Cherry picking stations.org

Tamino has the scoop on the latest attempt to revive the old UHIs-mean-it’s-not-getting-warmer argument. Eli Rabett has more.

Comments

  1. #1 Lee
    August 7, 2007

    Vernon,

    What is your justification for assuming that a station that does not meet METEOROLOGICAL guidelines needs a trend adjustment?

    What is your justification for assuming that a station that does meet METEOROLOGICAL guidelines does NOT need a trend adjustment?

  2. #2 dhogaza
    August 8, 2007

    Presumably because I’m not learning the right things from the places I visit…

    You won’t learn anything relevant about climate science by visiting climate audit, so yes, you’ve pretty much nailed it.

    You are parroting what you’ve read there, whether you’ll admit it or not, and you’ve done so without taking the time to learn *anything* about the science.

    You’re in the position of someone arguing against evolutionary biology and when questioned about the sources of information they read saying “look, I’ve never spent any time reading biology sites, but I did spend 30 minutes learning about evolutionary biology by reading Uncommon Descent”.

  3. #3 dopey
    August 8, 2007

    So Vernon you’re calling CO2 “life” while the people you’re arguing with believe that in the context of your argument it’s a “pollutant”. You can look up the meaning of that word if you like but that’s what CO2 is in a discussion of anthropogenic climate change by CO2 emissions.

    Being a bit careless with the language is the liberals’ typical debating tactic. For example the Bible’s not the word of God to them they think you can be nuanced with your reading of it – and here you are doing this yourself.

    Vernon if you’ve never yet seen a government policy you liked what chance would there be of you now accepting a policy on climate change?

  4. #4 dhogaza
    August 8, 2007

    Paul H, if Briffa’s suggest causes to divergence were supported by fact, then would not the IPCC say that was the reason for the divergence effect rather than:

    At this time there is no consensus on these issues…

    Vernon doesn’t understand why “no consensus” does not imply “unsupported by fact”.

    Ignorance of the basics seem to be a big part of his problem.

    Of course, at the same time he’s quoting the author of ONE paper on the effects of black carbon in the artic as though there’s no possibility the paper’s wrong, despite the fact that there’s NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on the matter (climatologists know black carbon has some effect, but there’s no consensus on the magnitude).

    Oh, oops, Vernon actually misunderstands what the paper’s saying as well. Too bad for Vernon.

    Regardless. For the sake of consistency, since there’s no scientific consensus regarding the magnitude of warming caused by black carbon, Vernon should be claiming that the paper’s claims are NOT SUPPORTED BY FACT.

    Or is there some reason why Vernon might apply different standards to a paper which he believes supports his cause and to one which he believes undermines it.

    You wouldn’t do that, would you, Vernon?

  5. #5 Chris O'Neill
    August 8, 2007

    Vernon: “You ignore my follow up that explained what I meant.”

    You mean the Alice-in-wonderland, my-words mean-what-I-say-they-mean style argument?

    “What I said was that Briffa (2001)”

    But question wasn’t what you said about Briffa (2001), was it?

    “That the Osborn (2006) shows that the proxy trends are going down from a high earlier in the century.”

    How many times do I have to tell you? 70% of proxies in Osborn (2006) finish at record highs and are trending up.

    “I did not understand Briffa (2001) or Osborn (2006) but shazam, the IPCC just happen to agree with me.”

    If you don’t understand Briffa (2001) or Osborn (2006), how do we know you understand the IPCC? If you shoot your own credibility it would be rather foolish for anyone to just believe you.

  6. #6 Robin Levett
    August 8, 2007

    Vernon

    This was the other question:

    And when you say that the IPCC says we have a low LOSU of “most” climate drivers, do you mean by number or by influence?

    Would you please answer it?

    And, at the moment, I’m trying to clarify the point you sought to make.

  7. #7 Vernon
    August 8, 2007

    Chris O’Neill,

    Since it appears that you did not read Osborn et al(2006), the full version that is found here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5762/841

    The objective of the study was:

    Here, we investigated whether a more carefully designed assessment of proxy records on an individual basis supports the conclusion that recent NH temperatures are unusual in the context provided by these records. We only used proxy records that are positively correlated with their local temperature observations, and, critically, periods with synchronous “warm” or “cold” anomalies in many proxies were used to infer hemispheric-scale climate anomalies as distinct from asynchronous warming or cooling in different regions. This restricts the analysis to those proxy records that are accurately dated. Analysis of synchronous anomalies in a number of independent records is indicative of the geographical extent of anomalous temperatures.

    Further the conclusion reached by this study was:

    The proxy records indicate that the most widespread warmth occurred in either the mid- or late-twentieth century, but instrumental temperatures provide unequivocal evidence for continuing geographic expansion of anomalous warmth through to the present time.

    Which if you look at their graphs, they show that trends dropped at the very end of the century, which is what I have been saying. What your saying is meaningless for this study. This is not 70 percent do this and 30 percent do that, it is that the overall trend based on all the other studies show this.

  8. #8 dhogaza
    August 8, 2007

    Vernon sez, stupidly:

    This is not 70 percent do this and 30 percent do that, it is that the overall trend based on all the other studies show this.

    While the authors say:

    The proxy records indicate that THE MOST WIDESPREAD WARMTH…

    which correlates with the fact that the graph, despite Vernon’s spewing, plots how many proxy records show significant warming (70%), not a temperature trend.

    Vernon was told this on RC numerous times. He didn’t listen. He repeats his bullshit here. He still doesn’t listen.

    Oh, damn, I’m supposed to be polite to him, because in oconnellc’s world, the polite person who deliberately repeats the same tired lies over and over again is to be preferred to the person blunt enough to call that person a liar.

    (meanwhile, oconnellc says nothing about the fact that it is inherently impolite to imply that an entire field of science is fraudulent, as Vernon and his ilk do)

  9. #9 Vernon
    August 8, 2007

    Robin,

    I am not sure what your asking but I will try to answer. If the IPCC says we have LOSU of a given driver, then I do not see how we can make an assumption on what the level of influence is, if we could then we would understand it. As to the number, then, yes I would have to say based on what the IPCC report says, we do not know much about most of the drivers. Of the 13 listed drivers, we have high understanding of ghg, medium of two more drivers, and low to very low on the other 10. Is that what your asking? If you want you can read it in the IPCC SFP.

  10. #10 Vernon
    August 8, 2007

    Gee, dhogaza, I guess going by what the authors of the paper say is not good enough for you. Bye troll.

  11. #11 Vernon
    August 8, 2007

    Lee,

    Since I was not the one that did a studies based on these stations, it is not up to me to validate if the stations are providing good data or bad data. However, based on my reading, no climatologist has ever bothered to actually inspect a collection station. They take the raw data an adjust it. Well part of my reading indicates that one of the adjustments is for UHI. So I read some more to find out how they determine what the UHI off-set is and found three means:

    1. The satellite method – checking for lights at night
    2. The census method – based on population
    3. The metadata method – based on site metadata

    So why does METEOROLOGICAL guidelines matter? Because if the station is not sited properly then the above methodologies may not work. That is the question which you do not seem to want to be answered, what is the impact? Because this census is casting doubts on the validity of all three methods of determining the UHI off-set and if the off-set is wrong, then the trends could be wrong.

  12. #12 dhogaza
    August 8, 2007

    Gee, dhogaza, I guess going by what the authors of the paper say is not good enough for you. Bye troll.

    Ummm … you don’t understand what they say. Not my problem …

    Vernon and Lance, the faces of the scientific revolution that’s going to put those gol’darned fradulent climate scientists in their place, ya betcha!

  13. #13 dhogaza
    August 8, 2007

    If the IPCC says we have LOSU of a given driver, then I do not see how we can make an assumption on what the level of influence is, if we could then we would understand it.

    This is astonishing. If we know the major forcings and feedbacks we can easily put an upper bounds on the influence other factors might have.

    Military types built accurate firing tables for artillery using Newtonian mechanics, even though they didn’t know the level of influence of relativistic effects (indeed, even though they were unaware that Newtonian mechanics was flawed). Sometimes what you know is enough to get the job done.

    Is this really so hard to understand?

  14. #14 Vernon
    August 8, 2007

    dhogaza,

    now you are making an unproven assumption. The whole CO2 AGW theory is based on this assumption – namely that we know the major forcings and feedbacks. I have to ask, how do we know this when most of the drivers and feedbacks are have LOSU?

    However, there are many discrepancies between the theory and reality. Such as the instrumented trends diverge from proxy trends. Or the fact that there is no proof in the past that CO2 has ever driven warming. When there is fact that the climate has cooled despite CO2.

  15. #15 dhogaza
    August 8, 2007

    now you are making an unproven assumption. The whole CO2 AGW theory is based on this assumption – namely that we know the major forcings and feedbacks.

    Why should I believe you when climatologists not only say the opposite but have reams of peer-reviewed science going back over a hundred years to back up their claim?

    Or the fact that there is no proof in the past that CO2 has ever driven warming.

    Then you move on to a false statement … and, yes, I know about ice ages and how solar forcing LEADS CO2 forcing by a few hundred years (which is not the same as saying there is no CO2 forcing, a fact you seem to be conveniently forgetting).

  16. #16 Vernon
    August 8, 2007

    dhogaza,

    While normally I do not care what the current theory of the week is because it does not normally affect me, CO2 AGW does. So while string theory is now out of favor to 11-dimension theory, policy is not going to be made based on either. CO2 AGW theory is being used as the basis for making massive changes to socity and economies.

    So if you have a problem with people like me that take the time to read the literature, both for an against, read the studies, and come up with questions, then too bad.

    I have a problem with the fact that the proxies and the instrumented trends do not match. This indicates to me that one of them is wrong.

