The Australian continues to display its contempt for science, scientists and the scientific method. They’ve published this piece of AGW denial by David Evans. Last time I looked at Evans he was saying that new evidence since 1999 had changed his mind about global warming, with this new evidence including the fact that the world had cooled from 1940 to 1975. Apparently this was too silly even for the Australian, so he now offers us four alleged facts.

1 The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics.

This couldn’t be more wrong. Study the graphs below (from RealClimate). The left one shows the pattern predicted for doubling CO2, while the right one shows the pattern for a 2% increase in solar output.

i-919faf5e62a063c3092c741aba484cf2-2xCO2_tropical_enhance.png i-1e10194b59ee658fa632991e8ca28eb3-solar_tropical_enhance.png

Both patterns include a hot spot. The difference between the two graphs is that the CO2 one shows cooling in the stratosphere, while the right one does not, so the “greenhouse signature” is stratospheric cooling. And guess what, that’s what’s been happening. Evans continues:


We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

Actually we have found the greenhouse signature, so Evans should change his mind. I’m not holding my breath.

If the hot spot really is missing it does not prove that CO2 is not causing warming, but it would indicate something wrong with the models. (Which might mean that things are worse than what the models predict.) However, the radiosonde measurements have been found to be wrong in the past, and it looks like they may well be wrong again.

Evans continues:

2 There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

This is pure denial. There is plenty of evidence and denying that it exists does not make it disappear. For instance, Figure 4 of the SPM. The blue bands show temperature changes modelled using only natural forcings, while the red bands include anthropogenic forcings as well. The black line shows observations. Clearly, we must include anthropogenic forcings if we want to match the observations.

i-e92d89e0d5da6d132868b6c7c5de1802-spm4.png

3 The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).

Let’s look at the lower troposphere trends from RSS:

i-d2f39b393e711b8df76d390195c71723-sc_Rss_compare_TS_channel_tlt.png

Figure 7. Global, monthly time series of brightness temperature anomaly for channels TLT, TMT, TTS, and TLS. For Channel TLT (Lower Troposphere) and Channel TMT (Middle Troposphere), the anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow tropospheric warming.

The people who publish the data don’t think that the warming trend ended in 2001, and if you look at the graph, it’s only significantly deviated from the long term warming trend in 2008. Such short-term deviations have happened in the past without affecting the long term trend.

Evans continues:

Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the “urban heat island” effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979.

The land-based temperature readings are corrected for UHI, while the satellite readings have been found to be wrong in the past.

NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

Study the title of the NASA temperature graph:

i-1b943873d017f8f464acd94b6e0e88aa-gisstemp.png

Does it report only land-based data, or does it include ocean temperatures as well?

4 The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

This is wrong. The temperature rises started on average 800 years before CO2 levels rose, but most of the warming occured after CO2 levels started rising. Jeff Severinghaus writes:

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. …

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

That’s it for all of Evans’ evidence. The rest of his article is more pure denial. For instance:

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don’t you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

He has, but he just denies that it is evidence.

Comments

  1. #1 Engineer
    August 5, 2008

    “Yes, the RSS and GISTEMP temperature series match. They match more than RSS and UAH. I’ve already posted the graph that proves this, which I will post again for your benefit.”

    Simple question; why does the graph you provided show the RSS to have a 0.3 positive difference between 1980 and 2008, whereas the chart provided by Lambert in the blog above (taken directly from the RSS website) does not?

  2. #2 sod
    August 5, 2008

    Simple question; why does the graph you provided show the RSS to have a 0.3 positive difference between 1980 and 2008, whereas the chart provided by Lambert in the blog above (taken directly from the RSS website) does not?

    the spring of 2008, according to Engineer, was the most important development of the climate since the last ice age.
    believe him, he is a professional!

  3. #3 Engineer
    August 5, 2008

    “It wasn’t an insult to you, it was an insult to idiots.”

    Well, if I’m to be considered a “discredited idiot” for any mistake, shouldn’t you apply the same standard to many of the AGW scientists, as well? There was Mann and his discredited “hockeystick” temperature trend, Kevin Trenberth/IPCC and their wacky hurricane predictions, Dr. Hansen’s Y2K error, and his failed atmospheric warming predictions (20% faster than the surface).

  4. #4 Engineer
    August 5, 2008

    “the spring of 2008, according to Engineer, was the most important development of the climate since the last ice age. believe him, he is a professional!”

    You have to go back to Autumn 2006, to see a 0.3 difference above 1980. After a temperature drop in 1999, and slight recovery, the trend is essentially “flat” from 2001 to 2007, then drops again.

