Global warming stopped [insert random number of years] ago is probably the most common and mainstream of all the climate denier arguments out there. It is shallow and wrong and there are many refutations of it out there. I think this video from Skeptical Science is about as clear and straightforward as it gets.
If someone watches that and still thinks the argument holds water, then they can not be reached with reason.
If attribution arguments are too complicated, there is always this excellent graphic:
(click to enlarge)
- Log in to post comments
I think you made a very telling point coby - they cannot be reached with reason.
Mmmm....wonder if 'Jimmy' Henson has seen those graphics?
Yesterday he said;
"The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing."
First time to this site, and oh what a laugh. So, we are going to cherry pick start and end points, let's start with the Climate Optimum (around 1000AD) or better yet, how about we start with 125,000 years ago, or 235,000 or 325,000? No no, lets start with the 1970's as a reliable starting point. ROFL. What a joke this site is. I am guessing the "scientist" here got their education from a box of Cracker Jacks?
If you are reading this blog, might I suggest you find a true scientific site.
Hi snafu.
I think you may be misreading what Hansen is saying. Firstly, when he says "natural variability" he is talking about La Nina/El Nino oscillations and natural aerosols, precisely the factors the video above illustrates, as well as decreased solar forcing. This represents no contradiction to the observations of greenhouse driven warming and the expectations that it will continue.
Second, I think you are missing that Hansen describes a slowdown in the growth rate of forcing, which is not a decrease in forcing itself, nor even a cessation of forcing growth.
I have looked at the paper this is coming from and my put up a post about it.
Thanks for the comment.
Hi Curtis,
Really not sure why using the present day as an end point is "cherry picking" but as for starting from the 70's, it is pretty reasonable as a refutation of an argument that chooses to use only the last 16 years.
Regardless, it is quite true that a lot can be learned by comparing different periods. WRT going back hundreds of thousands of years, it is difficult to see how that tells us anything about human influences on climate. Global paleo-reconstructions that go back 1000 years ALL show that today's temperatures are higher. 125K yrs would be about right to find the last instance the globe was as warm as today. I would note that at that time sea levels were around 4-6 metres higher (12-20 feet) so not sure how that point is supposed to be reassuring.
And please don't forget, that it is not the actual temperature level that is the concern, it is the rate of change.
I think Curtis is just a drive by idiot, but just in case you read this Curtis, could you please direct us to a 'true scientific site'.
I know I have my favourites, like Web of Science, Nature and even Google Scholar. What are yours?
Very nice work from the SkS crowd, as usual.
Curtis, care to expand on your points?
@coby
So what you are saying is that any cooling is caused by 'natural variability', but any warming can only be caused by increasing GHG's/CO2 levels.
Why can't 'natural variability' be the cause of warming?
No, that's not what I mean to say. In general, cooling and warming could be caused by natural or anthropogenic (human) causes. Different climatic changes can and do have different causes and specific examples of climate change in the past have differing explanations with different levels of certainty depending on the data that is available.
Natural variability is a bit ambiguous a phrase. It can mean the random year to year fluctuations caused by weather or genuine changes in climate caused by natural factors like volcanic eruptions or solar factors. The current warming certainly could have been caused by natural factors but the overwhelming evidence says that it is not. All the major natural factors are not showing any signs of changing enough or even changing in the right direction.
CO2 changes of the observed magnitude have long been expected to cause large warming (since about 150 years ago). This article is a good overview of why we are sure increasing CO2 of anthropogenic origins is the certain cause of most of the 20th and 21st centuries warmth.
it is a well known fact that the global temperature has flattened out. even the uk met office say so.phil jones, lead scientist of the hadcru dataset,has stated that there has been no significant warming for more than a decade.yes it is higher than the 30 year 'zero' benchmark ,but it isn't much higher than 0.4 degrees.all the computer climate models indicate that the temperature anomaly should be much higher by now,and increasing rapidly.
"Why can’t ‘natural variability’ be the cause of warming?"
Because natural variability is by definition going to go up as much as down.
Just because the waves make the water level go up and down doesn't mean that your bath fills up because of the waves.
"So what you are saying is that any cooling is caused by ‘natural variability’"
No.
Please try again.
This time try reading what's said rather than what you think you can ridicule.
TIA.
on the sks video, how come the '98 super el nino temperature spike is still there after the enso data is removed? the whole reason why 1998 was a hot year was because of the el nino.simples.
Hi Phil, about 1998, I think you should have another look. That spike is completely gone. Perhaps you are confusing it with 2001?
it is a well known fact that the global temperature has flattened out. even the uk met office say so.phil jones, lead scientist of the hadcru dataset,has stated that there has been no significant warming for more than a decade.
I believe his famous statement was that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years. All that means is that looking at the data alone in the absence of any physical understanding of what it represents, the warming trend (that is in fact there) does not reach the level of 95% confidence that it could not of happened by random chance.
Regardless, I personally don't believe it is unreasonable to look at the recent short time period of 10 years or so and say the surface temperature has not risen significantly.
The question then becomes why, and what, if anything, it means? I think the skeptical science video above is an excellent explanation of the why part. And given that explanation, the question what does it mean is answered with basically nothing. The influence of anthropogenic CO2 has not stopped, the expectation of future warming remains the same.
hi coby.yep you're right about the 1998 enso spike disappearing according to the chart in the sks video.
cheers,phil
Phil, I would like to answer more completely your comment about models, but for now you might appreciate this discussion http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-…
Basically, one needs to be mindful that we are comparing a single trajectory of global temps (the actual observations) to an average of dozens (ensemble model runs). In fact, several individual runs did show periods of stasis for as long as 10 or 15 years.
Phil: There might have been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years, but there has also been no statistically significant divergence from the warming trend of the previous 30 years. You might want to ponder why WUWT, Judith Curry and the others never mention this.
Prove the trend predicted has failed to come to pass, Phil.
Q - Why the fuck do stupid denier zombie arguments keep coming back to life?
A - Because deniers are stupid and they live in an echo chamber of their own making, where evidence is not welcome and they can make shit up and repeat it to each other ad nauseum until it eventually becomes true in their tiny, deluded minds.
Take this idiotic statement for example:
"phil jones, lead scientist of the hadcru dataset,has stated that there has been no significant warming for more than a decade
This is what Phil Jones REALLY said in resonse to a question from a BBC 'reporter':
Q - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Jones - Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
That was in 2010. Then in 2011 he said this:
"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use. Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.
The extra year was 2010, which now holds the record for the hottest year ever recorded globally - beating 1998 and tying 2005 - with the years from 2001 - 2011 being ten of the eleven hottest on record (with 1998 coming in at.number 3).
So can we move on now?
'95-'09 was significant to the 93.4% level.
mandas, your analysis is wrong, because the temperatures from noaa, giss and cru have been manipulated by repeated modifications in a way showing the present as wamer than the past. hence there is no global warming, it's a fraud unfortunately, but rather a cooling, hidden by data manipulations through cheating scientists
freddy, you'll have to add the Koch Foundation funded BEST temperature analysis to your list of conspirators as they came up with the same warming signal.
Oh, yes. And add Mother Nature too as she has conspired with every scientific agency on the planet by increasing the length of growing seasons, drastically shrinking the Arctic sea ice minimum, melting glaciers worldwide, cooling the stratosphere, raising sea levels and manipulating all manner of proxy records to agree with the observed temperature trend.
