John McLean hides the declines

John Mclean has a reply to Lewandowsky at the Drum where he proves once and for all that he has no clue, with comments like:

If the SOI accounts for short-term variation then logically it also accounts for long-term variation.

and

We show a relationship going back to the 1950s. Isn’t that long enough for your “long-term” ?

Despite being challenged to post the reviewers comments on his Reply declining publication, Mclean hides the declines. Where’s the transparency?

Below I plot UAH temperature data and the differenced UAH data to show that taking differences removes any long-term trend. Apparently this is too complicated for Mclean.

i-e7afe0103ee8f841e0ae714fed2bb0e6-uahdiff.png

See also James Annan.

Previous post is here.

Comments

  1. #1 Dave Burton
    August 22, 2010

    2nd try… it appears that Mr. Lambert has banned me for heresy, but perhaps it was merely an oversight that he blocked or removed the following message:

    —————————————————————
    Typo correction…

    … according to James Hansen’s NASA data, the six warmest years on record in the USA were: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931 & 1999. The order of those six years depends on which of NASA’s datasets you believe; that’s the order from the Sept. 1997 Sept. 2007 version, with 1934 the warmest year on record. …

    [The link to NASA's Sept. 20007 version temperature data](http://web.archive.org/web/20070914231348/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt) is correct, and does show the warmest year on record as being 1934, but, as Chris noticed, I misidentified it as 1997.

    Thanks for the proofreading, Chris.

    (BTW, the reason I chose to cite the “six warmest” years rather than the 5 warmest or 10 warmest is that the same six years are listed as warmest in [all the versions of NASA's data](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt) that I could find, though the order changes from one version to another.)

    [Dave Burton](http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/global_msl_trend_analysis.html)
    Cary, NC USA
    ([email](http://www.burtonsys.com/email/))

  2. #2 Lee
    August 22, 2010

    @DaveBurton:

    You are aware that the US constitutes only about 2% of the worlds surface area?

    And that temperature variability over smaller areas is much larger than over larger areas, so noise is ‘louder?’

    And that even in just the US, if you look at decades rather than individual years (which are subject more to extremes from ‘weather noise,’ that the most recent decades are by far the warmest?

    You do know that, don’t you?

    If so – why are you cherry-picking one region (the US), and one measurement time scale (annual temperatures), that maximize the appearance of noise – and then pointing at a handful of years with extreme values -noise- to dispute the trend?

  3. #3 MFS
    August 22, 2010

    [Dave](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/john_mclean_hides_the_declines.php#comment-2743119),

    [For the second time](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/john_mclean_hides_the_declines.php#comment-2743749), give us references to your cooler southern hemisphere claim or you just made it up.

  4. #4 Dave Burton
    August 23, 2010

    Ah, it seems that perhaps I’ve been unbanned! Thank you, Tim.

    So, I’ll try to answer to some questions that have been raised…

     


    **Bernard J.** wrote:

    Of course, if you’re so sure that Heartland’s TV weathermen have more understanding of the physics of the climate than do the world’s actual, real, professional, trained climatologists…

    Perhaps I was unclear, Bernard. Those were not surveys of “TV weathermen” which found that most were skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, and they are not Heartland’s. Heartland merely reported the news.

    They are surveys of professional broadcast meteorologists, from [the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society](http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/26794/Meteorologists_Reject_UNs_Global_Warming_Claims.html), and from [George Mason University](http://www.heartland.org/full/27383/Majority_of_Broadcast_Meteorologists_Skeptical_of_Global_Warming_Crisis.html).

    Don’t feel bad. Many people are confused about the difference between TV weathermen (who are journalists) and professional broadcast meteorologists (who are scientists). The former were not surveyed. Only professional meteorologists were surveyed, and few of them believe that the warming seen in the last 1/4 of the 20th century had human activity as its primary cause.

    Ask yourself what they know that you don’t?

     


    **Dave R.** cited [this response](http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro\_realdeal.16aug20074.pdf) from Dr. James Hansen to skeptics’ discovery of an error in NASA’s data which, when corrected, caused 1934 to (for a while) be listed as the warmest year on record in the USA.

    In a related comment, **Lee** wrote:

    You are aware that the US constitutes only about 2% of the worlds surface area?

    Right, and about 6% of the land area.

    And that temperature variability over smaller areas is much larger than over larger areas, so noise is ‘louder?’