  5. #5 Dano
    August 5, 2008

    the trend is essentially “flat” from 2001 to 2007, then drops again.

    The 30-year (climate) trend is dropping? When is your paper going to be published in Science or Nature? Can I have your autograph, Mr Galileo?

    Best,

    D

  6. #6 Chris O'Neill
    August 5, 2008

    (I call myself an) Engineer:

    “It wasn’t an insult to you, it was an insult to idiots.”

    Well, if I’m to be considered a “discredited idiot” for any mistake

    Not any mistake, just the ones you’ve demonstrated., e.g. self-admitted cherry picking.

  7. #7 Bernard J.
    August 5, 2008

    I usually keep much more quiet about the physics of climate change than I do about the ecological aspects of it, and I have been quietly and a little bemusedly watching ‘Engineer’ and his postings whilst those better suited to the task reply to him, but…

    You have to go back to Autumn 2006, to see a 0.3 difference above 1980. After a temperature drop in 1999, and slight recovery, the trend is essentially “flat” from 2001 to 2007, then drops again.

    You might be a great engineer (I know some great engineer jokes, btw), but really, have you ever completed a Stats 101 course?

    I would, and I do, expect better even of my undergraduate students in their analyses of time series. It might serve for a high-school science report, but in the real world we expect a little more statistically robust analysis than your comment above.

    And a more statistically robust analysis would come to a different conclusion to the one that you seem so enamoured of.

  8. #8 Engineer
    August 5, 2008

    “That paper does not deal with any sort of convective transport down from the stratosphere.”

    OK, fair enough (though stratospheric intrusions into the troposphere is an area of current study).

    But an honest question; doesn’t tropospheric air rise until the temperature cools to equilibrium with the tropopause/lower stratosphere? If the stratosphere cools, won’t the upper troposphere also cool, in order to reach this equilibrium? Won’t this statistically cooler air get circulated into lower troposphere via convection cycles?

  9. #9 Engineer
    August 5, 2008

    “You might be a great engineer (I know some great engineer jokes, btw), but really, have you ever completed a Stats 101 course?”

    Yes, a long time ago. But regardless, I merely pointed out the obvious trend from 1998 to present for the RSS data, that is somewhat contradixtory to the GISSTemp.

    “And a more statistically robust analysis would come to a different conclusion to the one that you seem so enamoured of.”

    Perhaps along the lines of the Vostok ice-core data? But that particular analysis shows a 10,000 year cooling trend.

  10. #10 Engineer
    August 5, 2008

    “Not any mistake, just the ones you’ve demonstrated., e.g. self-admitted cherry picking.”

    Like I said, just so you apply the standard equally to the mistake-prone AGW scientists, as well.

  11. #11 Engineer
    August 5, 2008

    “I would, and I do, expect better even of my undergraduate students in their analyses of time series.”

    Well, if you at least make them start with data that is governed by a specification (in terms of instrumentation and calibration, data collection, auditing, etc.)…

    …you’re one up on the folks over at GISSTemp.

  12. #12 Lee
    August 5, 2008

    “You have to go back to Autumn 2006, to see a 0.3 difference above 1980. After a temperature drop in 1999, and slight recovery, the trend is essentially “flat” from 2001 to 2007, then drops again.”
    Engineer keeps describing selected details of inter-annual variation, and arguing as if that can predict a change in climte trend.

    I would have thought an aerospace engineer would understand the difference between signal and noise, and have some tools for discussing signal/noise issues with a bit more rigour than engineer exhibits here.

  13. #13 bi -- IJI
    August 5, 2008

    > Nope, a Phd screwed up that one, on the landing trajectory/engine shut down.

    Oh noes! A PhD screwed up! Oh noes!

    So, besides being an “Aerospace Engineer”, our “Engineer” looks down on PhDs. I’m guessing that means that he does not have a PhD, otherwise won’t that make him a self-hating anti-Semite Doctor?

    Since “Engineer” emphatically does not have a PhD — just like GALILEO!!! — I suppose that means his opinion trumps over those of Einstein and Asimov, who do have PhDs.

    Yeah, those filthy ivory-tower elitists don’t ever get their hands dirty mucking around with real stuff! They just sit in front of their terminals all day writing stupid equations! What can they know about anything?

  14. #14 Dano
    August 5, 2008

    I think I’ll activate the [killfile] on our new The Next Galileo.