But otherwise, your point of view is quite reasonable!
No Freddy, my analysis is not wrong, because all I was doing was providing you with the real quotes, rather than the lies which are being spread by people like yourself with ideological agenda.
The only 'analysis' I did was in regard to deniers where I called them 'stupid', and possessing ' tiny deluded minds'. And in that regard, my analysis was spot on.
" the temperatures from noaa, giss and cru have been manipulated by repeated modifications"
You mean for things like correcting for the UHI effect?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/30/spencer-shows-compelling-evidence…
Or poor sighting of stephenson screens?
http://www.surfacestations.org
Or do you demand that they correct for these things so that you can call them out on modifying the data?
Heck, frankie, you could always try for yourself.
E.g.
http://berkeleyearth.org/
Go on. Show us where the data has been incorrectly modified.
Double dare you.
Denialists who understand the generally accepted prediction of global warming and climate change are essentially non-existent. Freddy: can you describe the reasons most, if not all, climatologists give for expecting Earth's average temperature to increase? Half a dozen sentences should suffice.
as an example of recent temperature data betrayal, giss changed secretely historical data from a series of temperature stations e.g. of Palma de Mallorca in Spain by 2degC down without communicating that they did it, why they did it and how they did it (the method of "data homogenization"). by this systematic data change of old historical values they wanted to make appear the past cooler than it really was and produce a more distinct "trend signal" of ideologically desired "global warming", which has by all means to be secured for political and financial reasons (to get further continuing funds for "warming" studies). i call this data fraud: scientific cheating in order to produce a politically correct desired result to justify damaging and unnecessary carbon taxes.
freddy, before you ask us to embark on the endless whack-a-mole exercise you are undoubtedly about to serve up, how about you respond to some of the answers you have already been given?
If the temperature data really is the result of scientific fraud covering an actual warming, why is spring coming earlier according to plant life and migratory birds? Why are glaciers worldwide shrinking? And why does the Koch Foundation want to help perpetuate this alleged hoax?
It's ok Coby, I am on to it.
Firstly Freddy, you are either an idiot or a liar - I am going to go with both.
GISS did not secretly change the historical temperature data from Palma de Mallorca. All the information is right here, in this science paper published in a peer reviewed science journal for anyone to read:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-10-05024.1?journalCo…
So you can call it data fraud all you like - but you would just be proving what an ideologically drive, evidence free, moron you really are. Perhaps if you read science papers instead of trawling through the denialist echo chamber you would not be so ignorant.
But if you want to see scientific cheating, keep doing what you are doing. There is plenty of it at wattsupmybutt or published by frauds like the SPPI.
Next?
Sorry, my mistake. Wrong link. Here is the correct one:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical%20Repo…
mandas, with reference to the paper abstract (not the full paper which I expected from what you said, you should improve in more precise wording) I have to tell you that you completely missed my criticism of the recent GISS temperature data change betrayal. The article cited by you has nothing to do with the fact that GISS changed real historical temperature data. Are you uable to read properly and argue logically? Really measured temperatures ARE really measured temperatures and CANNOT be changed because regional climate models tell you an x result. You mix up reality with the results of computer games of warming freaks. Computer program results have NEVER priority over physical reality. You have to learn and accept this simple fact.
Coby, can you provide me please with individual original scientific article references that support your claim of earlier spring beginnings (not just where you live, but in all regions of the planet in a scientifcally convincing way and with undisputed methodology)? And please don't overestimate the shrinking of glaciers outside Antarctica and Greenland, since this shrinking if small glaciers, as impressive it may seem to laymen at first glance, is quantitatively negligible and can also be the result of reduced snowfalls due to globally changed cloud distributions, which has never been systematically analysed in the scientific literature.
Coby and other warmists: from the position of scientific principles it's not sufficient to have a feeling or consensus of warming, on the contrary you have to have scientifically acceptable data, i.e. reproducible results from reality and not from computer models.
mandas, thank you for the new link. But also this cited publication HAS NOTHING TO DO with scientific data fraud of GISS to which my post relates. you should argue more precise, please, and base your arguments not on papers which have nothing to do with my criticism. it may sound good what you said and please your comrades, but falls short of substance in the case concerned.
"this cited publication HAS NOTHING TO DO with scientific data fraud of GISS to which my post relates"
And it has nothing to do with the invisible pink unicorn either.
For the same reason too.
Neither exist.
Tell us, freedski, if GISS is all so very wrong, how come even Anthony Watts, the denialist ex-leader, has shown that the temperature trend is robust in his crowdsourced surfacestations project?
Is EVERYONE "on the take" in your paranoia?
It has a hell of a lot to do with your now debunked claim (and therefore proven lie) that:
This is another lie, because according to you, they already have.
Wow, I think you did not really read the article linked by mandas:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical%20Repo…
Or, if you have tried to read it, did you manage to understand its content? I summarise it briefly for you: In August 2012 Claude Williams, Matt Menne, and Jay Lawrimore from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC, reported about some bug fixes and slight improvements of the temperature data homogenization program, based on Menne's and Williams' (2007) published PHA HM method. They stated in the August 2012 report, that data homogenization with the improved HPA program did change the annual mean temperatures only very slightly.
My criticism of temperature data fraud by Hansen's GISS had NOTHING to do with the contents of the article linked by mandas, in contrast to your unbased assertion that "it has a hell of a lot to do" with it. NO, YOU ARE WRONG! The paper has nothing to do with my criticism, ZERO!! Neither you nor mandas appear to know what GISS or NOAA/NCDC really are, when you mix up these two institutions.
I formally reject your wordings of "paranoia", "lie" etc. as low-minded offenses towards me (you can apply gladly these terms to yourself), the more so as coming from an individual who shows how badly he is informed regarding global temperatures and how ideologically he is biased in favor of global warming phantasies.
Yup, which disabuses you of the claim:
Apparently you don't even understand yourself. Not even yourself.
And for others' work, you don't understand it even when you insist you do.
What a sad little paranoiac sack.
Wow, before I start with my lessons for such an uneducated incivility-prone person like you who has such a poor knowledge about GISS and NOAA a simple question to you:
Did you ever had a look into the GHCN database? Do you even know what the GHCN DB actually is?
Freddy: Please could you respond to my request
I am convinced that people like you do not have a clue about the physics they are arguing against.
He doesn't.
He's raving because he can't understand the world and it MUST be someone else's problem.
And because he doesn't like environmentalists since they tell him he's not allowed to shit in the river, it MUST be their fault.
Then he goes out looking for people who claim some reason for it being their fault and repeats it.
"Did you ever had a look into the GHCN database? Do you even know what the GHCN DB actually is?"
Yes and Yes.
Do you know what they are? Because either you don't know and therefore your assertions about "nobody knows why they were changed" is at least explicable, or you do, in which case you were definitely and knowingly lying about it.
"incivility-prone "
From the idiot who griped: cheating scientists
!!!
@Richard Simmons:
"I am convinced that people like you do not have a clue about the physics they are arguing against".
You suffer from typical precudices like most warmists who consider themselves invincible and far superior in knowledge to anybody else, especially in relation to "denialists" (what a friendly designation).
