Steve McIntyre found an error in the GISS temperature data for the US. The GISTEMP page says:

USHCN station records up to 1999 were replaced by a version of USHCN data with further corrections after an adjustment computed by comparing the common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)

How much difference did the adjustment make to the US temperature series? Well, it changed this:

i-4c2bced67bf8018e653c78a3f2fd4553-gissusold.png

to this:

i-2c65826a3e6c732f35375023de42ebd2-gissusnew.png

Not much difference. The right hand end of the red curve has moved down a little bit, but this decade is still the warmest ever recorded in the US. The change to the global temperature series is imperceptible.

Of course, if you’re Steve McIntyre, you want to make this seem like a big deal. So what do you do?

Well, it’s hard to see from the graph, but 1998 went from being 0.01 degrees warmer than 1934 in the US, to being 0.02 degrees cooler, so he was able to present this as OMG! 1998 NO LONGER THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD, NOW IT’S 1934. Right wing blogs started foaming at their mouths. Examples:

Noel Sheppard

it suggests that a government agency is actually participating in a fraud against the American people by withholding information crucial to a major policy issue now facing the nation.

Ace

Fire [James Hansen]. Immediately.

The Ace (This is a different person from “Ace” — I think we should pop “Ace” and “The Ace” into Thunderdome.)

leftist hero James Hansen is behind this deliberate fraud. He should be frog-marched out of his office.

Rush Limbaugh:

And the bottom line is, that 1998 is no longer — you can say NASA made a reporting error or did they make a reporting error? Did they do this on purpose? How long have they known that it was erroneous and haven’t corrected it? But the bottom line of this is that 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record. … Well, when 1934 was the hottest year on record, and NASA may know about it and doesn’t correct the data, and when a guy named James Hansen involved in all this, who is a political activist, then you have to figure there is a reason why they want 1998 continue to be reported as the warmest year on record.

I’ll let Nexus explain this one for Mr Limbaugh.

Also busy exaggerating is good old Roger Pielke Sr:

The hard work of of Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) and Anthony Watts (www.surfacestations.org) has resulted in the identification of a significant error in the assessment of the rankings of what have been the warmest years in the United States as identified by GISS. The current warmest year is 1934.

1998 and 1934 went from being in a virtual tie, to being in a virtual tie. This is not a significant change. You would have hoped that Pielke Sr would have been aware of this, but I guess not.

Oh, and I didn’t link to Climate Audit, because It’s gone down because of all the traffic from Limbaugh and the like. The paranoids there reckon it’s a DOS attack from the eevil warmers.

Update: More from RealClimate.

Comments

  1. #1 dhogaza
    August 11, 2007

    TCO …

    Tim Lambert: Your “banning for dishonesty” is very Steve McIntyrian. It’s bullshit.

    Simple question – how many people has McIntyre banned (it has to be at uncommon descent levels)? How many has Tim banned?

    McIntyre bans people for being honest and knowing what the heck they’re talking about.

    oconnellc … I can’t disagree with his being labelled dishonest. Can you? Can you be specific?

  2. #2 TCO
    August 11, 2007

    He banned per as well. When per was cleaning Dano’s clock in an aragument. (See per is smarter than Dano. No offense, Dano…I know you’re more the outdoorsy type.)

    And (btw) I don’t think “dishonesty” is a bannable offense btw. And who is to decide it when it is a point in question?

    LET FREEDOM RING!

  3. #3 Tim Lambert
    August 11, 2007

    That’s enough off-topic stuff TCO. Take it to the open thread.

  4. #4 Diodor
    August 11, 2007

    To my naked eye the green points on both graphs seem to be in precisely the same positions while the red line moves down visibly (by about a quarter of a degree) after 2000. Please correct (either the graphs or me ;)).

  5. #5 Brian
    August 11, 2007

    Taking a step back for a moment…the debating, recalculating, error-checking, and rechecking is very good for climate science. Yes, the back-and-forth commenting is certainly intermingled with preconceived notions, political ideologies, dishonesty, name-calling, etc. but as an example of how anal-retentive science is, I think it is good.

    To see every little detail challenged and then confirmed over and over again only strengthens conclusions regarding AGW. In other words, the denialists are making the case for AGW stronger and stronger as they attempt to tear it down.

    Don’t you love science?

  6. #6 Tim Lambert
    August 11, 2007

    Well spotted Diodor. The green dots were the same in both graphs. I fixed the second graph.

    Thanks.

  7. #7 Jack Lacton
    August 11, 2007

    Tim,

    Please draw a trend line through the graph for the 20th century so we can see what the change is.

    Ta.

  8. #8 Chris O'Neill
    August 11, 2007

    “Hi Chris O’Noall”

    Chris O’Noall is one of Curtin’s famous laws such as Curtins law of atmospheric mass conservation and Curtins law of exponential and polynomial equivalence.

  9. #9 Ryan
    August 12, 2007

    The problems I have with global climate arguments is it literally is not scientists, they are fundamentalists that we are hearing on both sides. Serioulsy folks this is science, from time to time things or readings are wrong. Let’s not treat it like a religion in either it is black and white.

    The problem is we do have serious problems with our small window of data. It is important that we do not abandon the effort of climate awareness by overblowing it and making it into an extremist position. Please the comparison to anyone that doubts data to Limbaughians is just elementary logic errors.

    The point is. Climate change is guaranteed to happen in nature, natural waves for all things are at work. Do we have enough data to act like we definitively know it is happening (is 100 years of data enough? How was is maintained early on? What were the differences? Does readings from rural areas that are now in cities have any difference? Do the sensors get enough maintenance and are they all consistent? Is every one just looking at data and not looking at the hardware, the sensors (which appear to be in horrible shape and many in areas that should be changed)? What will this effect?

    Making this news mainstream seems like such a product or agenda that it takes away from the real science. Science that is from the onset, open to criticism and is not always right (that is what separates it from religion). But the people on this argument are the extremes that just make it black and white and will destroy the public awareness of this.

  10. #10 dhogaza
    August 12, 2007

    The moment you begin equating science with religion, I, for one, tune you out.

  11. #11 cce
    August 12, 2007

    In response to occonnelc

    I suggest that you look at figure 8.1 from the AR4 WGI FAQ.
    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

    It shows the result of multiple runs from multiple climate models, which take into account all of the forcings (and the time-lag due to the thermal inertia in the ocean. They do a reasonable job of recreating the temperature of the past century. They do have a tough time recreating the relatively warm temperature in the ’40s. Looking at the model runs from the SPM (which separate different regions, and warming over the ocean), the big problem they have seems to be modeling the ocean of the ’40s.

  12. #12 The Ace
    August 12, 2007

    998 and 1934 went from being in a virtual tie, to being in a virtual tie

    Oh My God, that’s rich.

    Really it is. Hey, how many times have people like you said that prior to this “error” (this was not an error it was a deliberate fabrication) being discovered?

    Hint: zero

  13. #13 The Ace
    August 12, 2007

    build up his uncovering of a STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT mistake

    Hahahahaha, I love it!

    LOVE IT. Seriously, if the temperature adjustments were say, upward, you’d be saying the same thing, right?

    You people are so transparent it is embarrassing.

    Facts that don’t fit the agenda: statistically insignificant.

  14. #14 Tim Lambert
    August 12, 2007

    No problem, “The Ace”

    [Hansen 2001](http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001Hansenetal.pdf)

    >In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.

  15. #15 Brian
    August 12, 2007

    The Ace says: “this was not an error it was a deliberate fabrication”

    that’s big talk, i’m looking forward to the evidence for said fabrication

  16. #16 oconnellc
    August 12, 2007

    Tim, I guess you can ban me for 24 hours. It is your blog. I actually happened to be out of town for the last 30 or so hours, so I just discovered I was banned now. I will repeat my point. If you would care to say what was actually dishonest about my point, I will be happy to stop making it.