    Actually, *temperature* variability is much larger over larger areas, but I think you meant temperature *anomaly* variability is larger over smaller areas, which is true.

    And that even in just the US, if you look at decades rather than individual years (which are subject more to extremes from ‘weather noise,’ that the most recent decades are by far the warmest? You do know that, don’t you? If so – why are you cherry-picking one region (the US), and one measurement time scale (annual temperatures), that maximize the appearance of noise – and then pointing at a handful of years with extreme values -noise- to dispute the trend?

    I’m glad you asked! The answer is that it is far better to compare real data for a region in which it actually exists than to compare it to no data at all.

    Take a look at [that document from Dr. Hansen](http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro\_realdeal.16aug20074.pdf), which Dave R. cited. In particular, look at the last couple of paragraphs on p. 2 and the diagrams on p. 3 of that document.

    There you can see temperature anomaly plots, to a couple of tenths of a degree of supposed accuracy, for very nearly the entire world, including even the oceans, *for 1921 and 1934* — long before there were reliable temperature measurements for most of the world.

    The gist of Hansen’s argument (as stated at the end of p. 2) was that, “the 1998 and 2006 temperature anomaly maps differ fundamentally from the 1934 and 1921 temperature maps. In 1998 and 2006 the world as a whole has become warmer… [but] In 1921 and 1934 the United States happened to be a relatively hot spot compared to the world as a whole…”

    The problem with that claim is that there’s no reliable temperature data to support it. Although there are [problems with the surface station data these days](http://www.surfacestations.org/), at least we *have* some. 75-90 years ago that simply wasn’t the case for much of the world.

    That’s one of the biggest problems in climatology these days: the confusion of real, measured data with “data” that has been adulterated or manufactured entirely by computer models.

     


    **MFS** wrote:

    You say:

    “For those who would point to this year’s hot spring and summer as evidence of global warming, I note that the heat has only been present in the northern hemisphere. South of the equator it has been colder than usual, and in much of South American it has been brutally cold, with hundreds of deaths & considerable loss of livestock resulting.”

    …Where I live (which is in the southern hemisphere) it has been much warmer than usual. My colleagues in Tasmania tell me they’ve had so far the warmest winter on record. Show us references or you just pulled your statements out of your rear orifice.

    Regarding the cold wave which most of the southern hemisphere (especially S. America) has been experiencing (even as we’ve been going through a heat wave up here), I give you a series of reports from Eduardo Ferreyra. (I think he’s Presidente en Fundación Argentina de Ecología CientíficaFAEC, though it is possible that’s a different man with the same name.)

    On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 2:48 PM Eduardo Ferreyra wrote:

    Reports from meteo stations in Antarctica show the occurrence of abnormally low temperatures, especially in Vostok where temperatures as low as -70ºC have been recorded. Freezing polar fronts (MPHs) are coming into Argentina at increased frequency. Also the South Pacific and South Atlantic anticyclones have changed and are allowing more cold air going through the Drake Strait directly to Tierra del Fuego and Patagonia.

    It looks as this will be a repetition of the 2007 terrible winter in our country.

    Eduardo

    On July 22, 2010 Eduardo Ferreyra submitted a response to [Tim Egan's NYT opinion piece](http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/weather-bane/?th&emc=th). The response read, in part:

    … BTW, heat waves are common everywhere, and warmists always use them to promote their scaring views, “it is caused by global warming” and human emissions. But when cold winters or freezing spells come and make people’s lives terrible, they say, “It’s just weather.” Well, I haven’t seen the NYT or the mainstream media reporting on the extremely anomalous “Freezing South Polar Wave” in South America and other parts of the Southern Hemisphere, as Australia or New Zealand, or South Africa.

    The freezing air from Antarctica already has killed more than 200 people in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil, Bolivia, and Peru, has covered with snow parts of Argentina that never have seen snow, …

    On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:13 AM Eduardo Ferreyra wrote:

    Dear all,

    This graph gives and idea of the persistence of the polar wave we are suffering from 13 below zero consecutive days -and it has no sign of easing.
    ![graphs](http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/images/AltaGracia\_23\_july\_2010.jpg “graphs”)
    http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/images/AltaGracia\_23\_july\_2010.jpg

    Humidity that came from the Atlantic short before the second polar wave on July 10th brought heavy snowfalls in about 70% of Argentina. But after the snowfalls the sky has remained clear. In a subtropical area day temperatures are normally this high during winter, but they were quite below normal. The wind kept blowing from the south bringing more cold air from Antarctica. So that’s reflected in the above temperature graph of the city close to my home.