    Part of what could be wrong is the fact that climatologist are using data from ill-sited stations to both determine adjustments to the raw data and to determine grid trends. No one has done any studies to determine the effect of poorly sited stations – yet here and many other places (RC) – the answer is to plug your ears chanting, the data matches the trends, the trends match the data… which is a circular argument.

    So, before I support major changes I am going to keep reading the ongoing work and asking the questions that I do not see an answer for, whether you like it or not.

  17. #17 Paul H
    August 8, 2007

    Some proxies don’t agree with the instrumental record, only some. Those highlighted in Briffa’s papers are good examples of this divergence phenomenon. There is evidence to link decreased tree growth to certain types of pollution. The true effect needs to be verified by the good people who study trees in special tents loaded with the pollutant of interest. Given that most proxies match the temperature record of the 20th C. are we therefore left believing that you have no problem with the parts of the meteorological network that overlaps with the proxies that seem to show a warm late 20th C?

  18. #18 dhogaza
    August 8, 2007

    So if you have a problem with people like me that take the time to read the literature, both for an against, read the studies, and come up with questions, then too bad.

    No one has a problem with that. The problem is with the fact that you:

    1. Either don’t understand or lie about what the papers you quote say, which is a classic science denialism tactic used by creationists, HIV deniers, etc.

    2. When corrected, refuse to acknowledge your mistake. Another classic science denialist tactic.

    3. Move to another venue (i.e. from RC to here), and repeat your mistakes once again, another classic science denialist tactic.

    4. Accuse experts of being incompetent or fraudulent or driven by ideology. Another classic science denialist tactic.

    This list is not meant to be exhaustive…

    I have a problem with the fact that the proxies and the instrumented trends do not match. This indicates to me that one of them is wrong.

    The paper you’ve cited over and over again doesn’t make this claim, as the previous post (and many other earlier ones) point out.

    No one has done any studies to determine the effect of poorly sited stations

    You’ve been told both at RC and here that this statement is incorrect. Your constant repeating of it, after having been corrected, is a lie.

    yet here and many other places (RC) – the answer is to plug your ears chanting, the data matches the trends, the trends match the data… which is a circular argument.

    No, that’s not what’s been said. Either you’re obtuse beyond belief or lying.

    So, before I support major changes I am going to keep reading the ongoing work and asking the questions that I do not see an answer for, whether you like it or not.

    You can ask if the world’s flat as often as you want, but don’t be surprised if people don’t take you seriously when you refuse to listen to evidence that it’s not.

  19. #19 Vernon
    August 8, 2007

    Paul H,

    I question why the proxies match and why they diverge. I do not know which is correct. If the proxies are correct, then even if there is a point that the trends overlap, we have less to worry about due to CO2. If the direct readings are correct, then there is no proof that past warming was less than the present warming. This is too important to just guess. It should not be to hard to put measuring stations near proxy sources and measure humidity, air chemistry, cloud/clear weather, weather data, and determine which one of these is actually being measured by the proxy. Then at the same time, duplicate the conditions and change the humidity and air chemistry to see if that is truly the cause. However, where are you going to get the instrumented or proxy record of the humidity?

    Basically, I have problems with both parts until someone does the work to determine which is correct.

    Also based on what I read in the Wegman report, it would be good if all the data, processes, and procedures were made available to statisticians since it appears that some climatologist have issues with statistics.

  20. #20 Vernon
    August 8, 2007

    dhogaza,

    wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

    I was told I was wrong about the divergence issue until I quoted the IPCC’s position which was the same as mine.

    I keep being told that Osborn (2006) does not show that the overall trend at the end of the 20th century less than it was earlier in the 20th century, but the chart shows I am right.

    1. You lie, I give the cite and the quote for a specific fact from the study. I may draw a different conclusion than the study’s author but the fact is the fact.

    2. Nope, when pointed out that I typo’ed a cite, I corrected it. What I have not gotten are studies that contradict the facts that I have presented. Oh, I am sorry, having you call me names is a presentation of fact for you.

    3. I quit posting at all on RC. They refuse to publish posts that actually have cites to back up the position, well, unless your a fan boy. I looked for a pro-AGW site that might answer my questions… you are not a source of answers. The ones that told me I was wrong about the facts got real quite when the IPCC said the same thing.

    4. I have never accused anyone of anything. I do wonder how good the science is when the data, processes, and procedures are not made public. I am part of the old school, if you have a finding you present to information needed for others to duplicate your work. That does not seem to be the way it is done in climatology.

    About poorly sited stations, how about a cite?

    And finally your real position. Your a believer and will not accept any questioning.

  21. #21 dhogaza
    August 8, 2007

    I was told I was wrong about the divergence issue until I quoted the IPCC’s position which was the same as mine.

    Uh, no, it’s not, and it’s been explained above.

    You lie, I give the cite and the quote for a specific fact from the study. I may draw a different conclusion than the study’s author but the fact is the fact.

    The reason why you draw a different conclusion than the study’s author is that he understands the data he’s presenting, and either you don’t or you’re lying.

    Again, this is a classic science denialist tactic (we see a lot of claims of the sort “the author claims his data supports an evolutionary hypothesis but it’s really supporting intelligent design, he’s just not smart enough to realize it!”). You’re doing the same thing with this author’s data. The problem is, we can look at the author’s graph, read the author’s conclusion, and see that he’s right.

    Who do you expect to convince with this dribble?

  22. #22 dhogaza
    August 8, 2007

    I quit posting at all on RC. They refuse to publish posts that actually have cites to back up the position, well, unless your a fan boy.

    And this is a lie that’s easily refuted by anyone who takes the time to read a few threads on the site.

    Why do you bother lying in a way that’s easily disproven by someone who takes a few minutes to visit the site?

  23. #23 Paul H
    August 8, 2007

    When talking about the proxies vs. the temperature records you should mention that most of the proxy records derived from tree rings actually correlate with 20th century temperaure records. Only some of the records don’t correlate beyond 1960. It would appear that about 30% of the proxy records don’t correlate. When you discuss them you should acknowledge that the divergence issue is limited to a relatively small subset of the data. The way you’re talking about gives the impression that all proxies diverge and this is not true. Given that the divergence is limited to higher latitude regions you should look at the secondary evidence of warming from that region. Yes, we know that you think that BC is the cause of the warming in the Arctic. This begs a question because you appear to be being very inconsistent. Your original response to my post included mention of the Irvine BC paper. You said “thawing of the permafrost and thinning or Arctic sea ice, etc has either a partial or complete answer in UC Irvine’s study on the effects of dirty snow (black carbon) in the Arctic. It is responsible for 35 – 94 percent of all warming and melting.” Aside from that being a poor assessment of Flanner et al 2007, you say that there was a warming in the Arctic using this press release as your source. So, you won’t believe either the high latitude proxies or the temperature record yet you’ll cite a paper which tries to attribute some of the mythical Arctic warming to BC? Like I said that’s inconsistent.

    Let me explain my position. The proxies at high lat. (a small subset of all proxies) prior to the 1960s correlate extremely well with the temperature records but fail to correlate after 1960. I think that some other factor is at work after the 1960s to prevent a decent correlation. Briffa seems to agree with me, the IPCC acknowledges this too. Thus, I believe that the proxies are possibly to likely correct before 1960 (this is because I think a non-climatic effect influenced the record post 1960 and there are plausible candidates for this hypoth., Briffa agrees). Post 1960, I believe the temperature records in the higher latitudes because of the supporting secondary evidence of thinning ice and permafrost. I never even mentioned the causes, yet surely if you cite a cause (BC) for something then that cause must have had an effect. In this case its either BC, GHGs, or both causing the Arctic to warm and melt anomalously.

  24. #24 Chris O'Neill
    August 8, 2007

    Since Vernon ignores what I say and does nothing other than throw up smoke-screens, all I can do is repeat the assertion he made, i.e. ” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/osborn2006/osborn2006.html .. shows that at the end of the century all the proxies show temperatures dropping” and repeat the explanation of the graph in that abstract that shows that his assertion is blatantly wrong. i.e.

    “The graph in http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/osborn2006/osborn2006.html has a set of curves that shows the fraction of Northern Hemisphere proxies with a particular property, e.g. light red shading shows the fraction of proxies that are more than one unit above long term average. This means that at the end of the record, 70% of proxies were more than one unit above long term average. This was the largest fraction of proxies in history that suggested one unit’s worth of warming. Similarly at the end of the record, 40% of proxies were more than two units above long term average. This was also the largest fraction of proxies in history that suggested two units’ worth of warming. What Vernon has been taken in by is that 30% of proxies are not showing recent warming. This does not mean that “all the proxies show temperatures dropping”. Far from it, even if you ignored all other factors, it could still only mean that 30% of proxies suggested cooling, not “all” of them.

  25. #25 Vernon
    August 9, 2007

    Paul H,

    Please post, with approval, what Flanner had to say. I read the paper and the press release and if I made a mistake, I would like to know.

    I have not misrepresented Osborn (2006). Osborn et al study was for the purpose of:

    we investigated whether a more carefully designed assessment of proxy records on an individual basis supports the conclusion that recent NH temperatures are unusual in the context provided by these records.

    I looked at his results and the graph of proxy variability from the mean declined (shows a negative slope in the graph) for the very end of the 20th century. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe this shows that the line indicating the number of records with a normalized value >0 has a negative slope, that value >1 has a negative slope, and that >2 has a negative slope, so there are less of them and on the other side for <0 has a negative slope so there is more cooling trend.

    Since Osborn et al is looking at the aggregate of all the records from all the proxies that meet their window, then what some individual proxies increase or some decrease is not the issue, the issue is what the aggregate is doing, which is what I have repeatedly stated.