    My point was that you have a thread discussing how a change had to be made to the US temperatures. You never actually stated the magnitude of the change. You just stated that it was small. You then showed two graphs and asked people to see if they could see the difference. I think graphing the data on a scale 20X the magnitude of the change was pretty lame. Especially since you have already commented about others being tricky with graphs. I think if Crighton had some something similar to this you would have posted about him being dishonest. For you to do something similar smacks of the same…

    Now, where did I lie?

  17. #17 oconnellc
    August 12, 2007

    > First, the records are true and you would expect more records to occur when the tmeperature trends accelerate. Second, the information is used to reveal a truth–that the planet is warming, and to further reveal a truth that humans are primarily repsonsible.

    Boris, what you say isn’t 100% of the story. Sure, you would expect more records if the trend accelerates. But you would also expect more records if the trend stays the same. If we have been slowly warming for 100 years, then there is a good chance that year 100 will be warmer than year 0. Even if there has been no acceleration in the trend. Lots of people have stated on this blog (I’m not going to reread this thread for examples) that it isn’t individual data points that matter. Instead it is the overall trend. The fact that records occur say nothing about the trend.

    You also state that it further reveals the truth that humans are responsible. I disagree. The same symptom would occur if humans were not responsible. I would agree though, that people will read information like that and assume that humans are responsible when it is not necessarily the case. It MAY be the case, but individual records are not proof of that. Using them as proof of that is, well, you pick the word.

  18. #18 oconnellc
    August 12, 2007

    cce, thanks for the link. I have looked through the IPCC report. Above I took a swag at what I thought the temp trends during those two periods were (I couldn’t find one actually mentioned on any of the pages I was pointed at that discussed the trends). It looks like the trends are pretty similar. Yet the climate forcings during the period are VERY different. If the real effects of the forcing change have not yet been felt, then why would we refer to current climate changes as Anthropogenic? If the current climate changes actually are a response to the changes in forcings, then why would the planet have had a similar response during a time when the forcings were considerably less?

  19. #19 The Ace
    August 12, 2007

    In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.

    Funny. I don’t see “statistically insiginifcant” used there at all.

    Nor was it used by you.

    I’m left wondering, can you read? Do you have basic comprehension skills?
    I’m serious about this.

  20. #20 The Ace
    August 12, 2007

    that’s big talk, i’m looking forward to the evidence for said fabrication
    Posted by: Brian

    You mean other than the fact that Hansen tried to hide it, right?

    By the way, I do find it amusing that you true believers are utterly silent about the fact that Hansen thinks it’s ok to do this on the taxpayer’s dime.

    Remember, silence is complicity!

  21. #21 z
    August 12, 2007

    Given what the graphs look like for the unaveraged data (green dots) this is amazingly silly.

    I’ve always maintained, 95% of scientific ability, scientific literacy, whatever is the ability to read and understand graphs. Which speak very well for themselves, in this case.

  22. #22 z
    August 12, 2007

    “First Mann’s “Hockey Stick” and now the alleged “hottest year” totem.”

    “Sacred cows”, as you put it, perhaps. “Evidence”, as you also call them, not so much. The logic behind predictions of AGW do not depend on either of these; they are observations which are consistent with AGW and are both striking and simple enough to influence the public, therefore sacred cows.

  23. #23 oconnellc
    August 12, 2007

    z, I think you are correct about graphs. I think you agree with me. Tim, who actually produced the graphs, and everyone else who looked at them couldn’t even tell that part of the the changed version actually was not changed. I’m not hitting Tim for making a mistake. Everyone makes them. The fact that it took a day and a half and over a hundred posts for that fact to be discovered should speak volumes about these graph, though. It seems to me that the only thing he proved is that if you get data scrunched up enough, you can’t tell anything from a graph.

  24. #24 Brian
    August 12, 2007

    Speaking of graphs, tamino has a nice post showing the before and after, and other associated graphs; check it out here

    I tried to link to it for The Ace’s readers but it was deemed inappropriate and deleted

  25. #25 Chris O'Neill
    August 12, 2007

    oconnellc: “then why would the planet have had a similar response during a time when the forcings were considerably less?”

    What, pray tell, was this planetary similar response?

  26. #26 Chris O'Neill
    August 12, 2007

    “”that’s big talk, i’m looking forward to the evidence for said fabrication”" Posted by: Brian

    The Ace: “You mean other than the fact that Hansen tried to hide it, right?”

    More big talk. Still no evidence.

  27. #27 luminous beauty
    August 12, 2007

    Prithee, oconnellc, what graphic scalar would you find more fair than one whose y-axis encompasses 3 units to map a variance of 2.5?

    If the estimated intrinsic error for 1998 in comparison to 1934 is 0.1 of those units, and the 1998 value is reduced by 0.03 of those units, then the difference is less than one third of the value it would require just to be considered of minimal significance.

    Regardless of how you display it graphically, insignificant is still insignificant.

  28. #28 Lee
    August 12, 2007

    oconnell – one more time,. The data Tim presented varied over a range of 2.5 units. His graphs covered a range of 3 units. Hows one earth is that ‘scrunching’ the data?

    It sounds like you are asking him to magnify the graphs until only the change is shown, cutting off the majority of the data to do so, in order to magnify the change beyond its actual impact. From where I sit, that sounds like you are whining that he didn’t distort the data to maekt eh change look bigger than it is.

    The fact that no one noticed that the green dots were not corrected, tells us more about the miniscule magnitude of this change than anything else.

  29. #29 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    Lee:

    It sounds like you are asking him to magnify the graphs until only the change is shown, cutting off the majority of the data to do so, in order to magnify the change beyond its actual impact. From where I sit, that sounds like you are whining that he didn’t distort the data to maekt eh change look bigger than it is.

    That’s my read, too.
    Oconnellc:

    You also state that it further reveals the truth that humans are responsible. I disagree.

    On what basis? The observations are consistent with predictions made by GCMs which follow from the AGW hypothesis.

    The observations are inconsistent with claims that increased CO2 will not warm the planet – or the even more outrageous claims by some that it will actually lead to cooling.

    The observations are inconsistent with claims that increased warming is due to increased solar forcing, for a variety of reasons.

    So, on what scientific grounds do you disagree?

    >The same symptom would occur if humans were not >responsible.
    Well, no. Time for you to go do your homework before you start claiming that NASA’s dishonest, don’t you think?

    Do you see why people question your honesty? You bloviate despite not knowing a bunch of the very basic science.

    And I’m not going to educate you on this particular bit. Why don’t you shut up for a week and concentrate on reading some basic climate science, such as the excellent summaries over at real climate?

    >I would agree though, that people will read information >like that and assume that humans are responsible when it is >not necessarily the case.

    Yeah, they won’t be thinking about your fantasy scenarios.

    Is that bad?

    Your whining is so similar to the whining we see from creationists about evolutionary biology.

    “people will read that information and assume that the earth’s more than 6,000 years old, even though that’s not necessarily the case.”

    Your whining has equal credibility from the scientific POV.

    >It MAY be the case, but individual records are not proof of >that.

    Careful, dear chum. The NASA site doesn’t say the five year records are proof. Thank you for your strawman argument, though, it meets expectations.

    >Using them as proof of that is, well, you pick the word.

    They’re not used as PROOF. They’re used as evidence in support of our understanding of science. There’s nothing wrong with that.

    Once again, you are whining because NASA is publishing truthful information on their website.

    You don’t like it – just like creationists dislike PRs that talk about dino discoveries that are millions of years old.

    I’m sure flat-earthists really hate it when NASA publishes photos of earth from space.

    Why do you want NASA to lie about science?

  30. #30 oconnellc
    August 13, 2007

    dhogaza, you accuse me of lying, but you deliberatly misrepresent me.

    > Second, the information is used to reveal a truth–that the planet is warming, and to further reveal a truth that humans are primarily repsonsible.

    I didn’t say that. But somehow you can with a straight face say this:

    > They’re not used as PROOF. They’re used as evidence in support of our understanding of science.

    Do you know what the definition of PROOF is? According to dictionary.com, the definition of PROOF is: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

    Someone made a reference to the book 1984 on this thread. I’m beginning to understand why.