    The cold wave killed many thousands of cattle in Paraguay and Brazil, where cattle are not used to freezing temperature. In Peru and Bolivia about 200 people died in the high mountains, and the polar front kept going crossing the equator cooling cities in the northern hemisphere. A very rare (if not unprecedented) event in decades.

    Eduardo

    On Tue, August 3, 2010 7:37:01 PM Eduardo Ferreyra wrote:

    Dear all,

    The new cold polar wave has arrived yesterday to Argentina. In our sierras in Córdoba has been snowing without stopping for the last 26 hours. People say that “now it is snowing “sugar”. It means it is a very dry and cold snow, they have never seen before. Excellent for deep powder skiing! All roads going to the mountains have been closed, and our Justice is closing down during three days the building where it functions due to freezing temperatures that the heating system cannot cope with!

    I am waiting for a new snowfall at my home before dawn. (Not hoping for one!). If it happens I will send some pics.

    Livestock losses in Patagonia has been heavy. More than 6000 sheep in Chubut (about 75% of production lost)

    However, this is going to be the hottest year in record!
    ![ROTFL](http://www.burtonsys.com/riendo.gif) **:-D**

    Eduardo

    On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:12 AM Eduardo Ferreyra wrote:

    Bolivia is as bad as we are in Argentina. According to a Bolivian website:

    http://www.boliviabella.com/1-million-fish-dead-in-bolivian-ecological-disaster.html

    Over 6 million fish and thousands of alligators, turtles, dolphins and other river wildlife are floating dead in numerous Bolivian rivers in the three eastern/southern departments of Santa Cruz, Beni and Tarija. The extreme cold front that hit Bolivia in mid-July caused water temperatures to dip below the minimum temperatures river life can tolerate. As a consequence, rivers, lakes, lagoons and fisheries are brimming with decomposing fish and other creatures.

    Unprecedented: Nothing like this has ever been seen in this magnitude in Bolivia. Inhabitants of riverside communities report the smell is nauseating and can be detected as far as a kilometer away from river banks. River communities, whose livelihoods depend on fishing, fear they’ll run out of food and will have nothing to sell. Authorities are concerned there will be a shortage of fish in markets and are more concerned by possible threats to public health, especially in communities that also use river water for bathing and drinking, but also fear contaminated or decaying fish may end up in market stalls. They’ve begun a campaign to ensure market vendors and the public know how to tell the difference between fresh and unhealthy fish.

    In university fish ponds and commercial fisheries the losses are also catastrophic.

    See my report (in Spanish, but with 4 videos embedded where you can see the catastrophic event:

    http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/calen12/ola\_polar\_bolivia.html

    In our southern province of Chubut they still are with the greatest snowfall since many decades, and expect to lose about 60-70% of their sheep. Temperatures are still in the -15ºC range. The army has to go to their rescue with supplies, fodder, and fuel.

    http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota\_id=1292623

    Eduardo

     

    [Dave Burton](http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/global_msl_trend_analysis.html)
    Cary, NC USA
    ([email](http://www.burtonsys.com/email/))

  5. #5 Dave Burton
    August 23, 2010

    MFS wrote:

    For the second time, give us references to your cooler southern hemisphere claim or you just made it up.

    MFS, please be patient. I’ve already sent a reply to several of the questions here, including yours, but Tim has apparently flagged my ID for “moderation,” and he’s not yet “approved” my reply, which is why you haven’t seen it yet.

    You may also contact me directly, at [my email address](http://www.burtonsys.com/email/). I don’t have your address, so I can’t contact you directly, unless you first contact me.

    [Dave Burton](http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/global_msl_trend_analysis.html)
    Cary, NC USA
    ([email](http://www.burtonsys.com/email/))

  6. #6 Tim Lambert
    August 23, 2010

    >MFS, please be patient. I’ve already sent a reply to several of the questions here, including yours, but Tim has apparently flagged my ID for “moderation,” and he’s not yet “approved” my reply, which is why you haven’t seen it yet.

    This is untrue. Some of Burton’s posts went into moderation because he included many links. They had been long since approved when he wrote the above.