    Best,

    D

  15. #15 sod
    August 5, 2008

    You have to go back to Autumn 2006, to see a 0.3 difference above 1980. After a temperature drop in 1999, and slight recovery, the trend is essentially “flat” from 2001 to 2007, then drops again.

    this is getting absurd.

    i would love to hear your comments on the wiggles in the early part of a tension test…

    http://tinyurl.com/5tnpgo

    i am sure the real meaning is in those ups and downs after the elastic part…

  16. #16 Engineer
    August 5, 2008

    “I would have thought an aerospace engineer would understand the difference between signal and noise, and have some tools for discussing signal/noise issues with a bit more rigour than engineer exhibits here.”

    Except that the signal behaves the same way across three channels, representing the lower, middle, and upper troposphere…which would indicate the troposphere is reacting just as it should to a cooling stratosphere.

    Calling data that doesn’t support AGW “noise” and tossing it out seems a common tactic by AGW zealots.

  17. #17 Engineer
    August 5, 2008

    “So, besides being an “Aerospace Engineer”, our “Engineer” looks down on PhDs. I’m guessing that means that he does not have a PhD, otherwise won’t that make him a self-hating anti-Semite Doctor?”

    I don’t look down on Phds, just the arrogant foolish ones.

  18. #18 Engineer
    August 5, 2008

    “this is getting absurd.

    i would love to hear your comments on the wiggles in the early part of a tension test…”

    Only after you explain your insistence that corrupt surface temperature data is more reliable than satellite data.

  19. #19 Engineer
    August 5, 2008

    “I think I’ll activate the [killfile] on our new The Next Galileo.”

    Don’t worry, I’ll leave. Dealing with you zealots is like walking into a Baptist church with a smoke in one hand and a beer in the other, and pronouncing yourself an atheist.

  20. #20 Chris O'Neill
    August 5, 2008

    “Engineer”:

    Dealing with you zealots

    What a hypocrite.

  21. #21 cce
    August 5, 2008

    Engineer asks:

    “Simple question; why does the graph you provided show the RSS to have a 0.3 positive difference between 1980 and 2008, whereas the chart provided by Lambert in the blog above (taken directly from the RSS website) does not?”

    Because the graph from RSS is a monthly time series, and the graph I provided is a yearly time series. RSS, HadCRUT and GISTEMP all show similar rates of warming, with UAH lagging behind. The recent drop in temperatures that you are so enamored with is due to La Nina. It will likely result in 2008 being the coldest year since 2000, which was also a La Nina year.

  22. #22 Dano
    August 5, 2008

    I remember Mark Bahner, an Environmental Injuneer, having a similar attitude, certitude, and crapitude. In addition to energyitude for promulgation of his wrongitude.

    Dano used to have a Bahner klaxon to warn commenters against being sucked into the engineer certitude attitude.

    Our New Galileo appears to be the Bahner replacement (can’t see details, as I’ve [killfile]d).

    Best,

    D

  23. #23 z
    August 5, 2008

    “I don’t look down on Phds, just the arrogant foolish ones. ”

    yes, apparently other arrogant fools aren’t subject to similar scrutiny.

  24. #24 Chris O'Neill
    August 6, 2008

    “Engineer”:

    “It wasn’t an insult to you, it was an insult to idiots.”

    Well, if I’m to be considered a “discredited idiot” for any mistake

    “Not any mistake, just the ones you’ve demonstrated., e.g. self-admitted cherry picking.”

    Like I said, just so you apply the standard equally to the mistake-prone AGW scientists, as well.

    If there is proof of their mistakes such as by general agreement then it will be. Until then we can apply it to people for whom such proof applies such as yourself.

  25. #25 Chris O'Neill
    August 6, 2008

    “Engineer”:

    If the stratosphere cools, won’t the upper troposphere also cool, in order to reach this equilibrium?

    Just because the stratosphere’s average temperature cools, doesn’t mean the bottom of it must also cool.

  26. #26 Engineer
    August 6, 2008

    “Just because the stratosphere’s average temperature cools, doesn’t mean the bottom of it must also cool.”

    It’s been proven the cold-point tropopause has risen (in altitude), and dropped in temperature:

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AGUFM.A32B0147C

  27. #27 Engineer
    August 6, 2008

    “If there is proof of their mistakes such as by general agreement then it will be. Until then we can apply it to people for whom such proof applies such as yourself.”

    Mann’s hockeystick was discredited by the Wegman Report in 2006. Trenberth’s predictions regarding hurricane frequency and severity were disproven by three-years of little to no hurricane activity. And we’ve still not seen 20% higher atmospheric warming than the surface.