    > And I’m not going to educate you on this particular bit.

    Of course you aren’t. I have never had a conversation with you where you made a reference to anything. I’m still waiting for anything to back anything you said in our discussion of operational efficiency. You lied on that thread and said there was no evidence about public vs. private schools. I showed you some and you changed the subject to talk about operational efficiency.

    Here, I stated that if the planet were naturally warming without human intervention, there would still be record temperatures. Unless you are going to argue that the planet has never warmed without human intervention, then how is that statement wrong?

    And you ended with this:

    > You don’t like it – just like creationists dislike PRs that talk about dino discoveries that are millions of years old.

    > I’m sure flat-earthists really hate it when NASA publishes photos of earth from space.

    > Why do you want NASA to lie about science?

    Once again, you find it easier to argue points that I never made, while making it sound like I made them. And you call me dishonest at every turn. And I get banned for dishonesty…

  31. #31 oconnellc
    August 13, 2007

    Lee, you said this:

    > The fact that no one noticed that the green dots were not corrected, tells us more about the miniscule magnitude of this change than anything else.

    No, not being able to detect that somethat hasn’t changed has nothing to do with other things that have changed. That graph was so incapable of conveying the information that Tim implied it could, that people couldn’t even tell that data had not changed. Even when instructed that it had and told where to look for it, people couldn’t tell that what Tim said was different really was not different. Why would you continue to defend that? It is essentially a trick question. Asking you to spot the changes, and then not making a change and waiting for your reply. I’m not saying that Tim did that on purpose, but because the mistake was made, that was what we ended up with. And it took a day and a half and over a hundred posts before someone could tell.

  32. #32 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    oconnellc:

    I didn’t say that.

    You quoted another poster:

    You also state that it further reveals the truth that humans are responsible. I disagree.

    Let me flesh out my response for the reading-impaired:

    On what basis [DO YOU DISAGREE]? The observations are consistent with predictions made by GCMs which follow from the AGW hypothesis.

    I could’ve made that more clear in my first post, but I do think, if you tried very, very, hard, that you could’ve made sense of it in its original form.

    Do you know what the definition of PROOF is? According to dictionary.com, the definition of PROOF is: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

    So? Where on the NASA site does it say “this PR PROVES the AGW hypothesis”?

    Of course you aren’t. I have never had a conversation with you where you made a reference to anything.

    You say this in reference to this comment of mine, I presume?

    Why don’t you shut up for a week and concentrate on reading some basic climate science, such as the excellent summaries over at real climate?

    How is referring you to Real Climate (http://realclimate.org) not “making a reference to anything”?

    Oh, I see, you expect me to …

    1. search the site for a relevant piece
    2. cut and paste it
    3. and post it for your convenience

    a failure to do so, as opposed to giving you a reference to the leading climate science site on the web, qualifies as “not making a reference to anything” in your book.

    Again, you wonder why your honesty is being questioned?

    Here, I stated that if the planet were naturally warming without human intervention, there would still be record temperatures.

    Actually, you said “The same symptom would occur if humans were not responsible.”

    I read this to mean not only record temps, but the PATTERN (global distribution) of the temp anomalies.

    Perhaps I was wrong to assume your knowledge is deep enough to know that polar amplification and other features of the PATTERN of warming are consistent with CO2-forced warming, and inconsistent with popular denialist claims such as the warming being due to natural causes such as an increase in solar output.

    If I did overestimate your knowledge, my apologies, I’ll try not to do so again.

    But you post so authoritatively that I keep imagining that you can’t really be as ignorant as you appear to be at times.

  33. #33 dhogaza
    August 13, 2007

    If the real effects of the forcing change have not yet been felt, then why would we refer to current climate changes as Anthropogenic?

    I already made one comment regarding the oceans.

    Again, why don’t you go do some reading at a climate science site like Real Climate (URL provided so I don’t get accused of not giving a suitable referencde: http://realclimate.org).

    You keep saying you don’t believe what climatologists tell us, while simultaneously making it clear to all that you have NO IDEA WHAT THEY’RE TELLING US.

    If – if after learning some basic relevant science – you disagree, give us some specific disagreements. For instance, “I disagree that the ocean warms more slowly than the atmosphere”. You’ll be asked questions like “why, then, are land and sea breezes so important to sailors?” or, more directly, “why, then, can we MEASURE THIS DIRECTLY in the lab”, etc etc but at least you’ll be giving us something specific to deal with.

    At the moment you’re really arguing “I’m ignorant, but I disagree, and I’m right”.

  34. #34 oconnellc
    August 13, 2007

    dhogaza:

    > Actually, you said “The same symptom would occur if humans were not responsible.”

    > I read this to mean not only record temps, but the PATTERN (global distribution) of the temp anomalies.

    Why? We have a thread where people are talking about about record highs. I have explicitly mentioned several times that I have been talking about record highs. I have referred to other posters talking about ‘data points’. The only reason you assumed that is because you have a pattern of ascribing things I have not said to me and then arguing against them, not against the things I actually said. Holy cow, we keep having the same conversation. Don’t you get bored with it? I’m talking about press releases and lots of noise being made about record temperatures. If you don’t want to talk about that, that is fine. Then don’t. But stop twisting my words and then talking about the result after you have twisted them.

  35. #35 oconnellc
    August 13, 2007

    > I already made one comment regarding the oceans.

    Right. And I replied (not directly to you, but it looks like you are reading all of my replies, so I thought you would see it), that why does the behavior seem so different with respect to the forcings. Early last century, the forcings (including well mixed greenhouse gases) were small compared to the forcings in the late part of the last century. However, the warming trend was similar during both periods. I assume that the oceans would react to warming the same way during both periods. Wouldn’t the oceans have to warm in the early 1900′s just like they would have to warm in the late 1900′s. It sounds like you are saying that now the effect of the forcings is to warm the oceans. Ok. Then what caused the temperature to warm in the early 1900′s? I’m sorry if I can’t find the answer at Real Climate, but I can’t read every word ever posted there. Your helpful reference to the home page doesn’t really help.

    > So? Where on the NASA site does it say “this PR PROVES the AGW hypothesis”?

    I was actually mocking you. You said, this wasn’t proof, it was just something that was the definition of the word proof. Please explain, is it proof of AGW or isn’t it?

    > At the moment you’re really arguing “I’m ignorant, but I disagree, and I’m right”.

    And all you keep arguing is “You’re ignorant, you are wrong, but I’m not going to refer to any facts that show it”. You have done that before, so I guess I should stop expecting it to change. You have lied about things in other threads (see your statement during the brief discussion about schools) and then changed the subject and refused to answer direct questions multiple times about things you constantly asserted.

  36. #36 oconnellc
    August 13, 2007

    Chris O’Neil, if you are still reading, please refer to my post #78 where I talked about planetary response.

  37. #37 oconnellc
    August 13, 2007

    luminous, if you would like to see some graphs, it appears that Tamino has some. You can actually look at those graphs and discern information. For example, if Tamino had made a mistake and plotted the same data set twice, you would have been able to tell.

    You know, I even stated that Tim could have made his point fairly. You just choose to ignore that. It seems that because I disagree with you on some things, you must argue with me and you must win, regardless of what point you are really arguing or if you are paying attention to what I really say.

    And on Tim’s blog, someone could read my post, and then reply to it asking why I want NASA to lie about science. Or say that a fact isn’t proof of something and then use the definition of the word proof to describe it. And I get banned for being dishonest.

  38. #38 Dennis Williams
    August 14, 2007

    Good find for McIntyre, it’s kind of amazing how many denialists he’s carrying on his back.

    Unfortunately, for those of you who desperately DON’T WANT to believe in AGW, it’s almost meaningless. If you don’t realize this…

  39. #39 dhogaza
    August 14, 2007

    Early last century, the forcings (including well mixed greenhouse gases) were small compared to the forcings in the late part of the last century. However, the warming trend was similar during both periods.