  7. #7 Dave Burton
    August 23, 2010

    Tim wrote:

    This is untrue. Some of Burton’s posts went into moderation because he included many links. They had been long since approved when he wrote the above.

    Tim, thank you for clarifying why my posts aren’t appearing here (because I included too many links, not because of my heresies).

    However, as you can see, my response to MSW, Lee, Bernard & Dave R. still has not showed up here. Perhaps you tried to approve it but something went wrong?

    Will you please double-check the moderation queue? There should be two copies of my response to MSW *et al* awaiting your approval (both copies posted before you posted your #104). Please just approve one and delete the other.

    Also, while we’re at it, I have a question. I tried to embed an image, but it didn’t work. This is the syntax I used:
    \!\[graphs\]\(http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/images/AltaGracia\\\_23\\\_july\\\_2010.jpg “graphs”\)

    What is wrong with that? How should I have done it?
    (I also tried a plain HTML <img src=”http://etc.” /> but that didn’t work, either.)

    Thank you!

    [Dave Burton](http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/global_msl_trend_analysis.html)
    Cary, NC USA
    ([email](http://www.burtonsys.com/email/))

  8. #8 Dave Burton
    August 23, 2010

    *(Trying again without my email & web page links, to try to avoid moderation)*

    Tim wrote:

    This is untrue. Some of Burton’s posts went into moderation because he included many links. They had been long since approved when he wrote the above.

    Tim, thank you for clarifying why my posts aren’t appearing here (because I included too many links, not because of my heresies).

    However, as you can see, my response to MSW, Lee, Bernard & Dave R. still has not showed up here. Perhaps you tried to approve it but something went wrong?

    Will you please double-check the moderation queue? There should be two copies of my response to MSW *et al* awaiting your approval (both copies posted before you posted your #104). Please just approve one and delete the other.

    Also, while we’re at it, I have a question. I tried to embed an image, but it didn’t work. This is the syntax I used:
    \!\[graphs\]\(http…etc.jpg “graphs”\)

    What is wrong with that? How should I have done it?
    I also tried a plain HTML <img src=”http…etc.jpg” /> but that didn’t work, either.

    Thank you!

    Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    (For my email address, see www(dot)burtonsys(dot)com/email)

  9. #9 Wow
    August 23, 2010

    DB, you still never answered where you got your data showing the Southern Hemisphere is cold this year.

    Nor the query about why a cherry pick of the US and one year average.

  10. #10 MFS
    August 23, 2010

    Thanks Tim,

    Still waiting, Dave. A concise email with one link to your source of southern hemisphere temperatures should not be that hard to get through moderation…

    While you’re at it, you could also tell us why you think the outlier results (i.e. the hottest years) are an important measure of the plausibility or otherwise of GW; what dataset are you using to obtain your global average temperatures (so far you’ve only supplied US); and what they have to tell us that we can’t see by looking at the trend.

  11. #11 Tim Lambert
    August 23, 2010

    Dave, I found your [other post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/john_mclean_hides_the_declines.php#comment-2746743) — there were so many links it got classed as spam.

    You can’t include images in a comment.

  12. #12 Lotharsson
    August 23, 2010

    > Ask yourself what they know that you don’t?

    Ask yourself what climate scientists know that broadcast meteorologists don’t.

    Hint: try checking out the different educational requirements for the two vocations…

  13. #13 Dave Burton
    August 23, 2010

    Thank you, Tim!

  14. #14 MFS
    August 23, 2010

    Dave,

    Interesting. You’re only providing links to opinion pieces and anecdotal references, most of which pertain exclusively to Argentina and Bolivia. Bolivia bella is a commercial tourism information site.

    As to Mitos y Fraudes… Por favor… me muero de risa… it is, interestingly enough, a conspiracy theory site, advancing, for example, that the Club Bilderberger meeting in Spain in 2010 is an attempt to install a world government, or accusing modern green movements of mediatic terrorism and 3rd Reich Goebbelian tactics. Not what I’d call a reliable source of information.

    In no way is this evidence that:
    >”South of the equator it has been colder than usual…”

    If you had given us, for example, the average satellite measurements for the southern hemisphere so far this year and compared them to the average, and they were indeed “colder than usual” then you’d have a leg to stand on. Instead you have covered yourself in glory by trying to advance a conspiracy theory website in Spanish as proof of cooling…

    Epic Fail.