    Which part did I misrepresent?

  26. #26 Vernon
    August 9, 2007

    Chris O’Neill,

    Why don’t you contact Osborn and ask him if I am not reading his published results correctly. For the record:

    I said that Briffa (2001) shows that proxy temps at the end of the chart (end of 20th century) are lower than earlier in the century, not that they are trending down.

    I said that Osborn (2007) shows that the trends are moving downward at the end of the century, not the temps. There is a difference.

    From this I draw the conclusion that proxies are not showing accelerated warming as the instrumented readings do. This is known as divergence, which even the IPCC concedes exists.

    Today we find out that Hanson and GRISS had some errors and 1998 is no longer the hottest day, it is back in the 1930s. How is this going to affect a lot of studies? What does this say about instrumented readings?

  27. #27 dhogaza
    August 9, 2007

    Today we find out that Hanson and GRISS had some errors and 1998 is no longer the hottest day, it is back in the 1930s. How is this going to affect a lot of studies? What does this say about instrumented readings?

    It tells us something we already knew – the instrument record isn’t perfect.

    It doesn’t change squat about the overall picture.

    So what if 1998 isn’t the hottest year on record? (I’m taking your statement at face value, though given your track record, I won’t be surprised if you’re misunderstanding the magnitude of the correction). If the warmest year on record arrives in 2007, or 2010, or 2015, this will disprove global warming how, exactly?

    Vernon, this quote provided above from one of the papers you repeatedly quote directly contradicts your claims about the proxy record. I’ve bolded a few things to make it easier for you to read.

    This means that at the end of the record, 70% of proxies were more than one unit above long term average. This was the largest fraction of proxies in history that suggested one unit’s worth of warming. Similarly at the end of the record, 40% of proxies were more than two units above long term average. This was also the largest fraction of proxies in history that suggested two units’ worth of warming.

    As to the 30% of proxies that don’t suggest accelerated warming, as has been mentioned earlier there are plausible hypotheses which might well explain it, backed up in the peer-reviewed literature. There is not CONSENSUS in the community as to whether or not these explanations are correct, but your statements above that IPCC says they’re “unsupported by facts” or whatever is clearly false.

    Consensus always lags research in science. There are time lags involved in publication, the time it takes other scientists in a field to decide to do independent research to verify or shoot down new results (and the time it takes to secure funding to do so), more time to publish these follow-on results, etc etc.

    I still find it curious that you blindly accept the non-consensus view regarding the importance of black-carbon deposits in the artic for melting, based on one recent paper, while rejecting explanations regarding proxy divergence in recent times as being “not based in fact”.

    Your political inclinations aren’t playing a role in this, right? I can’t imagine you’d be so foolish as to apply a double standard to research based on a philosophical or political litmus test. You wouldn’t do that, would you, Vernon?

  28. #28 Vernon
    August 9, 2007

    dhogaza,

    your a lier and a troll. Could that be due to your political leanings?

  29. #29 dhogaza
    August 9, 2007

    your a lier and a troll. Could that be due to your political leanings?

    Hmmm, so accepting consensus science makes me a “lier” and a troll, eh?

    An interesting world view, indeed.

    But I guess it makes sense if one starts out with the premise that climatologists are engaged in fraud, are lying about their data, etc etc.

  30. #30 Vernon
    August 9, 2007

    No, I am guessing it is an innate characteristic for you.

  31. #31 dhogaza
    August 9, 2007

    No, I am guessing it is an innate characteristic for you.

    You’re also guessing that you know more about climate science that professional scientists. Thus far your track record on guessing is quite poor …

  32. #32 Vernon
    August 9, 2007

    I have not disagreed that some proxies used in Osborn (2006) or that in the 20th century there was a lot of warming. What I seem to be challenged on is my reading of the end of the chart, the end of the 20th century. What I see is that the trend is not accelerating (it is moving down) from what it prior to the end of the century.

    Do I disagree that the proxies show a lot of warming in the 20th century, nope. What I do see is that at the end of the century where the instrumented readings show accelerated warming, Osborn (2006) and Briffa (2001) do not. This is one basis for divergence.

    Now since I posted that even the IPCC agrees with divergence and does not have an answer for it, the calls that I was misreading the Briffa study has ended. Now the big thing is to say that 70% of the proxy records for Osborn show warming and 30% show cooling. Since that is not the goal of the paper, I do not see where that matters. What matters is that the trend is not accelerating upwards but is actually dropping.

  33. #33 Paul H
    August 9, 2007

    I’ve asked Mark, we’ll have to wait and see.

    Looking at Figure 2 of Osborn 2006 shows me that the trend lines with the least statistical significance are those which have strong negative trends at the end of the series. Do you want to put your faith in that over the more significant trends? Yes, the dark red shading area has a negative trend at the very end of the series but it also has the largest peak of its series in 1986 (measured from fig. 2) and the slightly less significant (light red shading) trend had a positve trend and the highest peak at the end of the series. With reference to the dark red trend and the query as to why it doesn’t match the temp. record exactly you should read the final part of the paper which says:

    “Each of the proxy records undoubtedly includes some variance that is unrelated to local temperature variations, and the characteristics of this “noise” determine the extent to which the signal shown by the counts of threshold exceedances and their differences will be expressed. The slight underestimation by the proxy results of the early 20th century rise and the absence of a further increase at the end of the records could both be examples of the expected consequences of noise in the proxy records. Virtually every grid-box instrumental temperature series in the NH exceeds its 1856 to 1995 mean level by the end of these records in 2004.”

    Another plausible explanation from the authors for what you claim are contradictory proxy observations. It seems they disagree with you about the temperature record being faulty too.

  34. #34 Vernon
    August 9, 2007

    Paul H,

    I am saying that Osborn (2006) shows trends that are not reflected in the instrumented readings. I do not believe that I have claimed that either the instrumented or the proxy record are wrong, I said that one of them must be since they do not agree.

    I think, and we will have to wait and see, but the changes GISS has just made based on findings of ClimateAudit and surfacestations.org may change some of the instrumented readings.

    Personally, I am leaning to the instrumented readings being wrong. But that is just because if all that was needed to determine the trends, then collecting the raw data, doing the stats to normalize should give a trend. But since that is not what happens I have to wonder why all the adjustments are made to the raw data before the normalizing process takes place. Anyway, I am waiting to see what the correct answer is.

    So Paul, is Flanner (2007) about their GCM BC model? I understood that is what it was about and that it shows more of an impact due to BC than the other GMC models that do not model BC? Bug them some more please.

  35. #35 Paul H
    August 9, 2007

    If you want to ask Mark questions do it yourself. The email address isn’t that hard to find.

    Here you go with your pre-supposed conclusions, that surfacestations et al will find major problems with the temp record. Osborn 2006 explicitly explains why the proxy records that they examine do not match the temperature record in some cases. They explain that noise likely disrupts the signal. Even then you have you have to be extrememly liberal with which trend line to believe. You seem to be selecting the trend lines with the least statistical significance which has to be some new absurd form of cherry picking. If you look at the dark red and light red shaded areas you will see that one shows a strong temperature peak in 1986, and the other shows the peak in temperature at the end of the series. Noise can easily account for the downturn at the end of the dark red times series. Statistical significance ought to discard the outlying trend lines in favour of the inner more significant trends. Can you explain why you want to discard Osborn’s explanations of noise? And, why you are seemingly putting greater faith in the trends with least significance?

    Osborn 2006 only supports your interpretation of events and observations with a highly selective reading coupled with a bizarre set of selection rules for which trend to follow.

    If the high latitude temperature records are broken why is Arctic sea ice melting and why is permafrost melting? Oh yes, you say that BC caused the warming, but hang on, you think the temperature record is broken so why propose a mechanism for that warming if it doesn’t exist. As I’ve said before, inconsistent. But of course, this is the classic progression of arguments from denialists. No, there is no warming, ah maybe there is but it can’t be caused by greenhouse gases. Normally you don’t see the same person using both arguments at the same time.

    Hopefully, if Mark agrees, more of this folly and bizarre thinking will be exposed.

  36. #36 Robin Levett
    August 9, 2007

    Vernon

    What I do see is that at the end of the century where the instrumented readings show accelerated warming…Briffa (2001) do[es] not.

    I haven’t looked at Osborne (2006); but I’ve already pointe dout that this is flat-out wrong. None of the Briffa (2001) measures go to the end of the century; the latest data series goes to the early 1990s, and most of them finish in 1980. So your comment above is either an alarmingly obvious, but wholly irrelevant, statement of fact – they couldn’t show warming to the end of the century because they don’t go to the end of the century; or (given that I have already pulled you up on this) an attempt to deceive. There is a thir dalternative – that you neither bothered to read my post or Briffa (2001), but only you can answer that.

    Again, the later data series in Briffa (2001) are on an uptick at the end.

  37. #37 Vernon
    August 9, 2007

    Paul H,

    Now your calling me names. So much for adult discussions. Why don’t you address the real issue and not how you disagree with my using Osborn (2006) to show divergence.

    DIVERGENCE

    It means that one of the two sources for temperature trends are wrong. You have offered arguments for what caused the divergence but I do not see any studies being cited.

    I read Flanner (2007) and under stood that they are actually developing a model for BC and their model shows BC has a much greater effect than previous. The article said 35 – 94 percent. I saw nothing in the paper that indicated that that could not be right. Even the low end is over 50 percent more affect than your 22 percent.

    BC, sulfates, and aerosols all have LOSU per the IPCC. Saying that sulfates are hiding the affect of CO2 based warming, or much of anything else without a cite is pretty worthless.