    Solar forcing was higher …

  40. #40 dhogaza
    August 14, 2007

    Since oconnellc insists we do his online research for him, asking questions but not doing the simple work required to find the answers for himself, here’s info on the 20th century:

    During the 20th century, overall natural forcing (solar and volcanic) probably increased (a warming effect)
    up to about 1950 due to a period of low volcanism and a small rise in solar radiation (IPCC, 2001, p 706).
    Recent decades show negative natural forcing (a cooling effect) due to increasing volcanism overwhelming a
    small rise in solar radiation.

    We know about sunspot cycles and that they effect the amount of solar energy received by the earth. We have good records regarding volcanic eruptions – they’re hard to miss – do you have any reason to doubt the historic record in this regard?

    Before dismissing the statement that volcanism has increased in the last half of the 20th century, bear in mind that increased volcanism was long put forward as a NATURAL SOURCE OF GHGs by the denialism crowd.

  41. #41 dhogaza
    August 14, 2007

    You said, this wasn’t proof, it was just something that was the definition of the word proof. Please explain, is it proof of AGW or isn’t it?

    Huh? Of course it’s not proof, science never proves anything irrevocably. For all we know, the next time an apple falls from a tree it will land on the moon. All science says is that apples have always fallen towards the earth, and science predicts that it will tomorrow. However, if something different happens tomorrow, science will take that evidence and work on a new theory of gravitation.

    However, the fact that five of the warmest years on record occured in the last decade correlates with predictions, and this is important, no matter how many times you attempt to belittle it.

    And of course, while trends are what’s important, trends are made of individual data points …

  42. #42 dhogaza
    August 14, 2007

    And all you keep arguing is “You’re ignorant, you are wrong, but I’m not going to refer to any facts that show it”. You have done that before, so I guess I should stop expecting it to change.

    Shit, I gave in above and did your homework for you in my post above, since you’re apparently too damned lazy to 1) read a good climate science site such as Real Climate (how DARE you say I give you no references when I’ve referenced that site, which is chockful of climate science primers multiple times), or 2) to use Google.

    So, do you feel better now that you got me to do YOUR research for you?

    You have lied about things in other threads (see your statement during the brief discussion about schools)

    Lied? You want to back that up, dude?

  43. #43 dhogaza
    August 14, 2007

    Why? We have a thread where people are talking about about record highs. I have explicitly mentioned several times that I have been talking about record highs. I have referred to other posters talking about ‘data points’. The only reason you assumed that is because you have a pattern of ascribing things I have not said to me and then arguing against them, not against the things I actually said. Holy cow, we keep having the same conversation. Don’t you get bored with it?

    Well, the more you post, the more obvious it is that you’re not actually interested in investing any energy into learning about climate science, so I suppose I *should* be bored.

    So, in your mind, this is simply a rhetorical exercise? My assumption that you might be interested as to why, on a global scale, we would NOT expect to see the same symptoms we observe if the cause were natural is a false one?

    At the risk of offending you by mentioning something else you’ve not brought up, if the symptom were the result of a natural process, we would expect to be able to measure the process responsible. So, for instance, if it were due to a net increase in forcing due to solar radiance, we’d expect measurements to reflect that (they don’t). Likewise, cosmic rays (again, they don’t). Natural sources of CO2? Wrong isotope.

    And, no, I’m not going to provide you references. This stuff is all basic science stuff that you can easily look up yourself.

  44. #44 jodyaberdein
    August 14, 2007

    …..yawns…..

  45. #45 Lance
    August 14, 2007

    dhogaza,

    Your (unreferenced) quote above, which I assume is from RealClimate,

    “During the 20th century, overall natural forcing (solar and volcanic) probably increased (a warming effect) up to about 1950 due to a period of low volcanism and a small rise in solar radiation (IPCC, 2001, p 706). Recent decades show negative natural forcing (a cooling effect) due to increasing volcanism overwhelming a small rise in solar radiation.”

    This is typical of the “just so” climate stories presented as “scientific evidence”. They retro-fit anecdotal evidnece to support their theroies and then pass it off as “peer reviewed” science.

  46. #46 guthrie
    August 14, 2007

    Umm, Lance, you do know that scientists use words like “Probably” to mean it is most likely, not that they have absolute proof, since your never going to get such proof.

  47. #47 Boris
    August 14, 2007

    “They retro-fit anecdotal evidnece”

    Since when did TSI and worldwide vulcanism become anecdotal evidence?

  48. #48 oconnellc
    August 14, 2007

    dhogaza
    > Lied? You want to back that up, dude?

    Sure. Here is the thread: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/07/jason_soon_defends_john_lott.php#commentsArea

    In post 245, you said:
    >> any US Public Schools

    > This one annoys me for any number of reasons, mostly due to the lack of any data to back up the claim.

    So then in post 246 I gave you this reference: http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/18/do-public-and-private-schools-compare/

    which points to this study:
    http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006461

    I’m sorry. Maybe you just made a terribly stupid mistake based on ignorance. If that was the case, please tell me and I will withdraw my statement about you lying.

  49. #49 oconnellc
    August 14, 2007

    dhogaza:

    >> Early last century, the forcings (including well mixed greenhouse gases) were small compared to the forcings in the late part of the last century. However, the warming trend was similar during both periods.

    > Solar forcing was higher …

    Really? Once again, here is the reference that I have previously posted on this thread: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

    You can see that Hanson used that in a paper published in 2005 and the page has been updated in 2007, so I’m guessing that NASA still considers this to be accurate. So, if you are able to read, you can see that the NET FORCINGS include solar irradiance. And, although there are large downward spikes, in general, the forcings in the latter part of the 20th century are considerably higher. Also note, that relative to the total forcings, the solar forcings seem to be quite small.

    So, was your simple statement about solar forcings an intentionally vague statement meant to sway people who hadn’t done the research, without actually saying something specific about solar forcings?

    If you look here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/

    it doesn’t really look like solar forcings were higher in the earlier part of that century. They actually appear smaller (I’m of course just referring to the Total Spectral Irradiance. I’m assuming that that was what you meant as well). Hmmmm…

    Would you classify this as a lie, or just an incredibly stupid mistake?

  50. #50 oconnellc
    August 14, 2007

    dhogaza:
    > So, for instance, if it were due to a net increase in forcing due to solar radiance, we’d expect measurements to reflect that (they don’t).

    Hmmm… http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/

    You really should be more careful.

    Or, perhaps you are going to correct me. When you just stated that measurements don’t reflect a net increase in solar radiance, you didn’t really mean that there wasn’t a net increase in solar radiance, just that you didn’t think we were measuring it?

    In any case, I just sent an email to Dr. Judith Lean (her email address is listed on the page in question) asking her about the data and if there is a paper or something that includes the data and how she obtained it (perhaps she measured it). I’ll let you know what I find.

    In the meantime, are you saying that there is no proof in AGW? I honestly don’t expect that that is what you are saying, but you are tripping over yourself so it is becoming difficult to tell exactly what your point is. Are individual data points relavent, or is a trend relavent? The Mona Lisa is a beautiful piece of art. Would you choose individual brush strokes from the painting and display them as anything that has relavence to a discussion of the genius of Da Vinci?

  51. #51 mgr
    August 14, 2007

    oconnelc–dhogaza has nothing to apologize for since he is right:

    1.) “Cautions in Interpretations
    When interpreting the results from any of these analyses, it should be borne in mind that private schools constitute a heterogeneous category and may differ from one another as much as they differ from public schools. Public schools also constitute a heterogeneous category. Consequently, an overall comparison of the two types of schools is of modest utility. The more focused comparisons conducted as part of this study may be of greater value. However, interpretations of the results should take into account the variability due to the relatively small sizes of the samples drawn from each category of private school, as well as the possible bias introduced by the differential participation rates across private school categories.

    There are a number of other caveats. First, the conclusions pertain to national estimates. Results based on a survey of schools in a particular jurisdiction may differ. Second, the data are obtained from an observational study rather than a randomized experiment, so the estimated effects should not be interpreted in terms of causal relationships. In particular, private schools are “schools of choice.” Without further information, such as measures of prior achievement, there is no way to determine how patterns of self-selection may have affected the estimates presented. That is, the estimates of the average difference in school mean scores are confounded with average differences in the student populations, which are not fully captured by the selected student characteristics employed in this analysis.”