  15. #15 jakerman
    August 23, 2010

    Dave Burton, listing off cherry picked sites of low temperature is not evidence of a cool sotherner hemisphere. IT is just evidence that you can find cool spots if you look for them.

    You have been directed to evidence that the SH is warmer than usual. You have failed to counter this compelling evidence. The last six months of data have been [at or above](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vsh/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1980/trend) the rising trend let alone above normal.

  16. #16 Dave R
    August 24, 2010

    Dave Burton, your refusal to [retract claims that you cannot substantiate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/john_mclean_hides_the_declines.php#comment-2743275) suggests that you have no interest in the truth about this subject, and this is confirmed by your subsequent parroting of delusional far-right conspiracy nuts…

    >problems with the surface station data

    These claims have been [tested and shown to be false](http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf) (PDF).

  17. #17 Dave Burton
    August 24, 2010

    **Tim**, thank you for tracking down & approving my lost post, and for the explanation about embedded images.

     

    **All**, the order of the messages here is a bit confusing due to moderation delays; e.g., you can see MFS & Wow complaining that I gave no evidence for the harsh SH winter, in messages *after* my #103 with evidence of it. It may look like they just ignored what I wrote, but they actually wrote those messages *before* my #103 showed up here.

    Since this message contains no links at all, perhaps it will post immediately.

    (I’ve also discovered that failing to fill in the “Email Address” box seems to cause moderation to kick in, regardless of whether the message contains links.)

     

    **MFS** wrote:

    …most of which pertain exclusively to Argentina and Bolivia…

    Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Brazil & Antarctica, actually — a pretty big chunk of the SH.

    As for Mitos y Fraudes, I’ll have to take your word for it, because I don’t read Spanish. Sadly, the world is awash in tabloid-ish nonsense these days, and the conspiracy nuts are just a small part of the problem. But all we’re talking about here is the weather, so unless they’re blaming their frigid temps on the Bilderbergers, I don’t see that it matters much for the purpose of this conversation.

     

    **Lotharsson**, I think what professional meteorologists know that some climatologists seem not to know is the difference between weather and climate. When we get headlines about climatologists predicting, on the basis of a few months of preliminary temperature data, that we might be headed for the hottest year ever, and blaming it on Global Warming, it makes people who know better (like professional meteorologists) skeptical of *everything* those climatologists say.

     

    **jakerman**, I saw a NH vs. SH temp anomaly map illustrating the point a few weeks ago, but can’t seem to find it now. Sorry about that! If I find it again, I’ll post a link.

     

    Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    (For my email address, see www(dot)burtonsys(dot)com/email)

  18. #18 Dave R
    August 24, 2010

    Dave Burton:
    >my #103 with evidence of it.

    Liar. Your #103 did not provide evidence in support of your claim, which [has been shown to be false](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/john_mclean_hides_the_declines.php#comment-2747994).

  19. #19 jakerman
    August 24, 2010

    >*I saw a NH vs. SH temp anomaly map illustrating the point a few weeks ago, but can’t seem to find it now. Sorry about that! If I find it again, I’ll post a link.*

    Can I suggest you reassess the reliability of your sources. If they give you bad info you are setting yourself up by believing them.

  20. #20 Dave Burton
    August 24, 2010

    **Dave R.**, pooh-poohing Anthony Watts’ [rigorous and highly respected research](http://www.surfacestations.org/) and calling him a “delusional far-right conspiracy nut” does *not* help your case.

    That sort of *ad hominem* attack is unfortunately commonplace (and probably unavoidable) in the dirty world of politics, but it is entirely avoidable in science. Politicians might attack and belittle those with whom they disagree, but *scientists* are supposed to learn from and build upon the work of those who have reached different conclusions from their own.

    When scientists behave like politicians, it is evidence that politics has supplanted science.

    Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    (For my email address, see www(dot)burtonsys(dot)com/email)

  21. #21 Wow
    August 24, 2010

    “Dear all,

    The new cold polar wave has arrived yesterday to Argentina. ”

    May I point you to a similar situation here in the North last winter. However, despite the Southern US and the UK having extremely wintry conditions (moreso the Southern US), the situation did not last and was overall one of the warmest winters in these areas and that many areas NOT reporting such conditions were, in fact, much warmer than usual over this “wintry” period.