    I have listen to you and others try to pull apart my arguments. I presented cites to support my argument. Now, if anyone wants to actually present cites to discuss why I am right or wrong, fine.

    However, I am getting tired of told I am stupid, a denialist, etc. for not worshiping at the alter of CO2 AGW.

    Here are a few more questions I have:
    -why does the US raw data not show an accelerating warming trend?
    -why does the US with the most rural stations show less warming than the rest of the world that does not seem to have many rural stations?
    -why do climatologist refuse to meet basic scientific procedures to present data, methods, and procedures for independent varification and validation.

    And I think that what just happened with Hanson and GISS just put to rest the whole argument bad data is captured and corrected. If a data splice with a .2C error cannot be captured, then what makes anyone think that errors from poor station sitings are being corrected?

    Call me names if you want but cite some sources that actually backup your arguments.

  38. #38 Vernon
    August 9, 2007

    Robin,

    let it go. The IPCC agrees with me on this one and they point to the Briffa (2001) study.

    Let me put it in language you may agree with. Briffa (2001) shows that the maximum temperatures for proxies happened in the 20th century but before the end of the chart for proxies. The temperatures that are to the right of the maximum proxy temperatures and at the end of the proxy chart (towards the end of the century) are lower than the maximum temperatures. These temperatures diverge from the instrumented readings.

    Now you want to tell me and the IPCC that we were wrong and there is no divergence?

  39. #39 Chris O'Neill
    August 9, 2007

    Vernon: “Correct me if I am wrong but I believe this shows that the line indicating the number of records with .. a normalized value >1 has a negative slope,”

    Wrong. In http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/osborn2006/osborn2006.html the normalized value >1 finishes with a positive slope that lasts about 25 years.

    “and that >2 has a negative slope”

    Wrong. The normalized value >2 has a positive slope for about 50 years except for a small drop in about the last 10 years. This short small drop doesn’t mean much on a curve with a 20 year low pass filter.

  40. #40 Paul H
    August 9, 2007

    The composite analysis in Osborn 2006 doesn’t show divergence unless you selectively choose the trend lines with the least amount of significance, or if you somehow manage to ignore the peak in 1986 for the most significant trend (dark red). I am still waiting for the justification for this. If you think Osborn 2006 is about divergence or shows divergence perhaps you could explain the complete lack of the word “divergence” anywhere in the article.

    “I read Flanner (2007) and under stood that they are actually developing a model for BC and their model shows BC has a much greater effect than previous. The article said 35 – 94 percent. I saw nothing in the paper that indicated that that could not be right. Even the low end is over 50 percent more affect than your 22 percent.”

    Just wait for Mark’s comments and then you should see. Or, you could email him and ask for yourself what the origins of the 34-95% are in the press release article. His description completely refutes any basis in fact for this estimate. His description agrees with my first reading of the paper which was that the model runs that he carried out could not be used to address the question seemingly raised in the press release.

    I’m sorry if you don’t like being called a denialist, but you are acting like one. You are directly contradicting and ignoring the information in the papers you have cited. This has been explained numerous times and there are numerous examples of it:

    * Flanner et al can’t be used to make comparisons between pre-industrial Arctic climate and present day as you have done repeatedly. Flanner’s reply to my email deals with this.

    * Osborn et al 2006 doesn’t deal with divergence and the composite can’t be used to show the existence of divergence, but you have done this.

    * Briffa’s 2001 paper does show divergence and you were directed to read other papers by Briffa which discuss it and offer possible explanations, but you aren’t too interested in that. You’ve ignored that in those papers those scientists offered unequivocal support for the thermometer record at the expense of their proxies post 1960. You did this for Osborn 2006 too because they state “The proxy records indicate that the most widespread warmth occurred in either the mid- or late-twentieth century, but instrumental temperatures provide unequivocal evidence for continuing geographic expansion of anomalous warmth through to the present time.” (Let’s get it straight, read the bit in Osborn 2006 about “noise” because this is how they explain what you wrongly call divergence in their paper)

    * You presented a response to my first post which contains a whopping inconsistecy i.e. the temperature record is wrong -> the divergent proxy records are right -> there is no Arctic warming -> BC causes warming in the Arctic and caused snow and permfrost to melt and caused a rise in temperatures. To which I respond, uhh?!

    At the moment you are the one who disagrees with Flanner, Briffa, and quite probably Osborn too.

    And if you didn’t know it you are inadvertently playing out an age old game:

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/logical_fallacies.php

    In case you hadn’t guessed, I see very little point in continuing the discussion because it basically hasn’t moved on from the first post. I will post Mark’s comments if he permits because it will contribute positively to the discussion.

  41. #41 Vernon
    August 9, 2007

    Ok, I have reached the conclusion based on Osborn (2006) that your clueless. Since none of you seem to be able to read the paper and see what is going on I will explain it so we can get past Osborn (2006).

    Here is what Osborn et al did.

    Step 1. Picked some proxies.
    Step 2. Smooth and normalize the individual proxy studies.

    The 14 proxy series were each smoothed to remove variations on time scales shorter than 20 years and then “normalized” (26) to have zero mean and unit standard deviation (SD) over the full period of analysis, 800 to 1995.

    Step 3. Compare the raw data from all the proxy studies to the mean of the 14 smooth and normalize proxy studies.

    I hope you followed that because if you did you would realize that the light blue, dark blue, light red, dark red do not mean anything for determining the trend. The statement:

    At the end of the analysis period in the early 1990s, 70% of the records have positive values whereas 30% are negative.

    Is a red herring. It may be true but has nothing to do with the overall trend. The >0 and <0 show the actual trend in temperature and that trend is down.

    For those of you that got lost at the last bit. Osborn et al took the 14 results from the 14 different proxy studies and determined the mean based on the 20 year smoothed individual studies. They then took that mean and compared the original raw data from the individual proxy studies. To get the blue stuff, they multiplied by a -1.

    That means that the blue line and the red line, trend wise match. That means that the red line or the blue line is the trend of the 14 individual proxies.

    Which means that the trends at the end of the chart are going down for those of you not bright enough to figure out what is going on. Therefore, for what ever reason, Osborn (2006) shows cooling at the end of the century, not warming.

  42. #42 Vernon
    August 9, 2007

    Paul H,

    The only trend line is <0 or >0, both are the same trend line and the only real trend line. If you do not understand this then ask some one that has a math back ground.

  43. #43 Paul H
    August 10, 2007

    My question to Mark: Am I right in saying that you believe that the majority of BC forcing and resultant temperature rise in the Arctic in 1998 is due the high frequency of boreal fires in that year? I am also wondering how anomalous 1998 is in the context of the 20th century?

    His responses:

    “Given the level of understanding, we can say that about half of the Arctic BC/snow forcing in 1998 was due to boreal forest fires. We do, however, observe a much greater temperature response (3x greater) in the climate model with this forcing than with the 2001 forcing (even though 2001 forcing was much greater than 1/3 of 1998 forcing). Why the non-linearity? Things are too uncertain to say definitively, but it looks like the greater forcing in 1998 (due to fires) was sufficient to kick snow-albedo feedback into a higher gear than the 2001 forcing. Our simulations indicated a major decline in the amount of snow on top of sea-ice with 1998 forcing, exposing the bare, much darker sea-ice, and driving greater Arctic warming.

    How anomalous was 1998? Well, we were only looking at a 1997-2005 satellite-derived timeseries. But… look for a paper in Science Online tomorrow about an excellent timeseries of BC in Greenland ice, dating back to 1780. Although industrial BC dominates the annual signal from 1900 on, there are occasionally huge, short-lived spikes in BC (much greater than 1998, even in the 1800s) that are attributed to conifer wildfire. There is still debate in the literature, however, about whether boreal wildfire intensity and frequency increased or decreased in the 20th century. Also, we are now looking at 2003 – when there were huge Siberian fires in April and May. The fire timing is critical for BC/snow forcing, and Apr-May is the optimal period when sunlight and snow-cover are maximal. A preliminary analysis I’ve done suggests even greater forcing in 2003 than 1998, even though annual boreal fire emissions were greater in 1998.”

    Thanks to Mark for letting me post his comments.

  44. #44 Paul H
    August 10, 2007

    Responding to the question what is the source of the statement made in the press release that stated that “In the past two centuries, the Arctic has warmed about 1.6 degrees. Dirty snow caused .5 to 1.5 degrees of warming, or up to 94 percent of the observed change, the scientists determined.”

    Mark replied:

    “Our experiments were not exactly set up to address the question: “how much of the observed Arctic warming is due to dirty snow” (although it is an immensely important question that needs to be pursued further). There are a couple of reasons. First, we performed ‘equilibrium’ climate simulations, whereas the real system has not fully responded to the real greenhouse forcing. Hence, because there is still “warming in the pipeline”, the equilibrium temperature response from CO2 is likely greater than what has been observed so far. We need to do transient climate simulations (which are much more expensive) to really address this question. Secondly, we did not examine Arctic climate response to the other anthropogenic forcings (some of which may have a cooling effect, like changes in cloudiness) to assess the relative model responses to the different forcings. (Also note that because some anthropogenic effects may be cooling, it is possible in theory, for, i.e., CO2 and BC/snow forcing to both produce 90% of the observed warming.) We should also perform an ensemble of simulations to improve the statistics. In short, we need more simulations, and with different models. But, not to detract, I still think BC is an under-appreciated driver of Arctic climate change that rivals greenhouse forcing in that region, and more research needs to be done.”

    Thanks again Mark.

