybe warmer…”)conclusions’ regarding temperature variance.

  The only two differences I can see between the former and the latter are: 1) - the latter is more anecdotal than the former, and 2) - the latter supports your claims while the former rebuts them.

• 

  garyc on December 09 at 4:44 p.m.

  <<yes, mann=”” et=”” al=”” “rediscover”=”” the=”” mwp=”” in=”” 2008.=”” sort=”” of.=”” mann=”” 2008=”” is=”” hardly=”” “more=”” accurate,”=”” however.=”” without=”” an=”” independent=”” criterion=”” with=”” which=”” to=”” compare,=”” any=”” claim=”” of=”” “accuracy”=”” is=”” gratuitous.=”“>>You might check this delightful animated GIF McIntyre cooked up. <<

  Cooked up, eh?

  What independent criterion did you use to substantiate McIntyre’s work there?

  The complaint about him is that he’s had two “peer-reviewed” papers in Energy and Environment, a social science journal run by an avowed skeptic.

  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment

  http://www.realclimate.org/docs/thacker/skeptics.pdf

  He had a critique of Mann that was rejected by Nature.

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

  I think it would be more productive if he spent less time blogging and accusing people of fraud more time on peer-reviewed work.

  Otherwise, how are we to trust the results? He has many back and forths with climate scientists, so how are you able to say he’s right and they’re wrong?

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

  And many, many more.

  Taking his work through peer review would help.

• 

  garyc on December 09 at 5:10 p.m.

  SIDENOTE: an emailer complains that this entire thread was deleted. Have any of you noticed it missing as you tried to post in it?

• 

  gmorton on December 09 at 5:22 p.m.

  Well worth the time for anyone interested in the climate discussion.

  (It’s about an hour long):

  http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

• 

  gmorton on December 09 at 5:23 p.m.

  Thread seems to OK from here Gary.

• 

  gmorton on December 09 at 9:15 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “The only two differences I can see between the former and the latter are: 1) - the latter is more anecdotal than the former, and 2) - the latter supports your claims while the former rebuts them.”

  Well, no, Jeffrey. The differences are that the early ice and storm observations did not cover all of the affected areas (the entire Atlantic basin and Arctic Ocean, respectively). Large portions – in fact, most of the two areas – was not observed. And to compare total storms or total ice extent at a time t1 with the figures at some later time t2 you need observations over the entire area, as you have today (t2).

  You don’t have observations of medieval temps over the entire globe either. There is very little data over the southern hemisphere. But there is agreement among those areas for which there are records. So either the N hemisphere generally was warm, or only certain areas were warm in a coordinated way. Accounting for the later would be harder than accounting for a global warm period, which could be accounted for by a change in solar activity.

  Also, storms are short-term events, lasting only a few days. They are bound to be missed if observations are infrequent, or in the case of the S Atlantic, nonexistent (over most of it). The temp changes in the MWP are persistent, lasting many years. You don’t need frequent observations to verify it.

  We don’t have to *count* anything to say temps during the MWP were warm. We do in order to compare past storm and ice extent with present figures.

• 

  gmorton on December 09 at 10:27 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “Cooked up, eh?

  Yup. McIntyre (or rather some Flash wonk) cooked up the animation. He didn’t cook up the graphs, however. Those are taken from the various proxy studies.

  “What independent criterion did you use to substantiate McIntyre’s work there?”

  Which work? Creating the animation? Or are you suggesting that McIntyre distorted (or invented) the graphs?

  You can’t claim a reconstruction, or any other measured value, is “accurate” unless you have a criterion against which to compare it. Without a standard, or criterion, you may at most claim that the values of a series of measurements converge to some value, which may be the “true” value.

  Did you read McIntyre’s comments?

  “The complaint about him is that he’s had two “peer-reviewed” papers in Energy and Environment, a social science journal run by an avowed skeptic.”

  Can’t shake off those *ad hominems*, eh? How about trying to understand and evaluate Mann’s method and McIntyre’s arguments?