    2.) The report states that the difference is not statistically significant.

    But I wonder what this says about you?

    Mike

  52. #52 Lee
    August 14, 2007

    re150,
    oconnellc,

    That graph you link to shows a climb in total irradiance between about 1900 and 1950, and flat after that. ie, there has been no increase in total irradiance for more than 50 years now, while there is a continuing substantial increase in the Earth’s temp.

    Even in the early art of the century, the increase in total irradiance is just barely more than 1 W/m2, from a bi under 1365, to a bit over 1366.

    This needs to be corrected, BTW. That irradiance value is at the earth’s disk. Earth is not a disk, it is a sphere. One needs to divide the value by 4 to get W/m2 at the earth’s surface. This in turn means that the increase in irradiance for the first half century was barely more than 0.25 W/m2 – much less than the increase in forcing due to CO2 over the last half century..

  53. #53 sod
    August 14, 2007

    sorry, for joining this off topic thing, but i doubt that oconnellc will understand the meaning of the post by mgr above.

    the report says that similar pupils from public and private schools perform basically equally. oconnelc claims that this shows public schools are inefficient, because they receive more money to achieve a similar result.

    that claim of course is false. public schools cater for pupils at places and for pupils of parents, who wont make it into a private school. this explains the higher cost and is a typical myth about “puplic” inefficency.

    sorry, end of off topic.

  54. #54 Boris
    August 14, 2007

    So, if you are able to read, you can see that the NET FORCINGS include solar irradiance. And, although there are large downward spikes, in general, the forcings in the latter part of the 20th century are considerably higher.

    oconnellc,

    You dismiss the “large spikes” which are, of course, volcanic eruptions. Notice that between 1920 and 1960 there are no eruptions. This allows the slight increase you see in TSI to become dominant and create a small warming phase. The total forcings are greater now, but they have had to consistently rebound from volanic perturbation of the climate system.

    You are right that the total net forcings are higher, but then so is the temperature, so this should not be a surprise.

  55. #55 oconnellc
    August 15, 2007

    Mike:

    > 2.) The report states that the difference is not statistically significant.

    > But I wonder what this says about you?

    Wow, I wonder what this says about you. Actually, the summary says that at 4th grade, public schools have a significant advantage in math, while in reading there is not statistically significant difference. However, by 8th grade, the math advantage has shrunk to a statistical tie, “while the average for private schools was significantly higher than the average for public schools for 8th grade reading”. Excellent job of summarizing, I must say. So public schools manage to turn a big advantage into a tie, and a tie into a big loss. Compare that with your single sentence summarizing the report.

    Now, we could discuss whether the important numbers are the 8th grade or 4th grade numbers. I would say 8th grade, because that is when the school is ‘finished’ and passing the student on to someone else. But even if dhogaza had decided to entertain some discussion about that, that would have been an improvement.

    Also, you will notice that we were talking about efficiency of government agencies. In the post I cite, dhogaza specifically makes reference to efficiency (because I had started by talking about efficiency of government agencies). If you read further in the thread, dhogaza actually gets very agitated when it appears that the thread has deviated from the ‘operating efficiency’. You didn’t feel the need to quote this part, but it might be worth mentioning.

    > The average public school spends $8,287 per student. The average private school spends $4,689 per student.

    These seem like they would be important in a discussion of efficiency. Go ahead, read the thread and see how agitated dhogaza gets when there is the possibility that the topic has turned from operating efficiency. Even assuming that they are statistical equivalents (ignoring that whole reading thing), I would think that you would prefer the group that gets the same result for about 56% of the cost.

    Of course, your summary notwithstanding, lets actually discuss the point that I was making. dhogaza didn’t say “There are some studies, but there are issues that make the whole thing worth further study”. dhogaza said
    > This one annoys me for any number of reasons, mostly due to the lack of any data to back up the claim.

    dhogaza just preferred to make an unreferenced claim. As soon as I pointed to this study, we didn’t hear anything more about the lack of data about public education. And for some reason you chose to defend it.

  56. #56 oconnellc
    August 15, 2007

    sod, you say:

    > that claim of course is false. public schools cater for pupils at places and for pupils of parents, who wont make it into a private school. this explains the higher cost and is a typical myth about “puplic” inefficency.

    Well, I guess I can’t argue with that. Without any citation, it is difficult to know what you are considering when you say that it “explains” it. For example, it may be that children with disabilities are routinely sent to public schools as a matter of course. Educating these children certainly takes more money. However, I’m not sure what this has to do with dhogaza’s original statement. My goodness, you can do a google search and find lots of this research. You could spend days and days arguing it and discussing it. Of course, that might get in the way with the original statement of:
    > This one annoys me for any number of reasons, mostly due to the lack of any data to back up the claim.

    Of course, we also have to go back to that summary of the study to make sure we read everything. I’m not a statistician and there may be something that I am missing when the summary of chapter 3 says: “When student covariates are included in the model, all private schools, as well as Catholic and Lutheran schools, maintain a higher average school mean than public schools”. But to say “lack of any data to back up the claim” seems incorrect.

    I’m sorry for slipping off topic as well.

  57. #57 oconnellc
    August 15, 2007

    Lee, I’m not sure what your point is in #152. dhogaza made this unsupported claim:
    > Solar forcing was higher …

    So, I pointed dhogaza at a website that he seems to view as a valid resource that shows that was not the truth.

    You stated this:
    > This needs to be corrected, BTW. That irradiance value is at the earth’s disk.

    Perhaps dhogaza was referring to the irradiance value at the earth’s disk. What in that statement makes you think it was not referring to the earth’s disk? Are you just so eager to argue any point with me to prove me wrong about as many things as possible that you don’t even consider what point you are proving me wrong about?

    But in any case, disk or not, I don’t see how showing that it was higher at the end of century could justify that statement by dhogaza about the forcings at the beginning of the century:
    > Solar forcing was higher …

  58. #58 Lee
    August 15, 2007

    oconnellc,

    solar irradiance was increasing through thd first half of the 20th century, and has been flat since then.

    An increase in the solar irradiance for the first half is consistent with an increase in temps through the first half. Clearly, fi a change in temsp is beign caued by a change in forcing, one shoudl b e lokng at the forcings taht are changing.

    It looks to me like Dhogaza was slightly sloppy, using shorthand – the change in solar forcing was higher, clearly, ni the first half – there has been no change in solar forcing in the second half of the century.

    The word ‘forcing’ is often used in a slightly sloppy shorthand to mean ‘delta forcing’ or ‘chagne in forcing.’ This is understandable- it is change in forcing that is often the point being discussed. I immediately understood what Dhogaza was saying – thus my post pointing out that the graph is consistent with what I immediately understood him to be saying. You, on the other hand, immediately accused him of lying. Gee….

  59. #59 Lee
    August 15, 2007

    one does not need citations to immediately understand a major issue in stastical analyses of public v privbate schools.

    Participation in public schoosl is coerced adn mandatory, adn public schools can not select. Participation in prvate schools is voluntary, and teh schools can be and almost always are selective.

    We know that parent participation is vital in student performance – adn now, I’m not going to dig out cites for somethig thsi basic to the discussion. Private schools,b yu definition, ahve parents who are involved in their kids education. They got the kids into a private school. That alone is a varaible that can not be controlled.

    Cost comparisons are also difficult. For one thiing, many religious private schoosl ahve huge subsidies in the form of free or low cost use of church facilities, and in low cost teacher and aide costs. Public schools burn up huge amounts of money on a small set of difficult and expensive to educate kids – and again this is so frickin basic that I’m not going to bother to educate you on public school funding issues. Do your own homework.

    This is a huge topic, too big for this thread – and off topic. I will say that there are public schools that do well, and others that don’t, for any demographic. Money per se isn’t necessarily the determinant – but lack of sufficient money is always damaging, and programs that are known to improve performance of under-performing schools always cost money, and are often canceled for funding resons. Which is always damaging.