    Those are “facts”, whether you choose to ignore them or not.

  28. #28 Engineer
    August 6, 2008

    “Because the graph from RSS is a monthly time series, and the graph I provided is a yearly time series. RSS, HadCRUT and GISTEMP all show similar rates of warming, with UAH lagging behind.”

    I don’t think your graph is inclusive of 2007. Here is a more up-to-date version, which really shows the drop (FYI- La Nina started in late 2007; well after averages started dropping):

    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/ccm/0408_GTRs.htm

    …nor does it include the “corrected” 1930’s warming trend (making them warmer than the 1990s), which was not only supported by U.S. data, but Arctic, Greenland, and European data:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/u.s._temperature_rankings_rearranged_problems_and_concerns_with_temperature_data_sets.html

  29. #29 Hugh
    August 6, 2008

    Engineer

    Please, please, fix that link (or tiny it). I really want to see a graph that shows 1930s global temperatures higher than those in the ’90s. I really do!!

  30. #30 Chris O'Neill
    August 6, 2008

    It’s been proven the cold-point tropopause has risen (in altitude), and dropped in temperature:

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AGUFM.A32B0147C

    OK, that’s one way the average lapse rate from the surface to mid-stratosphere could increase with AGW. The troposphere gets higher and extends its lapse rate over a larger range of altitude while the stratosphere up to a certain altitude gets shorter and reduces the range of its lapse rate.

  31. #31 Chris O'Neill
    August 6, 2008

    “Engineer”:

    Mann’s hockeystick was discredited by the Wegman Report in 2006.

    The hockeystick wasn’t discredited. It is produced by other methods. The Wegman report pointed out an insignificant bias in the MBH98 method.

  32. #32 cce
    August 6, 2008

    1) The graph includes 2007. ENSO indexes have been dropping since at least December 2006, and bottomed out February 2008. Temperature lags ENSO about 4 months so temperatures should begin to recover.
    2) Global temperatures in the ’30s were not warmer than the ’90s.
    3) The Hockey Stick was vindicated by the National Research Council. Concerns pointed out by M&M, Wegman, and others were not significant. http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=18
    4) Three years of data does not disprove any theory regarding hurricane intensity or anthropogenic global warming in general.
    5) The increase in tropopause height is a fingerprint of warming.

  33. #33 Engineer
    August 6, 2008

    “2) Global temperatures in the ’30s were not warmer than the ’90s.”

    A variety of research suggests otherwise:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm
    http://acsys.npolar.no/meetings/final/abstracts/posters/Session_4/poster_s4_159.pdf

    Even the southern hemisphere demonstrated the same rapid warming trend up until 1940:

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/nhshgl.jpg

  34. #34 Engineer
    August 6, 2008

    “The Hockey Stick was vindicated by the National Research Council. Concerns pointed out by M&M, Wegman, and others were not significant”

    Wegman’s Senate testimony, page 9:

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/StupakResponse.pdf

    An interesting take on Trenberth’s claims:

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm

    “The increase in tropopause height is a fingerprint of warming.”

    But if the net result of this is cooling of the troposphere, there’s a climate feedback the models need to take into account.

  35. #35 Chris O'Neill
    August 6, 2008

    “The increase in tropopause height is a fingerprint of warming.”

    But if the net result of this is cooling of the

    new part of the

    troposphere,

    relative to the stratosphere that it replaces,

    there’s a climate feedback the models need to take into account

    I don’t see why they wouldn’t.

  36. #37 Chris O'Neill
    August 7, 2008

    Mann’s hockeystick was discredited by the Wegman Report in 2006.

    As part of the answers to Stupak, Wegman said:

    Our report does not prove that the hockey stick disappears. Our work
    demonstrates that the methodology is incorrect.

    Wegman does not claim to discredit the hockey stick. His issue is with the methodology in MBH98. The hockeystick is also produced by other methods that are not in dispute.

  37. #38 Basse
    August 7, 2008

    Hugh writes:
    ‘I really want to see a graph that shows 1930s global temperatures higher than those in the ’90s.’

    In his response, Engineer gives the following link: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/nhshgl.jpg

    Gosh!

  38. #39 Hugh
    August 7, 2008

    Humff…

    Well, I was expecting something a little more ‘Moncktonesque’…perhaps with an arbitrary 3x multiplication somewhere?

    I have to say, I’m very disappointed

  39. #40 Dano
    August 7, 2008

    So we have a commenter claiming to be an educated engineer but doesn’t know what they are talking about wrt claims made or the data.