  45. #45 Vernon
    August 10, 2007

    Paul H,

    Thanks for posting that. However, it does appear that Flanner et al is working on modeling carbon. His position that BC is a “driver of Arctic climate change that rivals greenhouse forcings” is supported by:

    20th-Century Industrial Black Carbon Emissions Altered Arctic Climate Forcing(2007) McConnell et al.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1144856v1.pdf

    The median in estimated surface forcing in early summer throughout the Arctic was 0.42 W m-2 prior to 1850, 1.13 Wm-2 during the period 1850 to 1951, and 0.59 W m-2 after 1951.

    McConnell further went on to say that the BC is climbing and the source appears to be from Asia. Total anthropogenic CO2 increase in the year 2006 was ~1.7 W/m2 for comparison.

  46. #46 dhogaza
    August 10, 2007

    His position that BC is a “driver of Arctic climate change that rivals greenhouse forcings”

    He also makes clear that this is his opinion, and nowhere is he claiming that AGW due to CO2 increases is not a problem.

    And, as he states:

    we performed ‘equilibrium’ climate simulations, whereas the real system has not fully responded to the real greenhouse forcing. Hence, because there is still “warming in the pipeline”, the equilibrium temperature response from CO2 is likely greater than what has been observed so far.

    Do you understand what this means? Do you understand the implications?

    Nothing he is saying supports your position.

  47. #47 Vernon
    August 10, 2007

    You did not read 20th-Century Industrial Black Carbon Emissions Altered Arctic Climate Forcing(2007) McConnell et al. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1144856v1.pdf which I used to expand on Flanner’s work.

  48. #48 dhogaza
    August 10, 2007

    Have you read McConnell closely? I don’t have access to the article itself, just a summary, but here’s a quote:

    At its maximum from 1906 to 1910, estimated early summer surface climate forcing from black carbon in Arctic snow was eight times that of the pre-industrial era.

    At it’s maximum a century ago. Your own quote shows that the median forcing before 1951 was twice that since 1951.

    Also the data’s from Greenland, so it’s a bit disingenuous for you to state these facts as though they apply to the artic as a whole.

    Are the authors overturning anything basic in climatology?

    No.

    All they claim is this:

    Our results allow this component of climate change to be incorporated into predictive climate models in a more realistic way.

    Perhaps the result of this will be that the models will no longer UNDERESTIMATE the rate at which the northern ice cap is disappearing.

    It’s certainly not going to overturn any current thinking with climatology, and it is clear the authors know this and are making no such claims.

  49. #49 Karl Voliene
    August 10, 2007

    Please to link for the studies determining the effects of poor siting so I may read them.

  50. #50 Vernon
    August 10, 2007

    dhogaza,

    What this shows is that BC has a greater impact on the Arctic then the current models show. If the poles are warming IAW the current CGM’s that do not correctly reflect BC’s impact in the Arctic, what does that say about the model. Nothing good it would seem.

    Karl Voliene,

    There are none. That is the issue. The sites do not meet NOAA/WMO site guidelines and no one has done any studies to determine the impact.

    You know what the scariest part of all this is… that the raw data from the sites with out the ‘black box’ adjustments (named that way since NASA will not release what they are) do not show massive warming… some warming, but not the levels that we are lead to believe.

    When some one comes along to do a census to show which stations are meeting the guidelines and which are not, the proponents are up in arms.

    We were being told that there could be no bad trends because the process would detect and correct any errors, but what do you know, surfacestations.org and SM found an error and now the hottest year in the USA is 1934. But the system did not catch this one and I do not see any press announcements saying the hottest day is now 1934.

    In fact, the big thing in the news is that there is now a GCM model that actually uses real climate information and does not just ignore what nature is really doing and plug in a fudge factor.

    Of course this model shows that we are not heating right now, but we will in the future.

  51. #51 Lee
    August 10, 2007

    Vernon,

    I cant read the full Osborne paper, just the summary and one graph linked to above. But based on that – the graph shown does not have any temperature data. It COUNTS data sets.

    It is a COUNT of the number of data sets above or below the baseline, expressed as a percentage.

    At the end of that graph, 70% of the data sets have normalized values above baseline, 70% (ie all of those above baseline) are at least one unit above baseline, and 35% are at least 2 units above baseline. This tells us that the 70% of data sets above baseline are moving more and more strongly above baseline. Since about 1850, the number of data sets at least one unit above baseline has increased steadily from near 0 to 70%. Since about 1900, the number of data sets at least 2 units above baseline has increased from 0 to 35%.

    At the end of that graph, 30% of the data sets are below baseline. This is an increased number compared to about 1950 – ie, it is true that 30% of the data sets show cooling. Of those, NONE are more than 1 unit below baseline. ie, the cooling in those 30% is much, much less significant than the warming in the 70% still showing warming.

    The “trend’ in that graph has nothign to do with temperature per se – it has to do with numbers of data sets increasing or decreasing. 70% are increasing strongly. 30% are decreasing weakly. This is the divergence – 30% are showing divergence, weakly, against a backdrop of 70% still showing strong increase.

    Now, if 70% of data sets are increasing strongly, and 30% are decreasing weakly, I would venture to say that if one calculated temp trends from that data, one would see an increase.

  52. #52 dhogaza
    August 10, 2007

    What this shows is that BC has a greater impact on the Arctic then the current models show.

    Actually, greenland only, since that’s where their data’s come from, and as I said earlier – though clearly you didn’t listen – the peak was during the late 1800s to the very early 1900s.

    Back when coal was king here in the US and eastern CA.

    It’s not a global picture, and it’s not a recent picture. Recent BC effects are 1/2 of those.

    If the poles are warming IAW the current CGM’s that do not correctly reflect BC’s impact in the Arctic, what does that say about the model.

    I already told you. The artic ice pack is disappearing more quickly than predicted. If this work holds up, it might lead to inserting MORE WARMING into current GCMs.

    Since

  53. #53 Lee
    August 10, 2007

    Vernon, the NOAA/WMO guidelines are for weather accuracy – they are designed to ensure that the daily temperature at those sites is indicative of the local area.

    For climate, we don’t give a damn if this station is reading 2C high or low compared to that field over there. We care if a spurious trend has been overlain on the record over time. One CAN NOT tell that from looking a pictures. A badly sited station might have no spurious trend, if altering factors haven’t changed or have balanced over time, and a perfectly sited station might have a huge spurious trend if irrigation practices have altered, if the thermometer has been changed, or moved inside the shelter, and so on. This is known, and it is the reason that current attempts to extract climate trends from that extant historical data, have tried to use all the stations, and have used regional comparisons to identify spurious steps and trend. t is also the reason we are building a new network of rigorously sited stations, already well under way, to gather better data going forward.

    Documenting the stations is fine. Pretending that the pictures tell us much about the trend, in and of themselves, and even worse, putting that blatant propaganda pair of pics on the front page of surfacestations, is not fine. In fact, it is dishonest.

  54. #54 Chris O'Neill
    August 10, 2007

    Vernon: “Here is what Osborn et al did.

    Step 3. Compare the raw data from all the proxy studies to the mean of the 14 smooth and normalize proxy studies.”

    Where did Osborn and Briffa show “the mean of the 14 smooth and normalize proxy studies.” Give us the quote in their text.

    Vernon: “I hope you followed that because if you did you would realize that the light blue, dark blue, light red, dark red do not mean anything for determining the trend.”

    There’s only one problem with this statement, the word “trend” does not appear anywhere in “The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years” by Osborn and Briffa. This is yet another smokescreen by Vernon in an attempt to hide the fact that he said: Osborn and Briffa (2006) “shows that at the end of the century all the proxies show temperatures dropping.” This is totally, utterly wrong. You can even look at the individual proxies in Osborn and Briffa (their figure 1) to see which proxies are undoubtedly increasing at the end of the record. They are: W USA (regional), N Sweden (Tornetrask), NW Russia (Yamal), and East Asia (regional). Others are fairly steady or increasing until very close to the end. There is no other description for it, Vernon’s statement that “all the proxies show temperatures dropping” is totally, utterly wrong. I’m waiting for him to repeat it. So far there has been no repeat, just smokescreens.

  55. #55 Chris O'Neill
    August 10, 2007

    “I cant read the full Osborne paper”

    You can get free registration to access papers more than one year old. Go to http://www.sciencemag.org and click on “Previous Issues” to get to the registration link.

  56. #56 Bob
    August 11, 2007

    Can anyone remember what Deltoid post had a graphic of about 4 or 5 temperature graphs all side by side, showing the records from difference sources like the oceans etc?

  57. #57 Vernon
    August 13, 2007

    dhogaza,

    Sorry, I did not realize that Greenland was not in the Arctic or that sea ice would last longer than the Greenland ice sheet.

    Chris,

    All the proxy studies that are used to determine the ‘global’ trends show that temps were lower towards the end of the century and do not match the instrumented readings.

    Lee,

    As has been pointed out before, there is no way to know of the trend your measuring is a real trend if you have garbage in. The reason that there are station siting standards it to make sure the individual stations are measuring the same thing. Surfacestations.org is do a census that shows that not all stations are meeting the guidelines and if you can present a cite from a study that proves this does not matter, good, otherwise, your just making noise while plugging your ears.

    The fact remains that there is a divergence between the instrumented readings and the proxy measurements. One is right and one is wrong. Making a guess as to why there is a difference without any studies to back up the guess is worthless.

    So ignoring Osborn (2006) please explain point me towards a study of the divergence that explains why one is not wrong?

  58. #58 Vernon
    August 13, 2007

    http://www.baltimorereporter.com/?p=4309

    Says it well:

    One more story to conclude. Non-compliant surface stations were reported in the formal academic literature by Pielke and Davey (2005) who described a number of non-compliant sites in eastern Colorado. In NOAA’s official response to this criticism, Vose et al (2005) said in effect -

    it doesn’t matter. It’s only eastern Colorado. You haven’t proved that there are problems anywhere else in the United States.