Of course, it's easy to answer your request, as the basis of your religious catastrophic warming belief through CO2 is intellectually really that simple, so just listen:
The physical basis for the hypothesized warming effect of greenhouse gases can be formulated as follows: infrared absorption by infrared-active atmospheric gases (most importantly - considering its atmospheric concentration - water vapor, much less important natural carbon dioxide, even much much less importantly, given its low amount, anthropogenic carbon dioxide) absorb and re-emit long-wave infrared radiation from the planet's surface heated by sun's short wave radiation, and thereby provide warming (by blocking emission to space of IR wavelengths absorbed by GHGs in the lower layers of the troposphere) of the troposphere, a hypothetical warming effect which would not be present in the absence of greenhouse gases.
The null hypothesis for scientific investigation would sound: greenhouse gases do not result in warming of the ground and atmosphere.
Any scientific investigation of the formulated warming hypothesis has to falsify the null hypthesis.
So far, the null hypothesis has never been convincingly falsified by measurements of physical reality. In case you don't agree, please provide original articles references published in peer-reviewed journals which support your claim.
I do not accept the results of climate simulation models as proof of falsification of the null hypothesis, since model results are not equivalent to measurements in reality.
Citation needed.
This has been soundly refuted. Though deniers continue to discard that proof by their misapprehension that "correlation is not causation".
Which happened by the late 1980's.
Only by those who insist that the proof that is there is faked.
E.g. you.
So go to http://berkeleyearth.org/
No climate models.
Just measurements.
Wow, it's difficult to deal with your enigmatic text pieces as "comments" with regard to my posting #46.
Overall I have the impression that you are not familiar with scientific work, scientific methodologies and above all scientific thinking.
Regarding my statement as referenced by you "most importantly – considering its atmospheric concentration – water vapor, much less important natural carbon dioxide, even much much less importantly, given its low amount, anthropogenic carbon dioxide" you ask me "Citation needed". Question: which part of my text needs citation? Isn't it common knowledge what the major GHGs are or what else do you mean? Please be more precise in formulating that it is possible to understand what you mean.
Regarding my text "The null hypothesis for scientific investigation would sound: greenhouse gases do not result in warming of the ground and atmosphere" you just comment : "This has been soundly refuted. Though deniers continue to discard that proof by their misapprehension that “correlation is not causation”." I do not accept your assertion that the null hypothesis has been soundly refuted if you just express is lie you did. To be scientifically credible you have to provide references of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles which support your claim (in a format similar to: Menne, M.J., and C.N. Williams (2009), Homogenization of temperature series via pairwise comparisons. J. Climate, 22, 1700‐1717): this is called scientifically referencing, which seems unfamiliar to you.
You next comment ("Which happened by the late 1980′s") to my text "Any scientific investigation of the formulated warming hypothesis has to falsify the null hypthesis" also requires scientifically valid references and not just your sayings (personal opinion expressions do never substitute for scientific article contents, you should know this, so please accustom yourself to base your assertions on scientifically valid contents).
I followed your recommendation to look the website http://berkeleyearth.org/ which you give me as comment to my text "I do not accept the results of climate simulation models as proof of falsification of the null hypothesis, since model results are not equivalent to measurements in reality", I was not able to detect the relationhip between my argument and the contents of the website you have cited. Actually there is no relationship, or please explain.
I would like to ask you to provide me with the article references which support your assertions. In case you are not able to do so I consider your contributions as pure junk.
Your febrile imagination is not my problem.
That isn't my problem either.
Pop along to
http://www.ipcc.ch
and look at the references section. There you will see all the scientifically reviewed papers in the format you desire, in chapters that will enable you to find out which one you're looking for.
the bit that was quoted in blockquotes as above and followed by my text saying "citation needed".
See http://www.ipcc.ch as before.
Then why is your entire screed personal opinion expressions?
That also is not my problem.
I lead you to water. It is up to you to drink.
This too is not my problem.
If you get to define what answers you want to accept, then you can deny everything given to you.
Ergo, you either read and learn or don't.
It isn't my problem.
You can also read, if you can, this:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Which demonstrates PRECISELY that the climate scientists DID start off with your null hypothesis and it was eventually refuted and proved untrue.
Wow, sorry I will not react to your nasty insinuations "You can also read, if you can, this": what maximum incivility is it to ask someone whether he is able to read. This not the level I am used to argue with simebody.
By the way and again, you provide me again with a website which recaps some scientific stories for interested internet readers. Aren't you really what I mean when I ask your for scientific literature references to support your claims. A real scientist would not wait a second to cite several original papers about a topic about which the discussion is oriented. And what are you saying: "it's not my problem, it's nor my problem, it's not my problem, go to website ipcc.ch where you will find what you seek". Sorry, but you take it too easy to be considered a valuable discussion partner on scientific topics. Just shouting around and being completely unable to reference only a single real scientific article from a scientific journal to support your claim is the minimum I would expect from somebody who opens his mouth so widely without having to say so nothing, but just ugly reproaches.
So let's give us a final try: please provide me with two distinct scientific article references from peer-reviewed journals (as usual in science and academia) which convincingly demonstrate the falsification of the null hypothesis on the efficacy of GHGs to warm the planet's troposphere and ground. Please invest some effort and give a valuable answer which can be appreciated. Thank you.
PS: your errors of mixing up GISS and NOAA with regard to unpublished temperature data manipulations of certain historical temperature station data will be resolved in future post which will also show how far beyond knowledge you express yourself in matters in which you are totally ignorant and don't even understand the context. So be careful, this will be very revealing about how false you argue, compromising youself in a very negative way.
Yes, what "maximum incivility" is there? Wounding your pride (deservedly so) is not it.
So, like I expected, you didn't read it.
What maximum incivility is it to come here demanding answers then not even bothering to read them?
The thing is: you CAN'T read them.
That, however, is nobody's problem but yours.
If you're not even willing to read answers, nobody needs bother with your whining about not having them.
You have one final chance.
Read the links you've been given.
Papers on the science:
http://www.ipcc.ch
Real life measurements showing that AGW is really happening:
http://berkeleyearth.org/
The refutation of the null hypothesis:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
If you fail to do so and *pretend* that they aren't answering your petulant demands, then there is no point you hanging round here.
@ coby
As I have dealt with most of your questions let me repeat my request to you which you ignored so far:
Can you provide me please with individual original scientific article references that support your claim of earlier spring beginnings (not just where you live, but in all regions of the planet in a scientifcally convincing way and with undisputed methodology)
I am waiting for your delivery of a reply with REAL scientific article citations and please with excerpts from your handbook on how to deal with a denialist. No, just real scientific article references, please. I hope don't consider this an undecent attack. I am just curious whether you can substantiate your claim (and please abstain from wow's methods of telling me I should read website xxx. I want real papers directly and nothing else, as this is the only scientifically relevant source of information)
Thank you in advance for your effort.
You won't read them.
Thanks for trolling.
And it is obvious you've never once written a single science paper, nor even read one, since you would understand the HUGE problem in your demand here for TWO papers:
You've never SEEN science, never mind done any.
Wow, you said:
"You have one final chance.
Read the links you’ve been given.
Papers on the science:
http://www.ipcc.ch
Real life measurements showing that AGW is really happening:
http://berkeleyearth.org/
The refutation of the null hypothesis:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
If you fail to do so and *pretend* that they aren’t answering your petulant demands, then there is no point you hanging round here"
I have explained to you now several times that the attitude you exhibit here in answering my request on original article references is scientifically not serious. IT'S YOU WHO BEHAVES TOTALLY IN AN UNEXPLAINABLE NON-SCIENTIFIC WAY. Sorry for this firm statement.