    This is the best the denialists can do. The denialist industry’s puppets have gotten no smarter over the years. The denialist industry is forced to use inferior minions to spread its FUD.

    The denialists have nothing.

    Best,

    D

  40. #41 Engineer
    August 7, 2008

    “Hugh writes: ‘I really want to see a graph that shows 1930s global temperatures higher than those in the ’90s.’

    In his response, Engineer gives the following link:”

    I also gave a link to McIntyre’s corrected GISSTemp.

    The link regarding the southern hemisphere predates Hansen’s Y2K correction.

  41. #42 Engineer
    August 7, 2008

    “So we have a commenter claiming to be an educated engineer but doesn’t know what they are talking about wrt claims made or the data.”

    This is the best the denialists can do. The denialist industry’s puppets have gotten no smarter over the years. The denialist industry is forced to use inferior minions to spread its FUD.

    The denialists have nothing.”

    Right. And this guy must be an idiot or industry stooge, as well:

    http://www.webcommentary.com/rwcohen.htm

  42. #43 Engineer
    August 7, 2008

    “Wegman does not claim to discredit the hockey stick. His issue is with the methodology in MBH98. The hockeystick is also produced by other methods that are not in dispute.”

    Read pages 9 and 10; it says the hockeystick disappears when the data is properly centered, among other things.

  43. #44 Engineer
    August 7, 2008

    Humff…Well, I was expecting something a little more ‘Moncktonesque’…perhaps with an arbitrary 3x multiplication somewhere? I have to say, I’m very disappointed”

    Translation: you ignored McIntyre’s correction of Hansen’s GISSTemp, and the three other links regarding documented warming (exceeding the current warming) of the Arctic, Greenland, and Europe during the 1930s…

  44. #45 Engineer
    August 7, 2008

    “new part of the troposphere”

    Doesn’t that new, cooler part get circulated into the rest of the troposhere?

  45. #46 bi -- IJI
    August 7, 2008

    > I know I said that I was done with this blog,

    When “Engineer” says something, a safe bet is to assume that it’s false.

  46. #47 Basse
    August 7, 2008

    Engineer: “I also gave a link to McIntyre’s corrected GISSTemp.”

    In the graph labelled “GISS Glb Land Surface”, which is the only global temperature graph on that page, the present appears to be about 0.6 deg C warmer than the 1930’s.

  47. #48 Lee
    August 7, 2008

    Engineer says:
    “I also gave a link to McIntyre’s corrected GISSTemp.

    The link regarding the southern hemisphere predates Hansen’s Y2K correction.”
    Tell me – why does this matter, engineer? Are you under the impression that the “Y2K” GISS correction somehow matters to the southern hemisphere?

    Even in the US< where the correction does apply,it moves ONE YEAR form the 1930s from a statistical tie into a statistical tie with ONE YEAR from the recent decade. That one year waas truly exceptional in the 1930s – the one year in the recent decade is barely a record. The recent years are overall much warmer than the 19430s, even in the US alone – and globally, even that one year from the 1930s isn’t close.

    None of this is mysterious – anyone who looks at and takes the time to understand the analyses would know it.

    —-
    “Read pages 9 and 10; it says the hockeystick disappears when the data is properly centered, among other things.”

    BBBBZZZZTTTTT!!!! Wrong!!
    With uncentered PCA, as Mann did it, the “hockey stick” appears in PC1, with all lower order PCs of low enough weight to exclude from the analysis.
    With centered PCA, the hockey stick shows up as PC4, one of 4 PCs that have enough weight to include in the analysis – lower order PCs are clearly lower weight adn can be excluded from the analysis. It has been shown that if one includes the first 4 PCs – the significant ones in a centered PVA – the overall Mann et al analysis is barely changed.

    The hockey stick does not disappear in centered PCA – it simply moves from 1st to 4th, and the relative weighting of the PCs changes.

    Wegman didn’t discuss this. He said that decentering causes the hockey stick to appears the first PC, and that with centered analysis this no longer happens. He didn’t discuss the other PCs, and he didn’t discuss rules for selecting PCs to include in an analysis. This is a stunning omission for a statistician of Wegman’s stature – selection rules for PCs is a major issue in any PCA. There is no way Wegman didn’t know that changing to a centered PCA would require de novo application of selection rules for which PCs to include in the analysis.