    In most businesses, the identification of glaring problems, even in a restricted region like eastern Colorado, would prompt an immediate evaluation to ensure that problems did not actually exist. However, that does not appear to have taken place and matters rested until Anthony Watts and the volunteers at surfacestations.org launched a concerted effort to evaluate stations in other parts of the country and determined that the problems were not only just as bad as eastern Colorado, but in some cases were much worse.

    Now in response to problems with both station quality and adjustment software, Schmidt and Hansen say in effect, as NOAA did before them -

    it doesn’t matter. It’s only the United States. You haven’t proved that there are problems anywhere else in the world.

    It’s a little disturbing that GISS was “fixing bad data,” how in the world is this possible? I will not pretend to be a climate scientist but I would think that bad data is bad data. You could adjust it whichever way you want but it won’t make it a true result.

  59. #59 Chris O'Neill
    August 13, 2007

    Vernon wants us to believe him when he says: “All the proxy studies that are used to determine the ‘global’ trends show that temps were lower towards the end of the century and do not match the instrumented readings.”

    Based on past experience, I can’t think of any reason to start believing Vernon. I still haven’t heard any repeat or explanation of Osborn and Briffa “shows that at the end of the century all the proxies show temperatures dropping”.

  60. #60 Vernon
    August 13, 2007

    Chris,

    Did you try reading the IPCC AR4 or even Briffa(2001) which is used in IPCC AR4 where the IPCC talk about divergence? Did you ever look at the data or the graphs. The proxies are lower at the end of the graph (near the end of the century) then they are earlier in the graph (earlier in the century). I guess I will not get any explanation out of you since you show your self to dumb to even read the IPCC report that you believe.

    I at first though maybe you actually knew something but some one too dumb to read the IPCC AR4 Go look at 156 for the quote and the link.

    Is there any one at this site that both knows anything and can keep from call people names when they are loosing the discussion.

    Chris, please come back when you have a clue.

  61. #61 Chris O'Neill
    August 15, 2007

    Vernon:”I guess I will not get any explanation out of you”

    What a hypocrite. Come back when you want to explain why you told us garbage.

  62. #62 Vernon
    August 20, 2007

    Sorry I do not think your can learn. The IPCC says there is divergence and they reference Briffa (2001). I cannot help it that you cannot comprehend. As a proponent of something, I would think that you would read the on going work.

    Now, since GISS had to admit to messing up once with data, and the fact that there is no warming trend in the US. That brings to question how Hansen did the UHI. His methodology was to take the station data and determine if there was urbanization by measuring lights. Surfacestations.org is now proving that is not a correct assumption. Even Hansen admitted in Hansen et al, (2001)
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf

    The GISS urban adjustment is dependent upon the accuracy of the temperature records of the unlit stations, so if the station history records and homogeneity adjustments for these stations are inaccurate or incomplete, this could alter the inferred urban warming.

    I will check back to see you deny this.

  63. #63 Chris O'Neill
    August 20, 2007

    “Sorry I do not think your can learn.”

    I’ve learnt something alright. I’ve learnt that Vernon is a shameless peddlar of misinformation. The boy-who-cried-wolf could only get away with misinformation for so long.

  64. #64 Vernon
    August 21, 2007

    So Chris, you are now saying that the IPCC is wrong? That I produced a citations for what points I am making but your not producing any, and even further, disclaiming any citation that does not agree with your position!

    Now Hansen in his 2001 work says that he depended on the accuracy of the stations for his UHI work. surfacestations.org is showing that Hansen’s work is not supported by the stations. GISS’s policy of hiding the actual stations, processes, and procedures used further calls Hansen’s work into question. Hansen’s UHI off-set could be wrong. Please note that unlike you true believers, I freely admit that Hansen could be right, but more work needs to be done to prove it.

    Your position is that anyone that disagrees with you is a shameless peddler of misinformation. How about you back up you personal attacks with some facts!

    Chris, you do not seem well read on the subject your supporting. Are you reading the studies? Are you reading the IPCC reports?

  65. #65 Chris O'Neill
    August 22, 2007

    “Your position is that anyone that disagrees with you is a shameless peddler of misinformation.”

    No, my position is that anyone who says: “All the proxy studies that are used to determine the ‘global’ trends show that temps were lower towards the end of the century and do not match the instrumented readings” and that Osborn and Briffa “shows that at the end of the century all the proxies show temperatures dropping” and who keeps ignoring what he wrote after being reminded over and over again is a shameless peddlar of misinformation.

  66. #66 Vernon
    August 22, 2007

    So your saying that the IPCC is wrong and Briffa (2001) does not show that the proxies at the end of the chart are lower that the proxies earlier in the century, and further that the proxy values for all the proxies do not reflect the accelerated warming shown by the instrumented?

    Osborn (2006) which uses a subset of the proxies used in Briffa (2001) also shows that the correlation divergence, which is an artifact of the methodology, is trending down.

    Other than calling me names, you have yet to show where I am wrong. Why don’t you try putting what Osborn (2006) into your own words so I can see what we disagree on rather than your continued… wrong wrong wrong 70 percent! Which has nothing to do with the discussion as far as I can tell.

    So other than calling me names, how about some facts, cites, etc, to back up your arguments.

  67. #67 Dano
    August 22, 2007

    So other than calling me names, how about some facts, cites, etc, to back up your arguments.

    Why.

    Society has moved past this atomistic quibbling. Society is debating adaptation and mitigation. Societies in Europe are moving to alternative energy sources. Societies in Murrica are mandating emissions reductions, development that considers climate change in its impacts, energy savings, carbon markets.

    So who cares about your old-school, dinosaur-like denialist quibbling when the rest of us are having a conversation about what to do about man-made climate change.

    Best,

    D

  68. #68 Vernon
    August 22, 2007

    Is that the prevalent opinion of the alarmist? That just because the data and facts are in question… who cares, let take action even if the problem and the extent of the problem are in question?

  69. #69 guthrie
    August 22, 2007

    No Vernon. THe extent of the problem is not in any question at all, and you keep failing to provide any scientific evidence to think so.

  70. #70 Vernon
    August 22, 2007

    Is there any scientific evidence that would affect your belief? The facts do not seem to have any impact other than to get your worthless little homily as your ignore either the scientific evidence or the logic while presenting nothing of your own.

    The fact remains: The chant from the pro CO2 AGW camp is that errors in station siting did not matter because the GISS process detected and corrected the errors. The fact that a major data error was completely missed by GISS for… oh seven years shoots that argument down. You have proof that argument is false – there is no proof that bad data is detected or corrected.

    This matter because per Hansen:

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001Hansenetal.pdf

    The GISS urban adjustment is dependent upon the accuracy of the temperature records of the unlit stations, so if the station history records and homogeneity adjustments for these stations are inaccurate or incomplete, this could alter the inferred urban warming.

    In conjunction with the siting issues indicates that Hansen was wrong in his methodology, namely that his lights=0 does not always indicate rural sites (his resolution was over 2km). Further, as shown by GISS ongoing error that just got corrected, the failure to meet guidelines indicates he was using data that did not meet WMO/NOAA/NWS standards for accuracy. This throws his UHI off-set in question, by his own words!

    If the UHI off-set is wrong, then the divergence noted by the IPCC and Briffa (2001)would be partially explained as the accelerated warming shown only in the instrumented readings may be an artifact of Hansen’s error.
    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1PubCh06.pdf
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/briffa2001/briffa2001.html

    Is that enough scientific fact for you guthrie? Please now quite the personal attacks an actually address my arguments and evidence.

  71. #71 Chris O'Neill
    August 22, 2007

    “Why don’t you try putting what Osborn (2006) into your own words so I can see what we disagree on”

    Already have. As per usual you ignored it. Here it is again.

    Vernon: “Here is what Osborn et al did.

    Step 3. Compare the raw data from all the proxy studies to the mean of the 14 smooth and normalize proxy studies.”

    Where did Osborn and Briffa show “the mean of the 14 smooth and normalize proxy studies”? Give us the quote in their text.

    Vernon: “I hope you followed that because if you did you would realize that the light blue, dark blue, light red, dark red do not mean anything for determining the trend.”

    There’s only one problem with this statement, the word “trend” does not appear anywhere in “The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years” by Osborn and Briffa. This is yet another smokescreen by Vernon in an attempt to hide the fact that he said: Osborn and Briffa (2006) “shows that at the end of the century all the proxies show temperatures dropping.” This is totally, utterly wrong. You can even look at the individual proxies in Osborn and Briffa (their figure 1) to see which proxies are undoubtedly increasing at the end of the record. They are: W USA (regional), N Sweden (Tornetrask), NW Russia (Yamal), and East Asia (regional). Others are fairly steady or increasing until very close to the end. There is no other description for it, Vernon’s statement that “all the proxies show temperatures dropping” is totally, utterly wrong. I’m waiting for him to repeat it. So far there has been no repeat, just smokescreens.

  72. #72 Ian Forrester
    August 22, 2007

    Vernon, if your ability to understand the written word is as poor as your actual writing ability it is no wonder that you have so much trouble in interpreting scientific papers.

    Please do yourself, and everyone who reads this blog, a favour and make sure that what you write makes sense from a basic literacy point of view. Also, reread the papers you keep quoting very slowly and a number of times. Then you may see the errors in your interpretation that a large number of people keep pointing out to you.

    Ian Forrester

  73. #73 Vernon
    August 23, 2007

    Chris, I was wrong, I meant to say ‘normalized mean’ and as to the trend, the values of 11 of 14 are lower end of the graph then earlier in the century, there for the trend for the end of the century is towards cooling.