Every real scientist in the world would react completely different to me if I question him for a scientific article reference on any topic he knows of something. And you, what do you say: I GIVE YOU A LAST CHANCE TO READ THIS WEBSITE WHICH SHOWS YOU ARE WRONG.
My judgement on you: YOU ARE NO SCIENTIST. If you would be one, your reaction would be completely different.
Wow, your nasty statement "You’ve never SEEN science, never mind done any"
Utter rubbish and extremely offending. Maybe YOU have never seen science, but I have worked scientifically now for about 25 years and have published alone or with peers many original articles in peer-reviewed journals on natural sciences topics. That's the reason why I can judge and tell you that your behavior is profoundly non-scientific and maybe reflects a layman's want-be complex which was not rewarded by reality.
You mean "Absolutely accurate", don't you.
No, you haven't. It's easy to SAY you have. But you haven't even said where.
You are telling huge porkies safe from being found out because on the internet, you can be a 15 year old blonde nyphomaniac and nobody will know otherwise.
Yeah "many".
But not a single one named.
Your thought that there is someone whose PhD assignment was "Disprove the null hypothesis" is clear indication you're talking rubbish.
Which is why you're so terribly offended.
Nothing so scalded as a liar caught out.
You have maintained that several times.
Each time it's the same: complete hokum.
You never read the aip link did you.
Because if you had, you would have seen the papers listed in it.
But you CANNOT read it.
You merely bluster and whine and cry because you're a complete incompetent pretending to have some experience.
You're a twelve year old on a blog bash.
And what do you do?
Not read any of it.
Which indicates clearly that you are nothing but a tiresome tween pretending to be offended.
Here's a citation disproving your assertion "greenhouse gases do not result in warming of the ground and atmosphere."
Kirchhoff, G. (1860c). "Ueber das Verhältniss zwischen dem Emissionsvermögen und dem Absorptionsvermögen der Körper für Wärme and Licht". Annalen der Physik und Chemie (Leipzig) 109: 275–301. Translated by Guthrie, F. as Kirchhoff, G. (1860). "On the relation between the radiating and absorbing powers of different bodies for light and heat". Philosophical Magazine Series 4, volume 20: 1–21.
Wow, you are wrong on all levels, I have really looked at all your recommended websites, and I have really worked scientifically. Every word I said was true and I solemnly swear by the death of my mother that I did not lie a single time. If you still don't believe, it's your thing. I cannot influence your negative attitudes. And now I terminate my conversation on this topic with you since you are not willing to deliver a single scientifically acceptable response on my questions to you. Citing websites is no response, as I already have explained to you. And if you really state that it is so difficult to cite two direct scientific article references on the topic I asked you, you only demonstrate, that you don't dispose of the knowledge of an arsenal original article references (believe me there are many individuals in the warmist scientific community about any single topic on global warming who would easily throw around article references which substantiate the stated discussion point, e,g, if I would ask Kevin Trenberth on satellite altimetry calibrations articles, he would instantaneously answer me that the study by Nerem el al. 1997 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters describes in detail the calibration of the Topex/Poseidon satellite. That's the knowledge I mean a real scientist has, unlike you. You behave as if you would be a scientist but you are not. Your comments proof this convincingly).
You will get your information on the data fraud by GISS by me soon (I need some time to compile all the information that will show how foolish you behaved also in this instance)
Nope, else you would have noticed the papers referenced in the aip link, for example.
Or, for the BEST site, seen that it had said ON THE FRONT PAGE that the temperature trend for the past 250 years could only be explained by CO2 and volcanic activity.
Every word I said was true and I solemnly swear by the death of my mother that I did not lie a single time
Yeah, like your lies will kill her.
Hah!
Just lying again, fred. Shameless.
"Every word I said was true and I solemnly swear by the death of my mother that I did not lie a single time"
Should have been in block quotes.
But his insistence that this is some sort of truth validator indicates how much this bozo relies solely on fractured thinking.
Except you aren't demanding that. If you demanded "Where's the proof that satellites actually exist!!!!", what would Kevin say to you then?
"You're a nutter".
Wow, are you really totaly illiterate? You said just before "Here’s a citation disproving your assertion “greenhouse gases do not result in warming of the ground and atmosphere.”
I did not make an assertion like this, instead I formulated such a null hypthesis. Don't you really the difference between an assertion and a null hypothesis. Where am I here where there is somebody like Wow who mixes up everything and obviously understands nothing about what I am talking. Wow, what is your professional background? Are you a truck driver, a door keeper, a lawyer, a musician, a gym teacher? Who are you and why are you so far away from science?
Yes you did.
Here:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2013/01/16-years/#comment-21696
Then again, your only recourse when caught out in your act is to pretend it never happened.
Do you?
If so, say so.
Nah, you can't because then you'd have to quickly google the answer and that's more work than you'd like to do, being a tweener trolling on the internet for giggles.
Wow, your statement:
"if I would ask Kevin Trenberth on satellite altimetry calibrations articles,
Except you aren’t demanding that. If you demanded “Where’s the proof that satellites actually exist!!!!”, what would Kevin say to you then?
“You’re a nutter”.
Why are you so nasty? What is your motivation? Are you angry that you have shown of having fallen short to be considered a scientist?
Please calm down. Your outburtsts don't make any sense at all.
And I note that despite getting PRECISELY what you demanded, it has not even registered.
Your whining is not my problem.
Your outburtsts don’t make any sense at all.
Though I realise that I should have spellchecked a tweener's sentence before using it as a reply.
Pop along to
http://www.ipcc.ch
and look at the references section. There you will see all the scientifically reviewed papers in the format you desire, in chapters that will enable you to find out which one you’re looking for.
Wow, I stop now this useless interaction with you as you are totally unable to self-reflect your nasty, always more and more offending and destructive behavior and wording which will never result in some positive outcome. So it's time wasted. Please abstain from addressing me again. I will not respond to such ugly posts like yours. You are a real shame for the warmists community regarding your behavior and extremely poor knowledge.
Farewell!
So is that how you're going to avoid reading the information you're demanding.
Well, not my problem, bub.
PS work on that fake background a little more. You're lacking anything believable in that fiction.
I ask all the other warmists here (Coby, mandas, Richard Simons et al.): do you consider the comments of Wow appropriate in response to my questions to him? I really did not intend to elicit such verbal deviations.
Here, in a potted history, so that you can see clearly that you've been given what you asked for and refused even to look, is the information you've demanded:
So go to http://berkeleyearth.org/
No climate models.
Just measurements.
Pop along to
http://www.ipcc.ch
and look at the references section. There you will see all the scientifically reviewed papers in the format you desire, in chapters that will enable you to find out which one you’re looking for.
the bit that was quoted in blockquotes as above and followed by my text saying “citation needed”.
See http://www.ipcc.ch as before.
Then why is your entire screed personal opinion expressions?
That also is not my problem.
I lead you to water. It is up to you to drink.
This too is not my problem.
If you get to define what answers you want to accept, then you can deny everything given to you.
Ergo, you either read and learn or don’t.
It isn’t my problem.