    Also, in my version of the Wegman report as provided by the congressional committee, page 9 is the end of the questions for MBH, and page 10 is the intro to paleoclimate reconstructions. I cant find anywhere on those pages – or anywhere else – where he says the ‘hockey stick disappears.’ He does say that decentering will pull it preferentially to the first PC, and that with a centered PCA it is not the first PC. That does not mean it disappears. Engineer, do you have an actual quote and cite for your claim?

  48. #49 Chris O'Neill
    August 7, 2008

    Engineer:

    “Wegman does not claim to discredit the hockey stick. His issue is with the methodology in MBH98. The hockeystick is also produced by other methods that are not in dispute.”

    Read pages 9 and 10; it says the hockeystick disappears when the data is properly centered, among other things.

    Page 10:

    Our report does not prove that the hockey stick disappears.

    Don’t you ever get tired of bullshitting? The hockeystick does not disappear when a correct methodology is used.

  49. #50 Chris O'Neill
    August 7, 2008

    “new part of the troposphere”

    Doesn’t that new, cooler part get circulated into the rest of the troposhere

    That doesn’t mean it cools the rest of the troposphere. The air cools down as it goes up and warms up as it goes down according to the adiabatic lapse rates.

  50. #51 Dano
    August 7, 2008

    Don’t you ever get tired of bullshitting?

    These types can’t tire of it – if they do, their self-identity is invalidated. This is simply how it is.

    Best,

    D

  51. #52 sod
    August 7, 2008

    Read pages 9 and 10; it says the hockeystick disappears when the data is properly centered, among other things.

    no, it does NOT.

    http://tinyurl.com/5vl3uo

    i think for over a week ow, i have been telling you to READ the things that you talk about. could you please finally start doing that?!?

  52. #53 cce
    August 7, 2008

    Current US temperatures are comparable (or slightly higher)now than the ’30s/’40s.

    http://cce.890m.com/temp-records/images/lower48-corrected.jpg

    The arctic is warmer now than in the ’30s/’40s.

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/arctic.jpg

    Greenland is roughly the same temperatures as in the ’30s/’40s.

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/greenlan.jpg

    Europe is warmer now than in the ’30s.

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/18europ.jpg

    In other words, none of these examples show the ’30s (or ’40s) warmer than now, and none of these examples represent the globe, which is significantly warmer now than the in the ’30s.

  53. #54 Dano
    August 7, 2008

    In other words, none of these examples show the ’30s (or ’40s) warmer than now, and none of these examples represent the globe, which is significantly warmer now than the in the ’30s.

    You’re crushing the poor rube’s self-identity with inconvenient facts. How dare you? How dare you, sir?

    Fortunately, Teflon Denialists have no use for facts.

    Best,

    D

  54. #55 charles
    August 10, 2008

    I just can’t understand it, the ice is going to melt anyway, it going to become pretty obvious the place is heating up.

    Perhaps arguing who is to blame has more legs, understanding requires a little science, the average wingnut isn’t into science.

    I would have thought “china should go first has more legs”.

    Why are they going for the argument that fights with reality, is it because they aren’t bright enough to see reality trumps words written any day or do they just start with one argument and just go down the list when that one is lost.

  55. #56 Gaz
    August 10, 2008

    Re Chris #115

    Chris said: “Now, why do you think they added that
    last paragraph in parenthesis if the monthly data is
    not seasonally adjusted?”

    Are you kidding? They are warning you NOT to add the monthly data, which are affected by seasonality, to the 30-year average, which is not.

    If you do, you end up with a measure of temperature which is affected by seasonality and therefore potentially misleading.

    That’s why they say it’s only OK to add the global annual means, Jan to Dec and Dec to Nov, because annual means aren’t afected by seasonality.

  56. #57 Bernard J.
    August 10, 2008

    Gaz at #256…

    Um, I think you meant ‘RH’ rather than ‘Chris’ when you were referring to post #115. RH was having a spray at Chris, and it was RH who referred to seasonal adjustment.

    I don’t think the Chris with which we are familiar would mix up the use of monthly and annual data!

  57. #58 Gaz
    August 10, 2008

    Re #257

    “Um, I think you meant ‘RH’ rather than ‘Chris’ when you were referring to post #115. RH was having a spray at Chris, and it was RH who referred to seasonal adjustment.”

    Woops. My apologies to Chris! And to RH for my rather cavalier tone. Thanks to Bernard J for picking that up.

    My point stands, though.

    I could add also that the technique suggested by RH for producing seasonally adjusted data needs to be teased out a bit.

    RH says “I assume that the adjustment is made by considering the difference between the absolute value for the month versus the the value for that same month in the base period”.