    Ok, ignore Osborn (2006), we can agree to disagree about what can be taken from that study. It does not invalidate the fact that divergence is an issue. The argument that errors in station siting did not matter because the process detected and corrected the errors has been disproved. There is no proof that bad data is detected or corrected.

    This matter because per Hansen:

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001Hansenetal.pdf

    The GISS urban adjustment is dependent upon the accuracy of the temperature records of the unlit stations, so if the station history records and homogeneity adjustments for these stations are inaccurate or incomplete, this could alter the inferred urban warming.

    -The siting issues indicates that Hansen was wrong in his methodology, namely that his lights=0 does not always indicate rural sites.
    -Ongoing errors are not being detected or corrected.
    -Failure to meet guidelines indicates he was using data that did not meet WMO/NOAA/NWS standards for accuracy.

    This throws his UHI off-set in question, by his own words!

    If the UHI off-set is wrong, then the divergence noted by the IPCC and Briffa (2001)would be partially explained as the accelerated warming shown only in the instrumented readings may be an artifact of Hansen’s error.

  74. #74 Robin Levett
    August 23, 2007

    (I’m back – real life (in the form of a holiday) intervened)

    Vernon -you said:

    The IPCC agrees with me on this one and they point to the Briffa (2001) study.

    I’ve not yet seen your citation of this agreement; perhaps it’s forthcoming?

    Let me put it in language you may agree with. Briffa (2001) shows that the maximum temperatures for proxies happened in the 20th century but before the end of the chart for proxies. The temperatures that are to the right of the maximum proxy temperatures and at the end of the proxy chart (towards the end of the century) are lower than the maximum temperatures. These temperatures diverge from the instrumented readings.

    Since Briffa (2001) does not include any data up to the end of the century, you certainly cannot say that the maximum temperature for proxies happened in the 20th century. You could say (if it were true) that the maximum temperature for the proxies in the period covered by the charts happened before the end of the chart; but that says precisely nothing about what has happened since the end of the charts, which in the case of half of the proxies is twenty years ago and counting. To clarify that point; out of six proxy data series, one ends in 1960; one in 1980; one in 1987; one in 1990; one in 1991; and the last one in 1993.

    Half of the data series end, therefore, at least 20 years ago. Allowing for inter-annual noise, the data series ending latest appear to show an upward trend, matching the instrumented tend.

    The instrumented readings show that 9 of the highest annual temperatures have occurred in the last 3 years – since the end of the last of those series.

    Now you want to tell me and the IPCC that we were wrong and there is no divergence?

    Do I? Produce the cite for the IPCC and we can talk.

  75. #75 Vernon
    August 23, 2007

    Robin, try using the citations I gave in #270. Do a search on divergence in the IPCC report chapter six, or read the citation I presented in #156 when I answered you the first time you asked this:

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1PubCh06.pdf

    In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a). Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues (for further references see NRC, 2006) and the possibility of investigating them further is restricted by the lack of recent tree ring data at most of the sites from which tree ring data discussed in this chapter were acquired.

    Back in #238 I answered this argument again from you with:

    Let me put it in language you may agree with. Briffa (2001) shows that the maximum temperatures for proxies happened in the 20th century but before the end of the chart for proxies. The temperatures that are to the right of the maximum proxy temperatures and at the end of the proxy chart (towards the end of the century) are lower than the maximum temperatures. These temperatures diverge from the instrumented readings.

    Now with that in mind. How about you explaining:

    The fact remains: The argument from the pro CO2 AGW camp is that errors in station siting did not matter because the GISS process detected and corrected the errors. The fact that a major data error was completely missed by GISS for… oh seven years shoots that argument down. You have proof that argument is false – there is no proof that bad data is detected or corrected.

    This matter because per Hansen:

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001Hansenetal.pdf

    The GISS urban adjustment is dependent upon the accuracy of the temperature records of the unlit stations, so if the station history records and homogeneity adjustments for these stations are inaccurate or incomplete, this could alter the inferred urban warming.

    In conjunction with the siting issues indicates that Hansen was wrong in his methodology:

    -His is lights=0 does not always indicate rural sites.

    -He depended on the accuracy of the data but the stations are being shown to not meet WMO/NOAA/NWS standards for accuracy.

    -That errors in station data may not be detected or corrected

    This throws his UHI off-set in question, by his own words!

    So, while I have answered your questions repeatedly, how about answering mine?

  76. #76 richard
    August 23, 2007

    Vernon, seems to me your questions have been dealt with. Bottom line seems to be: if you aren’t happy with the result, do the calcs yourself. If you can then explain the results of your calculations in terms of a model that describes climate trends, please do so.

    RealClimate Comment by Vernon — 22 August 2007 @ 3:13 PM

    “Gavin, why don’t you want to post what this really proves, namely that all the ‘station temperature error would be detected and corrected as part of the process.’ This is blatantly not true or the rather large errors that have been carried for the last seven years would have been detect. Also, even though you do not want to admit it, in Hansen (2001) he specifically say he is relying on the data from the stations to be accurate, but we now know that per WMO/NOAA/NWS guidelines, the stations are not sited correctly. This means that there is no way to know the accuracy of the data. This means that Hansen UHI could be wrong which would significantly change the whole instrumented picture! That is why this error is so important, it shows that errors are not detected or corrected!

    [Response: You are simply mistaken. Jumps in stations temperatures are indeed found in the NOAA data processing and are incorporated into the GISS analysis. However, GISS does not do that analysis, NOAA does, and the error in the processing was at GISS. Therefore, NOAA had no chance to find that error and your claims that this shows that the NOAA analysis is lacking, have no merit whatsoever. The bottom line remains, do the calculation to show that your issues have a practical effect. - gavin]”

  77. #77 Vernon
    August 23, 2007

    RE: 276 Richard, It was not answered at RC. Gavin nicely uses misdirection, but the fact remains that no one was talking about an jump in the NOAA data. We are talking about the data that GISS gets and uses. NOAA is not doing the GISS comparison, GISS is and they did not detect the jump. Why is this a GISS issue, because GISS takes the NOAA data and runs algorithms to get trends which are not based per Gavin at RC on the individual stations. This indicates that GISS cannot detect and correct data errors. Gavin just did a little misdirection to keep from admitting that, oh, and not posting follow up comments also helps him win arguments.

    Further, either the station siting matters, one has to expect it does or NOAA/WMO/NWS would not have standards, or it does not and no one has produced any evidence that siting does not matter. It would appear that no one, NWS or NOAA, bothers to check the quality of the individual stations in the networks or the quality of the data produced.

    This is secondary to fact that Hansen says that he was depending on lights=0 and accurate data from the surface stations to determine the UHI off-set. The fact that the stations are not sited properly per the governing authorities means that no determination can be made to the accuracy of the data they produce. Further, surfacestations.org is showing that lights=0 is not a good methodology as long as the stations are poorly sited.

    I do not doubt that there is warming, but it would appear at this time the only source of evidence for accelerated is the instrumented readings. Since Hansen’s UHI off-set may be wrong and if it is wrong it would explain the accelerated warming that does not match the proxies and answer part of the divergence issue.

    Gavin is just playing stupid to keep suggesting that every time someone finds a fault with a work he agrees with, that those that find the fault have to go do the work to find out what the right answer is and that the unsupported answer he likes is good until they do. That is not the way it works. Well, anywhere but in climatology.

  78. #78 Dano
    August 23, 2007

    Quick!

    Somebody tell these decision-makers that Vernon thinks there’s still a problem with the way he reads the science, so therefore they should be doing nothing instead!

    Regional climate pact sets limit

    The leaders of six states and two Canadian provinces agree to cut emissions to 15% below 2005 levels.

    By Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer August 23, 2007

    Stepping in where the Bush administration has refused to tread, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and five other Western governors, joined by two Canadian provincial leaders, pledged Wednesday to enforce a tough regional cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

    Under the Western Climate Initiative, the leaders agreed to slash emissions of carbon dioxide and other climate-warming pollutants to 15% below 2005 levels in their states and provinces in the next 13 years. That is about the same percentage as California’s commitment under last year’s landmark global warming law. Overall, the region would cut emissions by 350-million metric tons over that time period.

    To achieve their goal, the partners, including Democratic and Republican governors, committed to designing a carbon-trading system within a year. That approach, now in use in Europe, allows industries to trade pollution credits among themselves. Seven Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states are also designing a so-called cap-and-trade system, but that initiative will be limited to power plants.

    “Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution,” Schwarzenegger said in announcing the accord. “Our collective commitment will build a successful regional system to be linked with other efforts across the nation and eventually the world.”

    California officials took pointed aim at the Bush administration’s refusal to enact a national program to cut greenhouse gas emissions. “The federal government needs to step up to the plate, but the states aren’t waiting,” said Linda Adams, California’s secretary for Environmental Protection. “Ideally, we would have a cap at the federal level.”

    Shucky darns.

    Another indicator that society has moved on and is debating adaptation and mitigation, rather than listening to dupes parrot ideological positions.

    IOW: denialists, the decision-makers caaaaaaan’t heeeeear youuuuuu.

    Best,

    D

  79. #79 Vernon
    August 23, 2007

    Hey Dano, ever tried addressing an argument rather than telling us that eco-freaks, anti-capitalist, and almost any politicians that wants more power love the idea of restricting everything they don’t agree with or gives them more power?

    Never yet seen you do anything but ignore the arguments, science, or logic. Let me guess, charter member eco-freak?

  80. #80 richard
    August 23, 2007

    “That is not the way it works”

    Well, that is exactly how it works in science.