    Thsi perspective comes from many years of volunteering in impacted urban schools, and being married to a woman who spent years of her life working on urban school reform – and being involved in founding several high-performing public urban schools.

  60. #60 SG
    August 15, 2007

    oconnellc, your data on schools seems highly suspect, btw. If you go here:

    http://www.manhattancountryschool.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=180&Itemid=566

    (which is a report on private schools in manhattan county) you’ll see that the cheapest private schools in that county (catholic/lutheran) only cover 40% of their costs from tuition.

    This information (private school total costs) seems to be very hard for non-experts to find, btw.

  61. #61 bigcitylib
    August 15, 2007

    Now its Anthony Watts turn to REFUTE GLOBAL WARMING! Oh my! That’s twice this week AGW has been disproven!

    http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/08/have-climate-change-deniers-discovered.html#links

  62. #62 Boris
    August 15, 2007

    oconnellc,

    You are right, dhogaza should have said solar forcing was dominant and increasing, and vulcanism was unusually quiet.

    But in your rush to play “gotcha” you’ve gone and emailed a busy scientist because a NASA forcing graph didn’t look right to you. That happens sometimes when you eyeball graphs instead of reading the underlying literature.

  63. #63 oconnellc
    August 15, 2007

    SG, why do you say it is suspect? The Dept of Education was responsible for a lot of what I quoted.

    I would agree that it is difficult to find information on private school costs. We could spend a fair amount of time discussing different reports, different sources of data, etc. None of that seems to jive with this statement, though:
    > This one annoys me for any number of reasons, mostly due to the lack of any data to back up the claim

  64. #64 oconnellc
    August 15, 2007

    Lee:
    > We know that parent participation is vital in student performance – adn now, I’m not going to dig out cites for somethig thsi basic to the discussion. Private schools,b yu definition, ahve parents who are involved in their kids education. They got the kids into a private school. That alone is a varaible that can not be controlled.

    Well, the report I cited has a table that lists the factors that they accounted for in trying to compare students/schools. You could probably list studies that actually try to control for as many factors as possible. We could compare those studies to this studies. Perhaps there are estimates about how much variance is explained by these non-controlled factors. We could debate and argue. But, that also doesn’t seem to jive with this statement:
    > This one annoys me for any number of reasons, mostly due to the lack of any data to back up the claim

    Then you said:
    > and again this is so frickin basic that I’m not going to bother to educate you on public school funding issues. Do your own homework.

    Of course, why would you try to educate me? This is an online competition, not a discussion! It’s all about getting points and trying to embarass. It isn’t as though something that basic probably has at least one website that thoroughly explains it. There probably hasn’t been a study that examines those expenses and tries to explain how much of that difference is due to the ‘problem children’ and how much is due to higher teacher salaries and how much is due to end of fiscal year spending to make sure a budget gets consumed so that the budget doesn’t get cut next year.

    But, once again, all of this seems a bit incongruous to this statement:
    > This one annoys me for any number of reasons, mostly due to the lack of any data to back up the claim

    And I can see the posts about me being in a competition with dhogaza. Right. I admit it. I have been called so many names and treated so rottenly by dhogaza I have let my pride run over my better judgement. And I won’t apologize for it and I won’t change. If I can find any mistake that dhogaza makes anywhere on any of the blogs that he posts on, I will find it and make as much noise as I can. If anyone else would like to just have a discussion, I would be happy to oblige.

  65. #65 oconnellc
    August 15, 2007

    Lee, I’m glad you are able to tell what dhogaza really means. I am stuck just taking him at what he says. I’m not so sure why he seemed to fixate on solar forcings. The graph was a graph of NET forcings, including solar and others. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ Why choose one forcing out of many? Solar is hardly dominant. Why would anyone care what solar is doing under that mess? It is a fraction of well mixed greenhouse gases and appears to be just buried under the jumble of lines that represent all the other appropriate forcings.

  66. #66 oconnellc
    August 15, 2007

    Boris, a couple things:
    > This allows the slight increase you see in TSI to become dominant and create a small warming phase.

    I would argue that TSI was not dominant. I would use that graph of the net forcings as my proof. Why the fixation on solar forcings in the first half of the century? The negative change of aerosols during that same period appears at least as great as solar, so why would solar be any more important than anything else?

    And I didn’t think I misread that graph and this caused me to write an email. First, I don’t think that writing an email to anyone, busy or not, is such a horrible imposition. If she didn’t want the public to send her emails, perhaps she should not have included her email address on a public website. Instead, before Lee read dhogaza’s mind, I thought that when he said that solar forcings were higher, I thought he actually meant that they were higher. And when he asked if they were higher now, why weren’t we measuring that they were higher, I said I would ask the source of data for something that discussed the data. Maybe she (or someone else) actually was measuring it. I was very polite. She replied very quickly (I got a reply this morning). Sorry, but she didn’t point me at anything on the web. Instead she included about 13MB worth of attachments. I would be happy to forward them to anyone who is interested. I don’t have lots of time to read and summarize all 13MB, so I won’t be providing any summary of my own (even though I had hoped to do so) in the near future.

  67. #67 sod
    August 15, 2007

    i think we should move this off-topic school discussion to the open thread
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/open_thread_1.php#commentsArea
    and i will start by crossposting this reply there.

    Well, I guess I can’t argue with that. Without any citation, it is difficult to know what you are considering when you say that it “explains” it. For example, it may be that children with disabilities are routinely sent to public schools as a matter of course. Educating these children certainly takes more money. However, I’m not sure what this has to do with dhogaza’s original statement. My goodness, you can do a google search and find lots of this research. You could spend days and days arguing it and discussing it. Of course, that might get in the way with the original statement of:

    you made the claim, that puplic schools are inefficient. he claimed that you don t have the data to back this up.
    you need to back it up, before you can call him a liar. (even then, it would be a weak claim).

    the problem: you did not provide any data, that shows that a private school system would be more efficient.

    the data you provided, does not control for a peer effect
    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0276-8739(200024)19%3A1%3C75%3APEIPAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S

    nor for selectivity Bias
    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0735-0015%28198501%293%3A1%3C23%3ACPAPST%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

    public school teachers earn more money? could be linked to the violence they have to endure
    Private school teachers were less likely than teachers in other sectors to report being threatened with injury in the past 12 months. Among private school teachers, 3.9 percent reported injury threats, compared with 9.6 percent of traditional public school teachers. Teachers in public charter schools (10.8 percent) and BIA schools (12.6 percent) were most likely to report being threatened with injury.
    http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_4/4_3/2_1.asp
    and salaries were highest in … Alaska!

    at the end, to proof your efficiency claim, you d even have to destroy this idea:
    Local Public Schools Are a Local Public Good
    http://www.investintexasschools.org/legislative/current/files/2004/april/economic_case.pdf

    the ultimate coparison would be, between a country with ONLY private schools and a public school system. good luck.

  68. #68 Boris
    August 15, 2007

    I would argue that TSI was not dominant.

    Well, it certainly wasn’t dominant compared to GHG forcing now. Whatever. The point is, you could get a better idea by reading the referenced papers instead of eyeballing the graphs.

    It’s also important to note that current forcings have yet to reach their full potential, vis-a-vis surface temperature, whereas we can view the early 20th century warming in its entirety.

  69. #69 SG
    August 15, 2007

    Oconnellc, the link you provided points to a document which quotes two figures for school costs. The public school figure links to the census data, and is verifiable. The private school figure links to a website called “goofigure” which has the information buried inside it (using slightly different numbers), and no referential link. Instead it claims that it is using Dept. of Education figures, but no search on the D of E website can turn up any such survey. Furthermore, the main DofE survey of private schools – the “universe of private schools survey” seems as far as I can tell to NOT collect information on tuition fees at private schools.

    Further, the figure quoted by goofigure is ONLY available at various libertarian rant pages. Even some of the think tanks don’t specify it. So I am dubious as to its universality. But regardless, I couldn’t find the information easily anywhere, and I did find support for the (hardly controversial) claim that tuition fees make up LESS THAN HALF of the cost of private school education.