You can also read, if you can, this:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Which demonstrates PRECISELY that the climate scientists DID start off with your null hypothesis and it was eventually refuted and proved untrue.
You have so far ignored everything that would have answered your demands and therefore your claims that they are unanswered are hollow and demonstrably so.
But, like I said before, your intransigence and ignorance is not my problem.
It's yours.
Continue to whinge about how you are ignorant of things and demand answers all you want. We know absolutely that you are not going to bother with looking at the answers.
Please mandas, coby: could YOU explain to Wow what original scientific journal references on specific scientific topics in a real scientific argumentation means. Wow is obviously not willing to understand and explodes every time I want to aid him a little bit. He has no understanding at all that recommending the IPCC report is not an original scientific article reference which is the simple standard in any normal scientific exchange (just look at the introduction or discussion parts of any scientific paper). It's so easy, however Wow is totally resistant to comply with ordinary scientific behavior. I don't understand frankly where the problems with him lies.
coby, can you pease tell Wow that just repeating what I have already answered as if had not answered is only childish.
It isn’t my problem.
In addition, he continuously reiterates the reading if the webpage:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
for scientific argumentation. I as a scientist do not accept the contents of a webpage as scientific content equivalent to an orignal article in a scientific journal ( Nature, Science, etc.). That's what I expect by scientific article referencing and am used to.
Wow has not a minimum of clue what science and scientific argumentation is, and he is totally obdurate to willingness to learn, even not a tiny little bit.
coby, can you pease tell Wow that just repeating what I have already answered as if had not answered is only childish.
It isn’t my problem.
In addition, he continuously reiterates the reading if the webpage:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
for scientific argumentation. I as a scientist do not accept the contents of a webpage as scientific content equivalent to an orignal article in a scientific journal ( Nature, Science, etc.). That's what I expect by scientific article referencing and am used to.
Wow has not a minimum of clue what science and scientific argumentation really is, and he is totally obdurate to willingness to learn, even not a tiny little bit.
freddy, there's nothing wrong with a website that contains references to scientific papers. The only problem appears to be that you have to click each link to get to each particular paper. That's not a real problem, surely? Saves time not to read the website itself and just click on links to the papers you want I would have thought. Or have I missed something?
Wow. I don't know where you find the patience.
In some cases it's not patience as the joy of shoving an idiot's nose right up the nose of said idiot and watch them splutter "It's just a flesh wound!!!!" whilst everyone can see the nutter is in denial.
*facts up the nose*.
adelady: citing a webpage is no scientifically acceptable answer to a question on a specific scientific content. I have explained it already extensively and even you have obviously no clue how a real scientific discussion is normally performed.
Seems to be a pure laymens blog of people here without any scientific background. You cannot understand, you do not want to understand, you will not understand.
Freddy,
You will forgive my abruptness at the start of this conversation, as it was based on your initial posts which accused GISS and scientists of fraud and lying, and of data manipulation, which you then used to concluded that 'hence there is no global warming.' Those posts could best be described as being typical of the usual lunatics and conspiracy theorists that we normally have to deal with, to which the best response is to tell them to fuck off.
Since that less than auspicious start you have managed to lift the tone and level of your posts, and even managed to use capitalisation and punctuation. Well done.
So if you want us to adequately respond to your initial allegation about GISS and Palma de Mallorca in Spain, I am going to ask you to provide the evidence for your claim. Because - as you would be aware as a scientist (what sort of scientist I will ask), you will know that claims like that are useless without evidence.
So - how do you know that GISS secretly adjusted data? And what makes you think that any adjustment - secret or otherwise - was not warranted for some reason (instrumental error etc)? And what effect has any adjustment had on the overall global climate record?
I am perfectly happy to have a rational reasoned discussion with you, using real peer reviewed or similar documentation as support for any claims, if you do the same.
So - you start. Provide evidence for your initial claim (and as you said in the last post to Adelady, citing a webpage will not be considered as an acceptable answer).
Answer my question and I'll consider answering yours.
@Richard Simons: please read above my post #47 which tried to answer your request and I hope I did not miss what you expected.
fred, the ONLY reason why you don't think the science is proven is because you WILL NOT LOOK.
Your complaints about it are ENTIRELY YOUR DOING.
And it's not our problem.
The facts remain what they are and your refusal to even look does not falsify them.
And supplying one is ignored, hence there's no point in giving this idiot denier what they demand, they will not bother reading it.
Freddy, could you please
a) show your evidence that GISS adjusted the Palma de Mallorca temperature by 2 degrees downward
b) that this adjustment is not appropriate
c) that this adjustment was performed because of ideological reasons
I could also point you to the GISS website which has the full code for their methodology to create GISTEMP, but heck, you could also go to http://clearclimatecode.org/
After that, we can go to the next group of questions, which will show me whether you have the ability to have a scientific discussion (which you have demanded of others):
a) What is a null hypothesis? Note that this question will be the most important determining factor for me to see if you are capable of basic science.
b) Why should the null hypothesis be "greenhouse gases do not result in warming of the ground and atmosphere."? That would contradict basic scientific knowledge and observations from various other areas. For example, the measurement of outgoing longwave radiation shows absorption of IR radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This, by necessity, reduces the rate of radiation loss to outer space. If the absorption increases, as it will because of increasing concentrations and as has been observed, this means the rate is again slower, which means the temperature of the atmosphere must go up. Then there's the direct observation of downwelling longwave radiation. I am not going to give you the references, because you should easily be able to find them yourself (for example using Google Scholar).
Now, I will admit that I have some skepticism regarding your ability to understand this stuff. Your comment on the anthropogenic CO2 shows that you do not understand equilibria very well. But being a nice guy (really, I am!) I will make one attempt:
Suppose you earn 50,000 dollar a year. Your expenses are also 50,000 dollar, and you have 1000 dollar on your bank account. What happens to that 1000 dollar on your bank account over time? Well, I hope you agree that unless something changes in your paycheck or expenses, you will have on average 1000 dollar on your bank account. It will swing wildly throughout the many weeks of the year, but a 1000 is your average.
Next you find yourself a generous person who gives you 10 dollar a week. That's 520 a year, about 1% of your paycheck. Now what happens to your bank account? It will go up! You have on average more than that 1000, and unless you change your spending pattern, after a year it has gone up to 1520, a whopping 52% increase.
Will you then tell that generous person that his contribution is hardly relevant? After all, your paycheck says 50,000 dollar, 100 times more than that generous contribution (which, nonetheless, is responsible for 100% of the increase in your bakc account!).
freddy isn't here to explain or do work, Marco.
He's here to demand answers and make YOU do work.
This hypothesis will be proven by freddie's non response (just like he's done to Richard).
Well, that's proven the hypothesis.
Marco, FYI, "greenhouse gases do not result in warming of the ground and atmosphere.” is disproven by noting the actual temperature of the earth and the temperature of the earth if the Greenhouse Effect didn't exist.
Fred here is no scientist and has heard the denier zombie trope "The Greenhouse Effect Cannot Happen Because Of The Second Law Of Thermodynamics".