    If you have an alternative hypothesis, lets see it. If you have another analysis of the data, lets see it. Try the tried and true route of peer-reviewed science. Otherwise, you don’t have an arguement. You can critque all you want, but in the end you have to come with explanations that match the data at least as well as existing hypotheses. If you and your colleagues can’t do that, then you don’t have much to offer.

  81. #81 Vernon
    August 24, 2007

    Richard, first you do not address either my argument. No one here does on the pro side. I guess you cannot. Second, WRONG, once someone, like Hansen, presents his work, he has to defend it. It is easily seen that based on what he says, his work is not supported by the facts. Neither I or anyone else are required to come up with another analysis of his data (since he will not actually release what stations or how his ‘process’ works).

    Basically, it is not a ‘I presented x’ and it is good until you someone else comes up with ‘y’. It is ‘I presented x’ and anyone is allowed to try and shoot it down and if it does not hold up, then ‘x’ fails. DUH!

  82. #82 richard
    August 24, 2007

    “It is ‘I presented x’ and anyone is allowed to try and shoot it down..”

    Yes, that is how the scientific method works. Over the past few hundred years it has proven to be extremely robust. If you have an alternative hypothesis, present it. If you want to exclude certain datasets, then proceed by making a case to do so, then re-analyze the remaining data. Collect additional data if you wish. Unless you are willing to do at least some of the above, you do not have a leg to stand on.

  83. #83 Vernon
    August 24, 2007

    So richard, your saying that Hansen is wrong?

  84. #84 richard
    August 24, 2007

    “So richard, your saying that Hansen is wrong?”

    No, I am saying you need to put up or shut up. What is your alternative hypothesis? The fact that there has been no real attempt to contruct alternate GW hypotheses using the same or other datasets suggests that Hansen and others have presented a strong case for AGW.

  85. #85 Vernon
    August 24, 2007

    Which part of this is wrong?

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001Hansenetal.pdf

    The GISS urban adjustment is dependent upon the accuracy of the temperature records of the unlit stations, so if the station history records and homogeneity adjustments for these stations are inaccurate or incomplete, this could alter the inferred urban warming.

    Surfacestations.org has shown that many stations do not meet NOAA/NWS/WMO standards. No one knows what the impact of failing to meet these standards are. (This is where you can cite a study that proves me wrong, or not since there is not one that I could find.)

    -His is lights=0 does not always indicate rural sites.

    -He assumes a level of accuracy that the evidence does not support.

    -That errors in station data may not be detected or corrected.

    This throws his UHI off-set in question, by his own words!

    Hansen says the accuracy matters. The sponsoring organizations says that siting matters. A significant portion of the stations already surveyed in the census do not meet the standards.

    This means that any GCM results using Hansen’s UHI off-set is now in doubt.

    Which part do I need to put or shut up about? Which part did I get wrong. How about addressing my argument or logic instead.

  86. #86 richard
    August 24, 2007

    “Which part do I need to put..”

    Why you need to put up an alternate hypothesis, of course. You must have an alternate explanation for the several streams of data referred to in the IPCC don’t you? I suppose you could start by omitting US temp data from the global data sets and re-doing the analyses. If you come to different conclusions, and a sufficient number of climatologists buy your rationale for dumping the US data, then you would have a case.

  87. #87 Vernon
    August 24, 2007

    Sorry Richard, there is no requirement for me to do that. It does not work that way. Still you refuse to address either Hansen’s words or my argument. It would seem that your only defense is – nah nah nah.

  88. #88 richard
    August 24, 2007

    “there is no requirement for me to do that”

    Quite right, there is no ‘requirement’. But if you expect people to take you seriously then you have to present an alternative hypothesis with supporting data. The fact that you and other ‘skeptics’ are unwilling to do that says a lot about your case. In the absence of competing explanations for the various datasets pertaining to AGW, the scientific community and policy developers will move in the direction of the explanations offered by the apparently uncontested hypotheses.

  89. #89 Vernon
    August 24, 2007

    richard, how about addressing what I am saying. DUH! sorry, forgot that you cannot or you would not being using the stupid argument that I have to:

    But if you expect people to take you seriously then you have to present an alternative hypothesis with supporting data.

    Is that something speical for climatology because it does not in any other science? So, time for another ad hom or some other attempt to ignore my argument.

  90. #90 richard
    August 25, 2007

    “Is that something speical for climatology because it does not in any other science? ”

    Well, thanks for clearing things up. You just don’t understand how science works: if you do not accept someone’s conclusions, it is up to you to present an argument in the peer-reviewed literature. Neither Hansen nor anyone else is required to address any concerns you raise, unless you do so through the science literature. If you think you have a case, make it the way real scientists do: publish in a peer-review journal. Please explain why you can’t do that. “DUH” is not an answer.

  91. #91 Vernon
    August 25, 2007

    richard, your clueless. I do not doubt that Hansen can measure UHI off-set. What your missing is that Hansen made certain assumptions and listed them in his paper. surfacestations.org is showing that his assumptions are wrong. He needs to do the work to ensure he has the accurate data he says he needs to have an accurate UHI.

    There is no requirement that publish anything just to prove Hansen wrong. All I have to do is point out his errors, which I have done so.

  92. #92 Paul H
    September 4, 2007

    Vernon,

    Richard has a valid point. You need to construct a hypothesis and do some investigation to test its robustness before you can declare that Hansen et al are wrong. What you have presented in comment #285 is not a hypothesis it is merely a bunch of ideas and limited observations. You, nor anyone else, has bothered to test the impacts that any of these things have on the measurement of temperature or upon the GISS estimates of global temperature anomalies. Somebody would need to do this work in order to develop your bunch of ideas into a credible hypothesis. You can’t come up with some completely untested ideas and expect everyone to listen to you, to emphasise: this is not the way science is done. If you, or someone else, can actually show that microsite effects have biased the lights equal zero stations and that this impacts upon the US tempearture record (and the whole globe) then maybe people would give you more credence. As it is, we have a credible explanation of the observations and a credible dataset, you merely have ideas and assertions. If you want to make any progress you have to realise this point. If you want to advance knowledge you need to do some work and research, not cling to something that hasn’t been tested.

    Let me summarise it for you:

    In #285 you lay out your untested ideas and very limited set of observations, you have a bunch of assertions. The assertion from Gavin and Hansen, and many of the posters here, is that these issues have been dealt with. Ummm….two sets of competeing assertions. If you decide to look at the literature and information on the climate reference network you will see that there has been some considerable effort put in to test these assertions. I therefore put significantly more confidence into what Schmidt and Hansen say, in fact I would go as far to say that since their work has been tested in the manner which they describe they have a hypothesis, which trumps your bald assertions in my book. Next, do we have any other independent sources of evidence to support a general warming trend on the order of magnitude descrbed by GISS and CRU? Yes, at the risk of re-opening an old debate; if you examine Arctic sea ice, glaciers around the world, the Antarctic peninsula glaciers, and responses in the biosphere to temperature you have a compelling story of global change. Given this extra evidence I think your untested assertions are looking pretty flimsy on their own without any testing. You need to take a look at the competing theory in some detail to realise that you have a hell of a long way to go before you can put any confidence in your assertions. This is how science works. Given the level of secondary evidence and existing testing of what Hansen says why should we listen to mere assertion?

    Do some work, do some testing, come up with a theory and people will listen. Continue playing disingeneous games, refuse to expose your ideas to scrutiny and merely assert problems, and no one in the climate community is going to give this any notice.

  93. #93 Vernon
    September 7, 2007

    Paul, your wrong. Why, because NOAA has already done the station site work and surfacestations.org is doing the station census.

    You feel that micro climate errors are random and therefore should be removed via statistical processes. I find that this position is not supported by the facts. Now my train of though is to first show that failure to meet site guidance will introduce errors. NOAA shows that failure to meet site guidance will introduce 1-5+ degrees C error. Further they state that “Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface” are class 5 sites. Class 5 sites inject 5+ degrees of error and the error is all warming. Using the station census underway at surfacestations.org, it is easy to pick out the stations that are not in compliance and further to identify the class of the station, hence, to know what the sign of the error is going to be.

    The second point of contention is that you feel there is no basis for micro climate having the same trends as urban heat islands. That is not supported by the facts. The main cause of the urban heat island is modification of the land surface by urban development; waste heat generated by energy usage is a secondary contributor. Once again, going back to the NOAA, class 5 sites have been ‘located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.’ These modifications of the land surface are reflections of urban development on the micro climate scale.

    ‘This is how science works.’ I am presenting facts and drawing logical conclusions. All richard ever does is say “you must publish or what you say does not matter.” If you want to join his club, more power to you, but I though more of you since you would actually argue to facts and logic. How about you address my facts and logic.

    Site Identification, Survey, and Selection FY 02 Research Project for the NOAA Regional Climate Centers (RCC) (2002) found at: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/site_info/CRNFY02SiteSelectionTask.pdf

  94. #94 richard
    September 7, 2007

    “surfacestations.org is doing the station census”

    No, they are taking pictures. This does not invalidate data from the sites; you would have to analyze the data from these sites and demonstrate that they need to be further adjusted or discarded. Why can’t you do this?

    “I find that this position is not supported by the facts.”

    Provide some facts, not assertions.

    “I am presenting facts and drawing logical conclusions. ”

    You have not presented any facts. You have made assertions. These are not the same.

    Tha data sets are available for re-analysis. Why can’t you do that?

  95. #95 Paul
    September 17, 2007

    Hey Vernon,

    It looks like some guys over at Climate Audit have partially done what we were asking you to do. You could use the information to test your hypothesis. Here you go:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/cherry_picking_confirmed.php

    As you can see GISS-Temp looks pretty good afterall and it agrees with the CRN1 and CRN2 plots pretty well.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.