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 10 at 4:06 a.m.

  This is getting amusing.

  Atlantic storm records aren’t reliable because they don’t cover large area of observation and therefore unreliable as a source for drawing any conclusions. But anecdotal ‘farm stories’ that don’t even cover all of medieval Europe can be reliably construed to arrive at conclusions regarding global temperature?

  – So either the N hemisphere generally was warm, or only certain areas were warm in a coordinated way. Accounting for the later would be harder than accounting for a global warm period, which could be accounted for by a change in solar activity. –

  Wow! And you say proponents of global warming stack assumptions?

  - Assumption: Generally warm and not warm in a ‘coordinated way’ (whatever that means.) And the further assumption that temperatures had to be ‘coordinated’ to refute the assumption of ‘generally’.
  - Assumption: ‘Accounting for the latter would be harder than accounting for the former.’
  - Assumption: “…which could be accounted for by a change in solar activity.”

  – Also, storms are short-term events, lasting only a few days. They are bound to be missed if observations are infrequent, or in the case of the S Atlantic, nonexistent (over most of it). The temp changes in the MWP are persistent, lasting many years. You don’t need frequent observations to verify it. –

  At least the storm data is observational evidence of specific phenomena. Your crop records are *at best* guess work with respect to many of the factors you’re relying on them to prove. Which crops grew where? What were the yields? What’s the temperature range within which those crops can be cultivated? (Remember that you will quickly pounce on minor variations in temperature and dismiss them as ‘noise’. Crop viability has a *far* greater ‘noise’ ratio than you have elsewhere dismissed as impeaching.)

  You just can’t expect to be taken seriously when you try to apply such a blatant double standard.

  – We don’t have to *count* anything to say temps during the MWP were warm. We do in order to compare past storm and ice extent with present figures. –

  You have to ‘count’ temperature, even if you do it in a generalized, ‘guess-timate’ way. ‘How much’ temperature is central to this debate. ‘How much warmer then than now.’ You have to count crop yields. ‘More then than at other times.’ And you don’t have any more actual data and any less guess-work than that which relates to storms and ice extent. Indeed, you have far *less* actual data and far *more* guesses.

  And as I say, that’s decidely suspect when it comes from someone who heretofore has ‘made his living’ insisting that large bodies of actual data is the only valid yardstick.

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 10 at 8:53 a.m.

  Jeffrey,
  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. He does not understand the thousands of studies that have been done on the Medieval Warm Period - Medieval Climate Anomaly that use proxies. The historical evidence is anecdotal. It does have its uses, especially in being able to put real human actions into the story (like Greenlanders growing hay, and later being abandoned and left to die at the beginning of the Little Ice Age).
  The thousands of articles in the published journals on the MWP-MCA use proxy measures, not historical anecdotes. morton shifts around and plugs in anecdotes and contrarianism, but his arguments have no scientific merit. I await the publication of his rebuttal article to Mann et al.’s recent work in the journal Science, until then he will remain all smoke and mirrors.

• 

  gmorton on December 10 at 10:30 a.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “Atlantic storm records aren’t reliable because they don’t cover large area of observation and therefore unreliable as a source for drawing any conclusions. But anecdotal ‘farm stories’ that don’t even cover all of medieval Europe can be reliably construed to arrive at conclusions regarding global temperature?”

  No, Jeffrey. Wrong on both statements. We can indeed draw some conclusions regarding Atlantic storms from the available evidence. I.e., we can say that there were *at least* x storms in a given year. But we can’t say that x represents all of the storms in the basin in that year, because more than half of the Atlantic basin was not observed most of the time. Since we can’t say the latter, we can’t say that there more or fewer storms in that year than in a recent year where the total number are known.

  And we can’t arrive at quantitative conclusions about global temps in the medieval period from the available evidence either. First, what evidence we have is largely confined to the N hemisphere. That evidence, which is available from several sites, shows that temps were higher than today for a period, because crops were grown in areas where they cannot be grown today. Some of that evidence is historical (records of harvests, etc.), some is physical (archeological). And many proxies also indicate higher temps during that period. We can thus draw a *comparative* (though still not quantitative) conclusion with the present on the basis of those records; we don’t have to count anything. But to compare past with present storms we have to count them in both periods.