Having no science knowledge whatsoever, it doesn't understand this, but that's what this "null hypothesis" is all about.
mandas
below you can see the listing of the downloaded data of temperature station Palma de Mallorca (64308306000 PALMA DE MALL 39.55 2.73) from the GISS web page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ in March 2010 as compared to the downloaded data of the same station, but downloaded from the same GISS web page in March 2012. The listing shows each Palma de Mallorca temperature record per year (1881 - 2010) from the 2010 record, the 2012 download, and the temperature difference between the GISS station downloads:
--------------------------
Year 2010 2012 Diff.
1881 19,16 16,66 -2,50
1882 19,00 16,50 -2,50
1883 17,66 15,16 -2,50
1884 17,83 15,33 -2,50
1885 17,74 15,24 -2,50
1886 18,14 15,64 -2,50
1887 17,76 15,26 -2,50
1888 17,80 15,30 -2,50
1889 18,00 15,50 -2,50
1890 17,54 15,09 -2,45
1891 17,45
1892 17,78 16,08 -1,70
1893 18,28 16,58 -1,70
1894 17,55 15,74 -1,81
1895 18,06 16,26 -1,80
1896 17,28 15,54 -1,74
1897 18,38 16,58 -1,80
1898 18,15 16,35 -1,80
1899 18,70 16,90 -1,80
1900 17,89 16,09 -1,80
1901 17,73 15,74 -1,99
1902 18,21 16,21 -2,00
1903 17,74 15,74 -2,00
1904 18,23 16,23 -2,00
1905 18,07 16,07 -2,00
1906 17,82 15,82 -2,00
1907 17,59 15,79 -1,80
1908 18,18 15,97 -2,21
1909 17,02
1910 17,62
1911 18,23 16,23 -2,00
1912 18,03 16,03 -2,00
1913 18,38 16,38 -2,00
1914 18,16 16,16 -2,00
1915 17,76 15,76 -2,00
1916 17,98 16,14 -1,84
1917 17,19
1918 16,62 15,62 -1,00
1919 17,12 16,12 -1,00
1920 17,73 16,73 -1,00
1921 17,31 16,31 -1,00
1922 17,10 15,76 -1,34
1923 16,92 16,18 -0,74
1924 17,07 16,04 -1,03
1925 16,41 15,41 -1,00
1926 17,55 16,55 -1,00
1927 17,59 16,59 -1,00
1928 17,88 16,88 -1,00
1929 16,91 15,91 -1,00
1930 17,39 16,39 -1,00
1931 17,26
1932 17,12 16,12 -1,00
1933 17,31 16,31 -1,00
1934 16,43 15,63 -0,80
1935 16,62
1936 16,72
1937 16,82 15,60 -1,22
1938 16,92 16,18 -0,74
1939 17,68 16,03 -1,65
1940 17,52 14,93 -2,59
1941 16,44 15,38 -1,06
1942 16,87 16,08 -0,79
1943 17,58 16,01 -1,57
1944 17,49 16,57 -0,92
1945 18,06 16,46 -1,60
1946 18,02 16,50 -1,52
1947 18,00 16,18 -1,82
1948 17,68 17,03 -0,65
1949 18,52 17,12 -1,40
1950 18,62 15,60 -3,02
1951 17,00 16,57 -0,43
1952 17,88 16,21 -1,67
1953 17,38 15,96 -1,42
1954 17,27 16,82 -0,45
1955 17,80 15,68 -2,12
1956 16,73 15,97 -0,76
1957 16,91 16,36 -0,55
1958 17,48 16,53 -0,95
1959 17,68 15,88 -1,80
1960 17,11 16,74 -0,37
1961 17,50 17,21 -0,29
1962 17,67 17,27 -0,40
1963 17,34 16,53 -0,81
1964 18,21 16,53 -1,68
1965 17,58 16,81 -0,77
1966 17,78
1967 17,82
1968 17,57
1969 17,41
1970 18,11 16,18 -1,93
1971 17,93 15,31 -2,62
1972 17,41 16,33 -1,08
1973 18,43 15,61 -2,82
1972 17,41 16,33 -1,08
1973 18,43 15,61 -2,82
1974 17,71 15,72 -1,99
1975 17,82 15,72 -2,10
1976 17,78 16,28 -1,50
1977 17,98 15,83 -2,15
1978 17,53 15,99 -1,54
1979 17,79
1980 17,49 15,75 -1,74
1981 16,78 16,91 0,13
1982 18,43 16,34 -2,09
1983 18,25 15,49 -2,76
1984 17,42 16,00 -1,42
1985 17,88 16,24 -1,64
1986 17,62 16,57 -1,05
1987 16,42 16,93 0,51
1988 16,66 17,03 0,37
1989 16,94 17,23 0,29
1990 17,31 15,97 -1,34
1991 16,30 15,97 -0,33
1992 16,22 15,99 -0,23
1993 15,93 16,81 0,88
1994 16,81 16,77 -0,04
1995 16,77 16,34 -0,43
1996 16,29 17,32 1,03
1997 17,25 17,05 -0,20
1998 16,95 16,79 -0,16
1999 16,69 16,74 0,05
2000 16,65 17,23 0,58
2001 17,13 16,75 -0,38
2002 16,65 17,79 1,14
2003 17,69 16,83 -0,86
2004 16,73 16,51 -0,22
2005 16,51 17,49 0,98
2006 17,49 17,10 -0,39
2007 17,10 16,65 -0,45
2008 16,65 16,81 0,16
2009 16,81 16,40 -0,41
2010 16,57 17,31 0,74
--------------------------------
When you plot the 2010 time series data you will find a warming trend of approx. 1degC over the whole period from 1881 to 2010.
After GISS has changed the Palma de Mallorca data in the 2012 download you can see in a plot you can easily do that now the graph shows a cooling trend of approx. 1degC, so the net difference between the two series is a change of approx 2degC. So GISS changed the station data in a way which makes look the past of Palma cooler than it was in the 2010 dataset, hence a contribution to a greater warming trend for the annual temperature calculation.
Our research group has analysed now over 110 station datasets from GISS (downloads 2010 vs, downloads 2012) with similar temperature trend changes (always towards warming). The reason why GISS has changed the temperature values substantially, so that a cooling trend of 1degC of Palma de Mallorca is now reversed to a cooling trend of 1degC, was never communicated and also done secretly (and not only in the case of Palma de Mallorca but of many more stations).
mandas
I did a mistake in the wording of my above post:
the plot of the 2010 download data shows of course a COOLING trend in Palma (no warming), but the 2012 series shows a warming trend. Sorry for the confusion.
Marco, you should strive to show to me what was wrong with my conclusion of GISS data fraud, given the example I have presented.
Null hypothesis? You appear to have no clue of science theory, so you cannot be a real scientist. Even if you want to be one. please ask a friend who is a real scientist and ask him. Maybe he can help you with your information deficits. I am tired to give all the laymen here lessons on science theory.
You should strive to read what Marco asked.
a) show your evidence that GISS adjusted the Palma de Mallorca temperature by 2 degrees downward
b) that this adjustment is not appropriate
c) that this adjustment was performed because of ideological reasons
Unlike franco freddy here who asked Anthony Watts what to say.
Franco Freddy doesn't seem to understand what "statistically significant trend" means wrt null hypothesis.
Mind you, I have discovered where franco freddy got the idea from.
ClimateFraudit and/or GWPF PR fluff merchants.
Wow, as always, pure junk!
Are you the clown here or what is your role? Please address to somebody else your bollocks, it's only annoying and zero inspiring.
franco freddy, as always, screaming offence because you're not given worship.
diddums.