    Comparing the value for the current month with the value for the same month in base period would give you a rough-and-ready seasonally adjusted estimate of the CHANGE in temperature since the base period but not the LEVEL of the temperature in the current period.

    That’s because that month in both the base period and the current period will be affected by the same seasonal variation.

    So, to take an economic example, let’s say retail sales in December were 10% higher than retail sales last December.

    Because sales are always strong in December (Christmas shopping), that gives us a rough estimate of a seasonally adjusted rise in retail sales from last December to this December.

    However it does not give us a seasonally adjusted estimate of the level of retail sales in December, because retail sales are always, say, 30 per cent higher in December than in an average month.

    To seasonally adjust, you have to do some number-crunching to disentangle the regular seasonal variation from the trend and random noise.

    So if we were to look at temperature anomalies in a six-month period, the appropriate comparision would be with the average for the same six month period over the base period.

    Then again, it would still be misleading if conclusions were to be drawn from that without taking note of known irregular events like ENSO.

    You’d also be implicitly assuming that the temperature change for that half year would be matched by the change in the other half year. Given the hemispheric assymetry in predicted global warming I am not sure whether that assumption would be valid.

  58. #59 Jason
    August 17, 2008

    I can see why scientists do not bother posting in these sorts of threads.

    Two people have had the guts to put their money where their mouth is. The rest don’t have the same guts. If so many of you are convinced either way then put up or shut up.

    I’m no scientist but like to check up on all the latest scientic ideas.

    One of the latest ideas which will be prived either way come 2010 with a test in I think its the new Switerland accelarator which will do a test to see if sun spots are effecting the weather.

    Last week it was on channel 10’s hd channel 1 on one of those science programs they have on from around 4:pm to about 5:pm

    The show maybe available for download on tens web site but not sure. Its a fairly recently made video and well worth a look.

    I started out as a sceptic then bacame green motivated but the more reading I do the more I’m leaning back the other way so now I’m more sceptic on the so called green house effect.

    I think once people see this video they’ll be like me and have a re think.

    2010 is the test in the accelerator. It will prive it either way on the cause of climate from sun spots. They have data collected from rocks and isotopes going back hundreds of thousands of years along with recorded sun spots from radiation it created going back the same length of time. Prove it in the lab where uv radiation from sun spots effect the creating of extra cloud cover and then you have your answer on climate change.

    The science for global warming was quite large a few years back but that does appear to be changing now. More and more scientists are asking some questions and a brave number are re thinking and even having the guts to sat they maybe wrong.

    So far as I see it global warming is just another theory with no evidence. Much like the theory of the universe. The big bang theory is now questioned as there has to be a singularity which starts the reaction off.

    Come 2010 we should know the answer in that accelerator.

  59. #60 bi -- IJI
    August 17, 2008

    > the more reading I do the more I’m leaning back the other way so now I’m more sceptic on the so called green house effect.

    I have studied the topic fully,
    I have studied the topic fully,
    I have studied the topic fully,
    Early in the morning.

    Hey ho, and up she rises,
    Hey ho, and up she rises,
    Hey ho, and up she rises,
    Early in the morning.

  60. #61 Bernard J.
    August 17, 2008

    Re: Jason at #259.

    It is admirable that you seek to further your scientific understanding, and that you gather together and synthesise the results of different types of study.

    Similarly, the non-scientists on Marohasy’s blog, who like to check up on all the latest scientific ideas, have built an edifice of evidence that HIV does not cause AIDS.

    Oh, and there are rumours that the Discovery Institute has recently found a fossil of the remains of a Neanderthal with a brace of conies in the belly of T. rex, which brings into serious doubt the so-called ‘theory’ of evolution.

    If and when these suppressed ideas are confirmed to be true, they have the capacity to proundly alter their respective fields of science. AFoaF tells me that the Swiss accelerator will be used also in analyses to prove these results, so 2010 should be a very interesting year…

    Of course, I would absolutely advise any third party reading this to confirm or refute for themselves the veracity of such claims before taking any medical or spiritual action.

    And if pain persists, see you doctor (or cleric).

  61. #62 Bernard J.
    August 17, 2008

    Oh, and for anyone who might find themselves in the slightest doubt, my comment at #261 is firmly-tongue-in-cheek.

  62. #63 Chris O'Neill
    August 17, 2008

    there are rumours that the Discovery Institute has recently found a fossil of the remains of a Neanderthal with a brace of conies in the belly of T. rex

    and don’t forget those Neanderthals were counting sunspots. That’s how we have sunspot records going back hundreds of thousands of years.