    Selective reporting, selective amnesia, DB.

  22. #22 Wow
    August 24, 2010

    “Dave R., pooh-poohing Anthony Watts’ rigorous and highly respected research ”

    You mean the research that he never did and complained when NOAA used “his” data to show that selecting for stations *HE* had rated “good” locations showed a higher warming trend then the entire used record he was complaining about?

    We pooh-pooh it because it’s poo.

    “When scientists behave like politicians”

    Well I suppose that Watts gets a bye here because he’s no scientist, he’s just a weather presenter with no science qualifications.

    Similarly Monckton, who is a journalist graduate.

    But funny how you decry this behaviour yet ignore Fred Singer’s politicization…

    “it is evidence that politics has supplanted science.”

    No, it’s evidence that those using politicking to get their way, the deniers of AGW have no science.

  23. #23 Stu
    August 24, 2010

    >Dave R., pooh-poohing Anthony Watts’ rigorous and highly respected research

    Bwahaha! Ahahaha! Bugger, coffee on screen. Still, thanks for the laugh Burton.

    By the way,

    >That sort of ad hominem attack is unfortunately commonplace (and probably unavoidable) in the dirty world of politics, but it is entirely avoidable in science. Politicians might attack and belittle those with whom they disagree, but scientists are supposed to learn from and build upon the work of those who have reached different conclusions from their own.

    would be a valid point if Watts was a scientist. But he has demonstrated, through boneheaded posts of his own (eg. histograms of temperature series, oblivious to their different baselines) and through those of others (Goddard’s Venus post comes to mind) that he has only, at best, a tenuous grasp of scientific judgement, methods and analysis.

    BTW if you’re perhaps wondering what Wow is referring to in the above post, it’s a paper by Menne et al. that uses Watts’ surfacestations classifications to show that the trends between ‘good’ and ‘poor’ sites show no significant differences, and indeed there is a small, insignificant cool bias to the ‘poor’ sites. And I believe Watts is still to publish a full analysis of his surfacestations data, is he not? I really don’t want to say he’s delaying because the data does not agree with his preconceived bias, but it kinda looks that way…

  24. #24 Dave R
    August 24, 2010

    Dave Burton:
    >That sort of ad hominem attack

    You either don’t know what an ad hominen attack is, or you’re a liar. I did not say he was wrong because he’s a delusional far-right conspiracy nut. I said he’s wrong because [he has been shown to be wrong in the peer-reviewed literature](http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf).

  25. #25 MFS
    August 24, 2010

    Dave Burton,

    Vostok does not the whole of Antarctica make. Australian stations Davis, Casey and Mawson have not had such extremes, not has McMurdo, Scott, Amundsen… Which makes a nice segue your following statement:

    >”But all we’re talking about here is the weather…

    No Dave, we’re talking about the climate, and until you learn the difference there is not much point continuing this conversation.

    We may be trending down from a big El Nino, but it’s still been pretty warm in the SH. Or do you have actual data that [disproves this](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vsh/last:180)?

  26. #26 sunspot
    August 24, 2010

    Antarctica is a bit of a sore point, it just refuses to follow the script.

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/fdq

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/dwm

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/i47

  27. #27 Wow
    August 24, 2010

    Nah, that’s your momma’s underwear being dried on the ground, spotty.

    And in what way is it not following the script? It’s on land, not ocean, the total volume is reducing and the flow rate from the land to sea (which, since the ice block is not melting relatively as fast, since that depends on volume, not linear distance) is increasing, this would extend the sea ice because it’s falling off the land and into the sea.

    Are icebergs in your world evidence of a cooling arctic? After all, that increases the sea ice EXTENT doesn’t it?

  28. #28 Marco
    August 24, 2010

    Actually, as also pointed out by Judith Curry, Antarctica IS following the script. Climate models predicted equal or even increasing Antarctic sea ice extent for the 20th and significant parts of the 21st century…

  29. #29 sunspot
    August 24, 2010

    marco – correct

    wow – still a dill

  30. #30 Wow
    August 24, 2010

    “marco – correct”

    So you’re wrong and knew it. Why, then did you say it?

  31. #31 sunspot
    August 24, 2010

    wow = still a dill,

    wow it’s your ice cream that is melting,
    lick it, go on licker

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    August 24, 2010

    > I think what professional meteorologists know that some climatologists seem not to know is the difference between weather and climate.