  But just as with the storms, we can’t say that the warm period was global. It’s possible that it was confined, or enhanced, in the N hemisphere. Some proxies from the S hemisphere argue against that, however. And that would be more difficult to account for physically (we don’t know of any mechanism which would warm the N hemisphere, but not the S, for several centuries).

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 10 at 12:35 p.m.

  – We can indeed draw some conclusions regarding Atlantic storms from the available evidence. –

  Go back and read my earlier posts on this subject and you’ll see that’s all I’ve ever said. There is data on the frequency of Atlantic storms dating back to at least the middle of the 19th Century. The data is by no means as comprehensive or extensive as today. Thus it requires interpretation using scientifically recognized methods to derive meaning from it.

  I’ve never argued differently.

  – And we can’t arrive at quantitative conclusions about global temps in the medieval period from the available evidence either. –

  I grant you that point. Once again it’s a question of applying scientifically recognized methods of interpretation and analysis to draw meaningfully quantitative conclusions from the records that are available - because in the end ‘quantitative’ is the basis for any identification of trends, and trends are what is fundamentally at issue here.

  In both cases - medieval harvests and Atlantic storms - recognized experts have applied scientific techniques of analysis and interpretation to the data available and the great majority of them have concluded that the data thus analyzed supports the contention that anthropogenic warming is both a fact and a looming crisis that must be addressed.

  Please note I’m not saying this conclusion is without its dissenters. I recognize there is disagreement. I’m simply saying the dissenters are in the distinct minority and I for one choose to go with the majority of the experts when it comes to decisions regarding a potential crisis.

  And it took us how many days and how many words to arrive more or less back where several of the posters on this thread started?

• 

  garyc on December 10 at 3:40 p.m.

  <<thread seems=”” to=”” ok=”” from=”” here=”“ gary.=”“>>

  Thanks. It was a misunderstanding.

• 

  garyc on December 10 at 4:56 p.m.

  Well worth the time for anyone interested in the climate discussion.

  (It’s about an hour long):

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-the-continued-interest/comment-page-2/#comments

• 

  gmorton on December 10 at 5:57 p.m.

  “I grant you that point. Once again it’s a question of applying scientifically recognized methods of interpretation and analysis to draw meaningfully quantitative conclusions from the records that are available . . .”

  No. You persist in supposing that “methods of interpretation and analysis” (by which you mean statistical methods) can produce data. They cannot produce data. They can only derive conclusions from whatever data is available. They can’t produce conclusions which *go beyond the data*.

  You need long-term *data* to derive long-term trends. Statistical techniques cannot produce that data.

  And there is no “interpretation and analysis” involved in drawing the conclusion that the MWP was as warm or warmer than today. There are records of events and practices which could not have occurred otherwise. Those records are sufficient to support that conclusion. The pre-1966 records of Atlantic storms are sufficient to establish that there were storms during that period, but not any conclusion about the *total number* of storms. That would go beyond the data.

• 

  gmorton on December 10 at 6:16 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “Discussion of GCR here. Reference to this talk in Post #61.”

  Sure. That is worth reading too.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 11 at 6:18 a.m.

  gmorton,

  – And there is no “interpretation and analysis” involved in drawing the conclusion that the MWP was as warm or warmer than today. –

  And that would be because we have records from the period that area as extensive and as comprehensive as those of today and therefore it’s simply a matter of reading the data?

  If not, then no matter how much you don’t like the inescapable conclusion and no matter how much you resort to rationalization and your favorite tool of arguing semantics, then it most certainly IS a question of interpretation and analysis. It’s a question every bit as open to interpretation and analysis as the frequency of Atlantic storms or past polar ice extent.