    Do you see how these figures could be construed as disingenuous? Misleading? i.e. the data do not support the claim you made.

  70. #70 dhogaza
    August 16, 2007

    But in any case, disk or not, I don’t see how showing that it was higher at the end of century could justify that statement by dhogaza about the forcings at the beginning of the century:

    Solar forcing was higher …

    Oconnellc is right, my comment was in error.

    Not sure why he’s trumpeting and crowing about the fact since I immediately made a follow-on post with a cut-and-paste of a science site summary of what was going on in the 20th century.

    Why exactly does oconnellc think I posted that correction/clarification?

    Oh, I posted something that’s wrong!

    GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH! IT’S PROVEN!

    As far as the public/private school argument goes – which I agree is OT – I should hope it’s clear that whatever my personal flaws might be, in this particular case I wasn’t lying. I’ve had similar arguments with libertarians in the past, and have really had no luck in finding apples-to-apples comparisons. The ones libertarians tend to offer are about as oranges-to-apples as you can get.

    IMO. Oconnellc’s opinion will differ, I’m sure.

    As to why I didn’t continue in that thread, my girlfriend and I went up to Asturias for a week’s vacation, and we didn’t take our laptops. After coming back, I had a bunch of client work to catch up on.

    Going back so something said by my old friend Lance:

    This is typical of the “just so” climate stories presented as “scientific evidence”. They retro-fit anecdotal evidnece to support their theroies and then pass it off as “peer reviewed” science.

    This is EXACTLY what creationists say about evolutionary biologist. Just replace the one occurance of “climate” with “evolutionary” and the quote could’ve come from Uncommon Descent.

  71. #71 oconnellc
    August 16, 2007

    Lee, I’m confused. You said you were able to tell what dhogaza really meant. But now dhogaza says that what you said he really meant isn’t really what he meant but that the meaning of what he actually said is really what he meant. Not what you were able to understand as what he meant. I think.

    So, did you really mean this:
    > I immediately understood what Dhogaza was saying – thus my post pointing out that the graph is consistent with what I immediately understood him to be saying.

  72. #72 oconnellc
    August 16, 2007

    Boris:
    > Well, it certainly wasn’t dominant compared to GHG forcing now. Whatever.

    It also wasn’t dominant compared to GHG forcing then. Or any other forcings then. Why the fixation on solar forcings in the early 20th century.

    And I’m also curious what mistake you are saying I made with respect to that graph? Please elaborate.

  73. #73 Boris
    August 17, 2007

    You implied the forcings were all out of whack, but you ignored (or downplayed) increased volcanism in the late 20th century. You are drawing way too many conclusions from simply looking at the graph. Read the refs and see if your doubts hold up.

  74. #74 dhogaza
    August 17, 2007

    Why the fixation on solar forcings in the early 20th century.

    Still on this, after I posted that my statement was erroneous and pointed out that I corrected myself immediately, in the very next post, before you or anyone else pointed out my error?

  75. #75 henry
    August 19, 2007

    Just out of curiosity, any ideas about how many scientific papers, news stories, books, etc. have been written basing their facts on the incorrect GISS temps?

    Wouldn’t you expect that those papers should be reviewed to see if their assumptions are still correct?

    This has nothing to do with the “warmest ever”, but with the accuracy of the data used.

    True, it’s ony one dataset, but so many people are basing their theories on this. If the folks at NASA can make this mistake, why not other, reputable scientists?

  76. #76 Chris O'Neill
    August 19, 2007

    “Just out of curiosity, any ideas about how many scientific papers, news stories, books, etc. have been written basing their facts on the incorrect GISS temps?”

    Scientific papers, probably none. News stories, could be a few mis-quotations. Books, maybe also a few misquotations.

    “Wouldn’t you expect that those papers should be reviewed to see if their assumptions are still correct?”

    Yes, if there are any.

    “True, it’s ony one dataset, but so many people are basing their theories on this.”

    As in, who?

    “If the folks at NASA can make this mistake, why not other, reputable scientists?”

    That’s why acceptance of GLOBAL warming is not just based on one dataset. Reliability engineering at work.

  77. #77 dhogaza
    August 19, 2007

    “If the folks at NASA can make this mistake, why not other, reputable scientists?”

    Well, if I were you, I’d really, really worry about those photographers shooting snaps of the record low icecap in the Artic. It could be just a mistake, like maybe they’re actually shooting Miami Beach or sumthin’. After all, NASA builds the satellites.

    “Wouldn’t you expect that those papers should be reviewed to see if their assumptions are still correct?”

    The corrections don’t modify trend data in a statistically significant way, so which of their assumptions would be wrong?

    A reminder again … the “G” in “AGW” doesn’t stand for “the United States”. The minor changes to the US record leads to microscopic changes in the global record.

  78. #78 JB
    August 20, 2007

    Lance asked: “Can I prove that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas? No. Can I prove that GCM’s are completely wrong? No. Can I prove that the past centuries 0.6-0.8C increase in temps are NOT 1) a valid data set and/or 2) anomalous? No.”

    In principle, at least, if CO2 were not a greenhouse gas, one could prove it…but all the experiments to date have indicated otherwise. CO2 absorbs and re-radiates in the IR while being transparent in the visible. That’s very basic physics that has been confirmed time and again.

    Likewise, in principle, if the 0.7 C warming over the past century were not valid and/or not anomalous (in magnitude or rate), one could prove these as well.

    All one would need to do would be to find a 50C error in the temperature measurements/adjustments for the US — ie, one that is is 333 times as large as the one that was recently discovered. (The discovered error of 0.15C contributes only about 0.003C to the mean global anomaly because the lower 48 states of the US impacted by the error is only about 2% of the global surface). Alternatively, one could also find a larger error that affects most of the surface of the earth, of course, but either way, it is possible in principle to reduce the warming trend — and possibly make it disappear altogether.

    Finally, this was not one that was listed above, but it really goes to the crux of the matter. In principle, one could also prove that something else (other than greenhouse gas buildup) was responsible for all or most of the earth’s warming over the period in question (particularly over the past 3 decades). But every other possibility that has been suggested to date (increased solar output, cosmic rays, iris effect, alien rays, etc has been found lacking. (just kidding about the latter, of course)

    For example, if one could demonstrate (through experiment) that the solar output had increased by about 0.25% per decade over the past few decades, one could show that this is sufficient to account for the warming over the same period.

    But < href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/there-goes-the-sun/">experiments have not born such an increase out — at least not of that magnitude. Many scientists claim that there has been little or no recent increase in solar output, but even the few scientists (like Richard Willson) who interpret the satellite data to mean that solar output has gone up over the last few solar cycles say that the increase (0.05% per decade) can account for only about a quarter of the warming over the same period.

    The fact that these things (that “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”, etc) have not been proven is not because they can’t be proven through experiment — and not for lack of trying. Scientists have done lots of experiments to do just that.

    So, at this point, a statement like “I can’t prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas” only makes logical sense if the amphasis i palced on the “I” — ie, only if it is interpreted as ” I lack the knowledge and/or expertise to prove myself that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.”

  79. #79 Vernon
    August 21, 2007

    Well, the title is a nice overstatement but what this does show is that all the statements about the process fixing individual station errors was, err an error. This leads back to the surfacestations.org census that shows that one of Hansen’s assumptions in his 2001 work could be wrong. It seems that the pro CO2 AGW crowd does not want to find out what the impact of surface stations not meeting guidelines is or that Hansen’s lights = 0 methodology is in doubt. Now why does that matter? Well, according to 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.

    This means that Hansen’s urban heat island off-set could be wrong and if it is wrong, the possibility that accelerating warming trend is nothing more than an artifact of UHI.

    All because there is now proof that the data received from NOAA is not self correcting using the GISS process (code).

  80. #80 JB
    August 21, 2007

    “This means that Hansen’s urban heat island off-set could be wrong and if it is wrong, the possibility that accelerating warming trend is nothing more than an artifact of UHI.”