Please, stop with the explosions every time your asinine posts are ridiculed.
Freddy, your "secret changes" are at least in part discussed here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf
Oh, and note the not-GISS website this comes from (that's a hint to you and your "research" group and its attack on GISS).
Oh, and also note the frequent updates on the GISTEMP websites about what they did and what they changed. Not for individual stations, because they *do not adjust individual stations*.
Oh, and here's how GISTEMP works:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/gistemp.html
and the updates:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/
I would not even be surprised if you lot compared apples with bananas (homogenized vs non-homogenized, for example).
Well done, Marco.
It won't help freddy here, since he's already an attributed scientist working in science for sciency stuff and things, which we know is true because he swore on his mothers life it was so.
'course lots of teens want their parents dead.
Well, that surely answered my question! Freddy has no intention to show he knows how science is supposed to be done. He just wants to show off how little he knows by showing his ignorance of what a null hypothesis is. Hint: it is NOT by default "there is no effect".
Though his null hypothesis (really a hypothesis, nothing null about it: it makes a definite positive and testable claim: GHGs don't warm the planet) can be refuted.
Indeed he can refute it himself.
If GHGs don't cause warming when increased, then there will be no statistically significant trend in the data.
This is proven not to be the case.
You can do the test yourself.
Marco, as was to be expected, your information basis is very low: The document you have linked (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf), the same as ignorant Wow has linked, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SECRET Palma de Mallorca DATA MANIPULATION BY GISS, DATA WHICH WERE FAKED 2degC upwards. Your comment shows that you have zero knowledge on how GHCN temperature data are handled by NOAA or GISS. You should invest some effort to find out why Hansen's GISS manipulated in an alarmistic manner and secretly, without informing the public, temperature data of many temperature stations. I consider this to be severe scientific fraud by cheating scientists.
Wow "You can do the test yourself"
yes poor ignorant Wow, that's how you simple layman think science works, your science is science by dreaming. You don't even closely understand how silly your statements are
Coby, I am still waiting for a scientific article reference which substantitates your claim that springs begin earlier (please don't cite web pages but normal scientific references). Thank you.
Wow, you have to deliver scientific references which support your claim that GHGs warm the lower atmosphere. Don't cite web pages as they are no valid scientific references. I would prefer references of two papers from Nature or Science. Please abstain from referring me to a unspecific list of references on this or that. Do invest some effort to support your claim, since I have invested a few hours to show you the data fraud by GISS.
Freddy,
Thank you for that list of numbers. You will recall that I asked you several questions with regard to your initial post of Palma de Mallorca.
1 – How do you know that GISS secretly adjusted data?
2 – What makes you think that any adjustment was not warranted?
3 – What effect has any adjustment had on the overall global climate record?
Let’s take each of those questions in turn and see how your response measures up shall we?
1 – How do you know that GISS secretly adjusted data?
“….below you can see the listing of the downloaded data of temperature station Palma de Mallorca (64308306000 PALMA DE MALL 39.55 2.73) from the GISS web page…”
So, since you are saying that you downloaded the data from a publicly available website, where all the data was available to anyone who wished to download it, I think we can conclude that your assertion that they ‘secretly adjusted data’ is false. There was nothing secret about it at all. They made all their data public – no secret at all.
2 – What makes you think that any adjustment was not warranted?
You made no attempt to answer that one, so it would be wrong of me to draw a conclusion without any evidence, wouldn’t it? An unethical person might conclude that there was some sinister motive behind either the adjustment, or the fact that you failed to answer the question. But since I am not unethical, I will leave that sort of things to others.
3 – What effect has any adjustment had on the overall global climate record?
“….you can see in a plot you can easily do that now the graph shows a cooling trend of approx. 1degC, so the net difference between the two series is a change of approx 2degC. So GISS changed the station data in a way which makes look the past of Palma cooler than it was in the 2010 dataset, hence a contribution to a greater warming trend for the annual temperature calculation….”
So you have not answered this question either. Yes, it may well be that there was a change in the trend for this – and perhaps even other stations – but that was not my question. I asked how it affected global trends. Oh, and I can actually not 'see' any change in the trend. Anyone who draws conclusions on trends by eyeballing graphs obviously knows nothing about statistics, so it would be wrong of me to do that without doing proper analysis.
You then asked Marco:
“….Marco, you should strive to show to me what was wrong with my conclusion of GISS data fraud, given the example I have presented….”
I have answered that one for both you and Marco. You have not presented any evidence of data fraud, so it is completely unscientific and unethical to draw that conclusion.
So come on Freddy. You keep saying you want a discussion using science and evidence, yet you have failed so far to present any, despite you drawing conclusions as if you had. Please try not to by hypocritical, and start acting in the same manner that you demand of everyone else.
Oh, and I would be interested to know who is “…our research group…” that you mention in past #96 with all the data. Are you part of a university or similar legitimate organization, are you part of a ‘think tank’ or lobby group, or are you just a group of interested individuals working from someone’s basement?
Lastly, please stop talking about the 'null hypothesis'. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. This is not the place to give you a lesson in basic statistics, so I suggest you go away and do some reading.
Freddy
"...Coby, I am still waiting for a scientific article reference which substantitates your claim that springs begin earlier (please don’t cite web pages but normal scientific references). Thank you....
Seriously Freddy? You say that you are part of a research group and you also claim to have scientific training. How come you are unable to do simple research?
Obviously, no-one is claiming that spring is coming earlier, since 'spring' is a siderial event related to the axial tilt of the earth. But many natural events which rely on temperature as cues are occuring earlier because of climate change, and it would take you 5 seconds to find them using Web of Science or Google Scholar. Here is just one:
http://eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/Ecol206/Walther%20et%20al%20Nature%20…
If you want more, look at the references cited and read them. You know - just like a real scientist.
mandas, do you need help for simple statistics to analyse the fraud data given? You talked about your eye-balling which you cannot trust as a layman. I can aid all of you in statistics basics since you lack obviously any knowledge.
Furthermore, you appear to suffer from severe language comprehension impairmnt as you are not able to understand the difference between "public" and "published".
You should try to answer the following questions:
1. Why did GISS secretly and intentionally committ data fraud in manipulating data towards warming by incredible 2degC in various temperature station cases?
2. Why do you support scientifc data manipulation towards faked global warming
3. Why do have such a low knowledge about the GHCN and GISTemp databases.
4. Why are you so unfamiliar with science theory and have no knowledge about the setup of a normal scientific publication
Your reference an behalf of coby who is silent again is a webpage. mandas, come on, you should that is the most primitive way to reference something, the same way as if you would say, read it in USA Today. Just ridiculous
I miss a really scientific spirit here. you mandas are no scientist, be honest.
mandas, unjustified hidden temperature data manipulation is a severe case. a case of compiling all wrongdoings of GISS data manipulations is under way and will be forwarded to relevant insitutions for further investigation. global warming must not result from faked temperature data, which nobody should want, not even you, if you are a decent guy.
btw, I told you that I am scientist. Now, please tell me, what your professional background is. How many scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals have you published? I guess none, like all the others here?
You hadn't read any, that's for sure.
It was this one:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2013/01/16-years/#comment-21718
Go on, then.
This should be a hoot...!
The claim they did this has not been proven.
Prove your claim.