  I can do the very same thing. I can say, ‘We might not know the numbers. (Though in fact we know a lot more numbers than we do for agricultural results from five hundred years ago) But we know enough from anecdotes, snippets of data and educated guesses to know that there was more ice than today or there were fewer storms.’

  No. Once around was enough. I stand by my preceding post.

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 11 at 10:31 a.m.

  Jeffrey - you may be interested in this recent article on the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Here is a link to the abstract. Unfortunately, the full text is restricted to subscribers, but abstract sums it up well.

  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5957/1256

• 

  gmorton on December 11 at 11:06 a.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “I can do the very same thing. I can say, ‘We might not know the numbers. (Though in fact we know a lot more numbers than we do for agricultural results from five hundred years ago) . . .”

  And that’s the point. We *don’t need to know the numbers* to conclude there was a period in the Middle Ages warm enough to allow certain crops to be grown. It makes no difference whether English vintners produced 100 tons of grapes or 100,000 tons. If they produced *any*, then it had to be warm enough.

  But to compare storm frequencies in two periods, you *do* need numbers, for both periods.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 11 at 2:51 p.m.

  gmorton,

  And they do have numbers for both periods.

  gmorton,

  Look again at that Wood’s Hole chart for reports from the 1850’s to present. There were areas of the Atlantic (sea lanes) that were regularly traveled and for which regular reports of conditions were collected.

  Same areas. Same types of reports.

  Comprehensive? Hardly. But it is *hard data*.

  Therefore compare:

  - For this particular, regularly observed track in the Atlantic, the average frequency of storms was ‘x’ in 1850, ‘still x’ in 1900, ‘x+1’ in 1950’ and ‘x+2’ in 2000. (Or whatever the actual numbers are.)

  -against-

  ‘There is anecdotal evidence that they were growing some grapes in England so we can assume that the temperature was as warm then as it is today.’

  Which of those two is interpretation of hard data and which is speculation?

  I continue to stand by my earlier post. (Just a little more confidently now.)

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 11 at 2:52 p.m.

  (Strange post. Didn’t mean to call you by name twice there at the beginning. I think I got a little fouled up in my editing.)

• 

  gmorton on December 11 at 6:28 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “- For this particular, regularly observed track in the Atlantic, the average frequency of storms was ‘x’ in 1850, ‘still x’ in 1900, ‘x+1’ in 1950’ and ‘x+2’ in 2000. (Or whatever the actual numbers are.)”

  Now you are using a sampling method (allowing a subset of the population to represent the entire set). Nothing wrong with that, except that is not the method the doomsayers are using (because the sample size is too small and observations erratic). The largest and best available sample of the storm frequency in the Atlantic basin over the past 100+ years is the US count, which shows no increase.

  “There is anecdotal evidence that they were growing some grapes in England so we can assume that the temperature was as warm then as it is today.”

  Historical evidence is not anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is hearsay evidence – 3rd party reports whose origin cannot be determined or confirmed. If you are going to dismiss historical evidence as anecdotal, then you’ll have to dismiss all your storm reports as well.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 12 at 3:17 a.m.

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/

  Yes, I know it’s RealClimate and they’re nothing but liars, murderers and thieves. (Never mind that the author actually cites authority for his claims versus asserting what quantitative comparisons we can ‘confidently’ draw from assumptions based on estimates.)

  Still, even it it’s all lies, I was particularly struck by this:

  – The earliest documentation that is better than anecdotal is from the Domesday Book (1087) – an early census that the new Norman king commissioned to assess his new English dominions, including the size of farms, population etc.
  […]

  Sources differ a little on how many vineyards are included in the book: Selley quotes Unwin (J. Wine Research, 1990) who records 46 vineyards across Southern England (42 unambiguous sites, 4 less direct), but other claims (unsourced) range up to 52. Lamb’s 1977 book has a few more from other various sources and anecdotally there are more still, and so clearly this is a minimum number.
  […]