    Don’t be silly. That difference is THE key distinction between climate science and meteorology. Or at least between the courses I’ve seen that teach the two disciplines. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

    > When we get headlines about climatologists predicting, on the basis of a few months of preliminary temperature data, that we might be headed for the hottest year ever…

    …which might seem like a reasonable prediction after a few months out of twelve, given the comparison of those few months to the same few months in previous years, and regardless of who is making the prediction…

    > …and blaming it on Global Warming…

    …which might indeed be a significant factor in any abnormally hot year, given that we are pretty damn sure it’s warming – globally, on climate timescales.

    > …it makes people who know better (like professional meteorologists)…

    They know better? In other words, you’re arguing they know more **climate science** than climate scientists?

    Big claims, no support.

  33. #33 Wow
    August 24, 2010

    sunspot still a ball-less kid.

    NWOR.

  34. #34 Marco
    August 24, 2010

    Sunspot: if you agree with me, you disagree with yourself. Please explain how you deal with that discrepancy.

  35. #35 Dave Burton
    August 24, 2010

    **Wow** wrote:

    I suppose that Watts gets a bye here because he’s no scientist, he’s just a weather presenter with no science qualifications.

    Wrong. [Anthony Watts](http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/09/the-heretics-anthony-watts/) is a professional meteorologist, and an American Meteorological Society seal holder (retired). He and the army of more than 650 volunteers who he recruited have undertaken a mammoth project, and made an enormous contribution to climatology. He is a methodical and diligent scientist, the Tycho Brahe of climatology.

     

    **Sunspot** wrote:

    Antarctica is a bit of a sore point, it just refuses to follow the script.
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/fdq
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/dwm
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/i47

    Indeed, sunspot. Even as Arctic sea ice extent has *decreased* a bit, Antarctic sea ice extent has *increased* by very nearly the same amount. The significance of that fact is that it negates the sea ice albedo positive feedback effect which some climatologists had expected. (Less positive feedback means less warming effect from forcings such as GHG increases.)

    The big difference between sea ice near the two poles is that Arctic sea ice extent varies more randomly, because it is heavily influenced by wind, because it isn’t anchored to a continent. If the wind blows it into warmer water, it melts, and sea ice extent goes down. Wind has much less effect on sea ice in the Southern Ocean. Hence, increases in Antarctic sea ice may be of greater consequence than the similar-scale decreases in Arctic sea ice.

    Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    (For my email address, see www(dot)burtonsys(dot)com/email)

  36. #36 Lotharsson
    August 25, 2010

    > Wrong. Anthony Watts is a professional meteorologist,…

    You seem to be under the illusion that makes him qualified to do **climate science**. (You **do** realise that meteorology and climate science are related but **rather different fields** of endeavour, right?)

    Feel free to enlighten us as to the tertiary qualifications Watts has (ideally with some indication of the content of individual subjects) which in your opinion make him so qualified. Please follow that up with his publication record, and then to compare and contrast both of those things with your average research climate scientist.

    > …and made an enormous contribution to climatology.

    The change their work has brought to any significant climatological result is at best a small but useful footnote. They have provided data that have confirmed that the intuition that siting issues of land-based weather stations bias the temperature record to induce an additional warming trend is not correct, and if anything the opposite holds.

    > He is a methodical and diligent scientist, the Tycho Brahe of climatology.

    Goodness gracious! (I thought “Poe” for a minute, but earlier comments didn’t strike me that way.)

    I guess there’s no point arguing with someone who thinks the evidence supports that assertion. Watts has been documented as dead wrong, often egregiously, on what are often relatively simple matters of *climate science* – as opposed to meteorology – that he doesn’t have a scientific leg to stand on. The one thing he certainly is NOT is methodical and diligent when it comes to science.