  63. #64 Non-Scientist
    August 18, 2008

    Wow!

    All of this since July 19th!

    I do not intend to challenge anyone on this blog. To do so would get me (us) nowhere.

    My simple statements are these:

    The scientific community has united, and includes vast numbers of scientists who were strongly opposed to those who recognized global warming as having devastating effects on all life on Earth, on all economies of the world, on all population centers and coasts of the world, and on the very ecosystem we ALL depend on.

    The time for debate is long past. As potent as fossil fuels are (and they rightfully will never be completely out of the picture), the time for shifting from a fossil fuel-based economy (as we did from what you might call a “hay and coal” based economy) HAS come.

    David Evans was selected by Lavoisier intentionally because he had been active (on some level) with the scientific community in the scientific explorations of global warming in Australia. Illegitimate “Authority by Association” you might call it.

    Regardless of the causes of and answers for global warming, it is appropriate for all of us to refocus our attention and create a world where we actually sustain ourselves in a manner that is respectful of the planet we live on, the people and animals we share it with, and the ecosystem that we know (on multiple levels) we can destroy.

    Let’s divert our personal energies BACK to what matters (helping develop the coming green economies, reducing our eco-footprints, and living healthier lives), AWAY from the guys/gals who want to continue “hitching their team” to oil and burying their heads in the oil sands when they get home.

    Tom Neff, KC, MO, USA

  64. #66 Paleo
    August 24, 2008

    Has anyone looked at the palaeoclimatology data?

    The present is the only time in the last 250 million years that both the temperature of the earth and atmospheric CO2 levels have been this LOW.

    If the historical data says anything it tells us that if there’s one thing for certain about the Earth’s climate it’s that it WILL change.

  65. #67 bi -- IJI
    August 24, 2008

    > Has anyone looked at the palaeoclimatology data?

    After throwing out the inconvenient parts, you mean?

  66. #68 Dano
    August 25, 2008

    The present is the only time in the last 250 million years that both the temperature of the earth and atmospheric CO2 levels have been this LOW.

    Huh, lookit Paleo. You go, booooooyyyy!

    Here it is in Public Policy 101, pp 16-17, Paleo’s passing on the wisdom of the ages:

    “The best public policy is made using conditions from as far back in time as possible, preferably before the Permian Extinction and when the continents were fused together as one, and conditions on earth were nothing as they are today”.

    Another Galileo graces us on this site!

    Best,

    D

  67. #69 peter mason
    August 27, 2008

    What a mish mash of a “science”. Causation of climate phenomena is a nonlinear combination of thousands of variables yet somehow the GW and antiGW circus think their models have anything to so with anything. There are a million models that may match some time slice of real climate data without any evidence that it represents the causal processes. The most dangerous thing we have ever done has been to place credence in the crystal balls of statisticians with an eye on the weather. Now it’s a self sustaining industry that meshes with certain political and social objectives. But any modeller can turn an umbrella into an elephant’s ear. And even worse,the raw data is contaminated, shifting, incompatible and brief. It pays mortgages but it’s as vacuous as being a postman.

  68. #70 Ian Gould
    August 27, 2008

    See Ben, this is how you end up when you spend too much time reading blogs specifically intedned “to make white people mad”.

  69. #71 peter mason
    August 27, 2008

    I don’t know if the anger comment was directed at me. No matter. What WOULD matter would be if you devoted your time to real science like protein folding or dare i say biostats. You might even help cure somebody of something. Make no mistake, populations are tolerating GW now as a motherhood issue but once it affects their income/quality of life (read carbon trading schemes a la Australia’s plan) then they will demand better evidence than the schoolyard that passes for debate here. And when they hear the level of “he said, she said”, i.e. that data’s wrong, no we corrected it, oh no you didn’t and the instruments changed and whatever else, they will identify climate “science” for what it is- sandcastles for bright people who could be doing real things. Let’s face it, by the time any GW signature emerges from the noise- if it exists at all- we’re already stuffed. And that signature will beyond the masturbation mechanisms of bad statisticians. It will be beyond any doubt. Go get a life.
    depp=true
    notiz=[please do not feed the troll]

  70. #72 peter mason
    August 27, 2008

    Well, that’s as childish as your “science”. Straight from the playground. I’m no troll. Real science is defensible. Don’t worry, this gravy train will end when people are asked to pay real taxes toward it and they see your kind of behaviour as not worthy of the term science or their money. good luck!

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