  Since 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits. So with the sole exception of one ‘rather improbably’ located 12th Century Scottish vineyard (and strictly speaking that doesn’t count, it not being in England ‘n’ all…), English vineyards have almost certainly exceeded the extent of medieval cultivation. And I hear (from normally reliable sources) they are actually producing a pretty decent selection of white wines.
  […]

  So what should one conclude from this? Well, one shouldn’t be too dogmatic that English temperatures are now obviously above a medieval peak – the impact of confounding factors in wine production precludes such a clear conclusion (and I am pretty agnostic with regards to the rest of the evidence of whether northern Europe was warmer 1000 years than today). However, one can conclude that those who are using the medieval English vineyards as a ‘counter-proof’ to the idea of present day global warming are just blowing smoke (or possibly drinking too much Californian). *If they are a good proxy, then England is warmer now, and if they are not…. well, why talk about them in this context at all?* – (emphasis mine)

• 

  gmorton on December 12 at 11:29 a.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “English vineyards have almost certainly exceeded the extent of medieval cultivation . . .”

  Of course. The market today is 10 times as large. And modern winemaking in the UK takes advantage of cold-tolerant grape hybrids. Pinot Noir and other common varietals must be grown in greenhouses.

  http://freespace.virgin.net/donovan.hawley/vineyard.htm#v

• 

  garyc on December 12 at 11:33 a.m.

  All,

  It will be a waste of time to respond to Ron. The blog posts about issues will stay up. The blog itself won’t be an issue.

  It’s about abiding by simple requests. Since you’re all still posting, you are obviously able to comply. It isn’t hard.

  The reason has nothing to do with climate change. The answer is upthread: Dec. 4, 10:07 am.

  That is all.

• 

  Arch_Druid on December 12 at 12:05 p.m.

  So, Gary C., did I offend by commenting to Ron the Cop?

  Sorry about that.

  But I still stand by what I said before you took an ax to it.

  Any reasonable person would accept your requests and comply in order to post. While I understand your position, don’t take it out on me. I am not Ron the Cop, now repeat that 100 times.

• 

  gmorton on December 12 at 12:23 p.m.

  Current climate in context:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI&feature=player_embedded

• 

  garyc on December 13 at 10:17 a.m.

  Druid,

  Back to issues. OK?

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on December 14 at 5:40 a.m.

  – And modern winemaking in the UK takes advantage of cold-tolerant grape hybrids. –

  What strains were being grown back in the Middle Ages? How frost tolerant were they? What were the yields like then versus now? Because environmental conditions play a large part in agriculture and it’s the environment we’re discussing. The market now is 10-times as great? So not only are there more people now than then, they’re drinking ‘per-capita’ the same amout of wine?

  It’s all guess-work and estimation, gmorton. At least as much if not FAR MORE so than the records for Atlantic storm frequency that you dismiss almost out of hand. On the one hand - the one that backs your contention - it’s ‘strong evidence’, but on the other - the one that refutes your position - it’s ‘unreliable speculation’.

  This is silly. If people haven’t spotted your transparent double standard by now, they’re not going to. I’m done, at least on this point.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 14 at 7:23 p.m.

  “This is silly. If people haven’t spotted your (gmorton) transparent double standard by now, they’re not going to.”
  -Jeffrey

  The thinking people noticed that some time ago.

• 

  gmorton on December 14 at 8:21 p.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “If people haven’t spotted your transparent double standard by now . . .”

  Actually, there is a double standard. That is because there are two types of questions involved, for which different types of evidence are necessary. Quantitative claims require quantitative evidence; qualitative claims require only qualitative evidence.

  But I think you understand that.

• 

  gmorton on December 14 at 9:53 p.m.

  Some more local temp plots here:

  http://www.freespokane.net/?p=250

• 

  Arch_Druid on December 18 at 9:30 a.m.

  What’s the issue?

  Loose threads are exactly that, to present TOPICS for discussion.

  On the other hand, issues seems to be that I “take issue” with the topic you present for discussion. Gary Crooks, there is a difference here.

  Now, back to the loose thread, right? LOL!

« Back to A Matter Of Opinion