    Now if you were to argue that he was methodical and diligent in pushing a particular viewpoint regardless of the evidence I suspect you’d find a lot more agreement…

  37. #37 John Nicol
    February 17, 2011

    Most of the comments above appear to be critical of McLean’s work as a scientist. He has long been involved with advanced computing, IT and modeling. His studies of the world climate and the material published by the IPCC goes back more than six years. He is well advanced in a PhD under two supervisors in the hard sciences, Physics and Geology, both of whom have wide experience in these fields. Studies of meteorology, climate and the atmosphere have their very roots in these areas of research and were widely and deeply established in these disciplines for over 90 years, long before the first thoughts of Global Warming started to appear in the 1970s. Most “climatologist’s” backgrounds are in Geography. McLean’s paper reflects the type of analysis which is so sadly lacking in the work from most of the climate units in Australia and overseas. It carries with it an effective experimental demonstration of the behaviour of the climate under direction from the thermal, dipolar cycles which occur in the large oceans. Anyone who has studied the output from the models used by CSIRO and others contributing to the IPCC can verify that none of them, not one, has been able to reproduce, from an “experimental basis” set in say 1970, the climate which has been experienced and measured over the past thirty years, to an accuracy better than about +-200%. The IPCC admits that in its Chapters 8 an9 of AR4 2007, but insists that the SELECTED warming from 1978 to 1995, was caused by increases in CO2. Warming periods from 1850 to 1880 and from 1920 to 1945 showed equal or greater rates of warming than from 1978 to 1995. (1850-80 and 1920-25 are never referred to by CSIRO or IPCC – why?) Carbon dioxide continues to increase, but one of the leading IPCC authors, who criticised McLean’s paper, has admitted that “NO statistically significant warming has occured in the fifteen years from 1995 till 2010. The melting of ice, the rise of sea levels, birds nesting early, may indicate Global Warming. However, none of these effects can point the finger at Carbon Dioxide. The one “signature” of the green house effect, defined by the IPCC climatologists, a warming of the upper tropical atmosphere, has never been found by any of the large number of research groups throughout the world who have sought to find it for 25 years. These are facts which need to be answered. The CSIRO (Dr Penny Whetton) and colleagues supporting the IPCC dodge such questions and repeat their only mantra: “We BELIEVE that MOST of the increase in global temperatures in the second half of the twentieth century, was VERY LIKELY due to increases in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide”. (IPCC – AR4 2007, and CSIRO – Climate Change in Australia – 2007) Their “evidence” depends exclusively on the “results” from 23 experimental computer models, plagued by non-linearities, no two of which arrive at the same result. I leave you all to ponder these points and look forward to viewing your response.
    John Nicol.

  38. #38 jakerman
    February 17, 2011

    John Nicol writes

    >*Most “climatologist’s” backgrounds are in Geography.*

    Is that true, or did you just make that up?

    John continues:

    >*McLean’s paper reflects the type of analysis which is so sadly lacking in the work from most of the climate units in Australia and overseas.*

    You are joking right? He’s just removed the trend by taking away the differences.

    With the made up junk you spout I wont even bother reading the rest of your rubbish.

  39. #39 Dave R
    February 17, 2011

    John Nichol:
    >The one “signature” of the green house effect, defined by the IPCC climatologists, a warming of the upper tropical atmosphere,

    If you’re really that ignorant, you should keep quiet it about and try to acquire some basic knowledge of the subject, rather than flaunting your ignorance as if it were something to be proud of.

    If you’re not really that ignorant, but are just trying to deceive people who are not familiar with the subject, you’ve come to the wrong place.

  40. #40 adelady
    February 17, 2011

    Here’s some results of a climate scientist – not a geographer – are you sure you’re not thinking of meteorologists?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-Hansens-1988-projections.html

    And computers are not the issue here. The computers available to NASA in 1988 were probably less powerful than your laptop or PC. This is all about good analysis and good science – and only one simple error in the whole thing. Absolutely brilliant!

  41. #41 Wow
    February 17, 2011

    > The one “signature” of the green house effect, defined by the IPCC climatologists, a warming of the upper tropical atmosphere

    Problem here, John, is that a tropical hotspot is indicative of a warming FROM ANY SOURCE. E.g. even if the sun did it, there’d be a tropical hotspot.

    However, a signature of GHG warming (definitely not solar warming) is a warming night (since no sun shines at night). And that’s been seen.

  42. #42 Bernard J.
    February 17, 2011

    The standard of the deniers doesn’t improve with time. They’re as scientifically illiterate as ever.

    John Nichol, do you have a single denialist fact that you would stand by? You know, with data and evidence?

  43. #43 Richard Simons
    February 17, 2011

    The standard of the deniers doesn’t improve with time. They’re as scientifically illiterate as ever.
    Not just scientifically. Why do so many scientifically challenged people also have such difficulty with the concept of ‘paragraphs’?