    UFO’s might also invade the planet tomorrow and beam us all up to their spacecraft, but it ain’t very likely.

    Science concerns itself with that which is probable, not that which is possible.

    Even if ALL of the surface station data for the US were tossed out, the warming trend would remain in the surface station record for the remainder of the world. And the surface station record is just one piece of evidence showing a warming trend.

    There are lots of others for anyone who cares to look: Ocean heat content, satellite data for troposphere (warming) and stratosphere (cooling), change in the height of the tropopause, melting/receding glaciers, rising sea level, melting ice sheets(greenland and antarctica have shown net mass loss is recent years according to gravity surveys and a just released study showed the extent of arctic sea ice coverage is the lowest since records began).

    “But, but, …but, how can we be sure that ALL the data is not in error?”

    How can I be absolutely sure that when I walk across the floor, the electrons in my foot won’t tunnel through the potential barrier created by the atoms in the floor boards?

    I can’t (since quantum mechanics allows for the possibility). But I can be fairly confident that they won’t. Otherwise, I would certainly never leave my seat.

  81. #81 Vernon
    August 21, 2007

    JB,

    I see you have nothing to dispute my argument.

  82. #82 JB
    August 21, 2007

    That’s not an argument, it’s denial of reality.

  83. #83 Dano
    August 21, 2007

    That’s not an argument, it’s denial of reality.

    Opinions differ: I thought it was the “recycle, lather, rinse, repeat” denialist tactic (tactic #2 on Dano’s list, also detailed here).

    I am willing to discuss this difference of opinion in a friendly, forthright manner. Preferably over a beer or three.

    Best,

    D

  84. #84 dhogaza
    August 21, 2007

    It seems that the pro CO2 AGW crowd does not want to find out what the impact of surface stations not meeting guidelines is…

    Pointing out the obvious – that photographs of stations tell us nothing of use – is not equivalent to saying one doesn’t want to know the impact of poor data (which might be poor for any number of reasons, not simply due to siting guidelines).

    If no one cared, GISS wouldn’t work so hard to make their analysis robust.

  85. #85 dopey
    August 21, 2007

    That’s right Vernon, your story is either denial of reality as JB thinks or irrationally wishful thinking on the part of one who desperately believes that God has put the bountiful Earth here for Vernonkind to do with as it pleases, no worries and no repercussions so help you God. OK so that’s what JB said, merely reworded.

    Your wishful thinking is wrongheaded. The satellites agree with surface and sea temperature records that the globe has warmed over a period where solar irradiation has if anything slightly decreased.

  86. #86 Dano
    August 21, 2007

    It seems that the pro CO2 AGW crowd does not want to find out what the impact of surface stations not meeting guidelines is…

    Sure we do. Amateurs can start taking temp measurements over space and time any time now.

    Annnnny time.

    Any time now.

    Anyone?

    Amateur denialists?

    Temp measurements?

    Hello?

    Hello?

    Best,

    D

  87. #87 Vernon
    August 21, 2007

    This is funny. I quote where Hansen himself says that his work depends on the accuracy of the surface stations to determine the UHI off-set.

    The chant from the pro crowd when it was shown that the surface station are not sited IAW WMO and NWS/NOAA guidelines is that the data will be corrected. Only the trends matter.

    We know know that significant errors got though the process and where not detected by GISS, well, forever. It took some one else to find the errors. Yet still GISS will not release the algorithms used.

    Hansen says that if the data he got from the surface stations is not correct it will effect his UHI off-set. It is now shown that the data does not get corrected and that Hansen’s lights = 0 does not detect asphalt, concrete, air conditioning, etc.

    No one knows if UHI off-set based on Hansen’s work is valid until it is determined if he used stations that met his stated requirements.

    When I point this out, do the Pro CO2 AGW say we have an issue, lets settle it. No!

    Dano and JB, I am not the one that did a study and used the results to get an instrumented reading that does not match the proxies. Professionals could, if their dogma and ego’s would get out of the way, look at what is being found and then put the effort in to determining if there is a problem.

    If the UHI off-set is wrong, it could explain some or all of the divergence issue.

  88. #88 Dano
    August 21, 2007

    pffffft.

    Best,

    D

  89. #89 dopey
    August 21, 2007

    Come clean Vernon – you don’t even believe in the reality of satellites, moon landings, or Earth being a 5 billion year old oblate spheroid do you?

  90. #90 Vernon
    August 22, 2007

    I see it is pretty consistent here – attack the person not the argument. Please, show me where my logic and argument are wrong if you can.

    Oh and dopey, I do believe in satellites, moon landings, but while the Earth is an oblate spheroid, I believe the current estimates on it’s age is 4.6 billion years, but with the pro CO2 AGW crowd, what is half a billion give or take.

  91. #91 Dano
    August 22, 2007

    but with the pro CO2 AGW crowd, what is half a billion give or take.

    Pro CO2 AGW crowd = 2/3 of the planet.

    I like it when the minority marginalizes itself.

    Best,

    D

  92. #92 Vernon
    August 22, 2007

    Dano, is your entire reason for being here just to make off-hand meaningless comments?

  93. #93 dhogaza
    August 22, 2007

    Please, show me where my logic and argument are wrong if you can.

    As I pointed out long ago in another thread, you’re unteachable.

    People here and at real climate have pointed out your errors many times, and you keep repeating them, like a barking seal.

    So there’s no point in repeating the obvious errors you continue to make.

    Nor is there any point in trying to have a discussion with someone who habitually cites papers that state the opposite of what’s claimed, etc etc.

    so …

    Dano, is your entire reason for being here just to make off-hand meaningless comments?

    Dano’s off-hand comments treat you with the respect you deserve.

  94. #94 Nate
    August 22, 2007

    “And of course, 1998 is still the warmest year on record according to the global record.”

    This is a little vague. Lets be more precise…

    And of course, 1998 is still, based on measurements from heterogeneous instruments that cover less than 1% of the Earth’s atmosphere and are not necessarily representative of the other 99% of our atmosphere, the warmest year on record according to the global record, which happens to go back approximately 130 years.

  95. #95 dhogaza
    August 22, 2007

    And of course, 1998 is still, based on measurements from heterogeneous instruments that cover less than 1% of the Earth’s atmosphere and are not necessarily representative of the other 99% of our atmosphere

    And of course, statistical sampling NEVER works, which is why all of science is bullshit, right?

    Or do you think statistical analysis works great in every case EXCEPT this one?

  96. #96 Dano
    August 22, 2007

    And of course, 1998 is still, based on measurements from heterogeneous instruments that cover less than 1% of the Earth’s atmosphere and are not necessarily representative of the other 99% of our atmosphere, the warmest year on record according to the global record, which happens to go back approximately 130 years.

    Gosh, let’s go over the proposals from the denialist camp to rectify this grave situation, shall we? By, say, installing more stations.

    Let’s.

    OK, someone start.

    Anyone?

    Anyone?

    Hello?

    Best,

    D

  97. #97 Tim Lambert
    August 22, 2007

    I’m waiting for one of these clowns to assert that the instruments are too warm because of “main street bias”.

  98. #98 Dano
    August 22, 2007

    Oooh! Good ‘un Tim.

    Can I use that line?

    Best,

    D

  99. #99 John Cross
    August 22, 2007

    Tim: the main street bias is off-set by the lack of DDT.

  100. #100 Vernon
    August 23, 2007

    RE 197: Tim, well according to you, why bother with siting instruments… just make it up… after all, we already know what the truth is, who needs facts.

    The fact is that no one here has addressed my argument. On RC is was all, station siting does not matter, the process will catch and correct any errors. The fact that GISS had a major error that lasted for years without being caught puts that argument to rest. Hansen based his work on getting accurate data from the surface stations but surfacestations.org is showing that the stations are not sited IAW guidelines and no one knows how it is affecting the accuracy of the readings.

    I guess it is too much to expect logic or fact. I await the next set of ad hom attacks since I am not bowing to your dogma.