Since this is dependent on #1, this has not been shown to be the case.
Prove #1 then you need to prove #2
Your claim of this is not science.
Please prove this claim.
This is the maximum insult.
Your statement of this is not scientifically made and therefore needs to be proven.
Tell me, do you ALWAYS make claims without proof?
Unjustified claims of manipulation is a severe case.
Please explain how you have any science or professional background?
You're just a paid polish (or east european anyway) troll pretending to be someone they are not.
You do not have a research team. You merely crawl around denialist sites and pick up the latest and greatest gossip and think that you have found something.
You are a fool.
And an obvious one at that.
Freddy
“…mandas, do you need help for simple statistics to analyse the fraud data given? You talked about your eye-balling which you cannot trust as a layman. I can aid all of you in statistics basics since you lack obviously any knowledge….”
First, since you have not provided any evidence of fraud, I am at a loss to understand why you think I need help analyzing it. Please provide the evidence of fraud, then we can discuss, and if I need help I will ask. But as I said, since the data was public that means it was not secret, and since you have provided no evidence that any changes were not justified, then you have not demonstrated fraud.
Second, anyone who is trained in basic statistics – as I am - knows that you cannot ‘eyeball’ a graph and draw conclusions on trends without doing detailed analysis. If you think otherwise, then you are ignorant of statistics and can teach me nothing.
Now on to your questions:
“1. Why did GISS secretly and intentionally committ data fraud in manipulating data towards warming by incredible 2degC in various temperature station cases?”
First, your own evidence shows it was not secret, so to keep claiming it was, in contradition to your own evidence, is extremely unethical and foolish. Second, since you have provided no evidence that the adjustments were not warranted, you have not demonstrated any fraud. Your conclusion is completely unsupported by - indeed it is counter to - your own evidence.
“2. Why do you support scientifc data manipulation towards faked global warming”
I don’t.
“3. Why do have such a low knowledge about the GHCN and GISTemp databases….”
Because I have no need to know more about them.
“….Why are you so unfamiliar with science theory and have no knowledge about the setup of a normal scientific publication…”
On what basis do you claim this?
“….Your reference an behalf of coby who is silent again is a webpage. mandas, come on, you should that is the most primitive way to reference something, the same way as if you would say, read it in USA Today. Just ridiculous…”
Ummmmm no. Read it again (for the first time?). It was a review article from Nature (have you heard of it?), and contained 97 cites. Did you read any of them?
“…a case of compiling all wrongdoings of GISS data manipulations is under way and will be forwarded to relevant insitutions for further investigation….”
No they won’t – stop making idiotic claims. This is just a ridiculous statement attempting to ‘big note’ yourself, and it is so transparently false that there isn’t a person in the world who would be taken it by it. Stop lying, it does you no credit.
“…..btw, I told you that I am scientist. Now, please tell me, what your professional background is. How many scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals have you published? I guess none, like all the others here?”
You claim to be a scientist, but since you have offered no evidence to support that claim it remains unverified. And give the completely unscientific approach you have adopted, I have my doubts. What field of science? What degrees do you hold? From which universities? And what is that ‘research organisation’ that you referred to in post #96 that I asked you about?
As for me, my degrees are in Wildlife Management, and I hold both undergraduate and post-graduate degrees. I work for a Commonwealth Government Department, and do part time work with conservation agencies, natural resource agencies and my local university. I am also a graduate of the US Air War College. And yes, I have published – but as I wish to remain anonymous for my own reasons (which is why I use a pseudonym and not my real name) so I will not be telling you what they are.
Now, as I previously requested, please provide the evidence for your original claim.
Post Normal Science.
Parapsychology, the healing power of crystals and Tolkein languages.
(since he won't answer, I did for him)
mandas, you have an honourable profession, chapeau, but you are no scientist, which is not a shame. a won't of course blame you for it. but you should not behave as if you were one.
the data manipulation of GISS is related to the fact that they completey changed without any reasoning and communicating the long time series of already homogenized data in a clandestine way to the complete opposite compared to 2 years ago.
I will not tell you my university degrees and field of research and in which research institution I work because you or at least some others here would just not believe me and make nasty comments as wow always does. So it does not make any sense. You are all here extremely partizan and 100% deaf to objective results, you want just to hear that you are class, have the truth, and are superior to denialsts. the truth is that all your claims are wrong and you are not able to put into perspective what you belief is your truth.
mandas, I have said it so often here and everybody is so stubbornly unwilling to learn or understand when I ask for precise article referencing. Has really nobody of you never had a look into a REAL scientific publication? To give you an example what I mean by scientific argueing please see here:
-----------
This paper will describe and summarise the recent status of a database developed by this group of authors with the aim to fully exploit, quality control and increase the instrumental climate data potential in the GAR. Earlier attempts started in the region during the 1990s with national level activities for some main cli- mate elements (Bo ̈hm, 1992; Auer, 1993; Aschwanden et al.,1996; Bosshard, 1996; Baudenbacher, 1997; Gisler et al., 1997; Gajic ́-Cˇ apka and Zaninovic ́, 1997; Her- zog and Mu ̈ller-Westermeier, 1997; Herzog and Mu ̈ller- Westermeier, 1998; Maugeri and Nanni, 1998; Buffoni et al., 1999; Brunetti et al., 2000; Szalai and Szentim- rey, 2001; Begert et al., 2003; Likso, 2004; Begert et al., 2005; Zaninovic ́ and Gajic ́-Cˇ apka, 2000). A comparable supranational activity was the NACD project (Frich et al., 1996) that focused on Northern Europe and was based on a well established collaboration within the Fennoscandian countries. Elsewhere, systematic homogenisation of climate series was undertaken mainly at the level of the national weather service (e.g. USA: Groisman and Legates, 1994; Karl et al., 1988; Canada: Vincent et al., 2002; Australia: Plummer et al., 1995; Spain: Brunet et al., 2006; and others).
It was soon realised that quality and homogeneity of long-term data were major problems that required unique solutions and lots of painstaking work. Soon after, the national homogenising activities found a common focal point in the bi- to tri-ennial ‘Budapest Homogeneity Sem- inars’ (Hungarian Meteorological Service, 1997; WMO, 1999; WMO, 2004). The two logical next steps were to extend the work to more climate elements and to reduce, as much as possible, the effects of national borders and sub-national administrative structures in the region (for respective historical details see e.g. Auer et al., 2005).
-----------
This is standard scientific argueing, mandas, wow, coby, marco, and you should learn this. It's a shame when you reference a popular laymen internet address as support of a scientific argument and also not the reference of a review. Listen and remember: a review does principally never contain any own original research result data and is no valid scientific reference to document a soecific scientific result. You will only extremely rarely find review article references in n original article.
wow, now you: are you courageous enough to admit that you are no scientist? Do you dare to be honest? Of course you may lie and nobody can verify what you said. But are you afraid of telling the truth about your professional education? In contrast to you I will not question what you might be saying and also not offending you in case you are really no scientist.
"mandas, you have an honourable profession, chapeau, but you are no scientist, which is not a shame. a won’t of course blame you for it. but you should not behave as if you were one.
Well golly gee freddy. The word 'Science' on my degrees is obviously misleading, thanks for putting me straight. I will pass on your critique to the universities concerned. I am sure they will take it on board.
"the data manipulation of GISS is related to the fact that they completey changed without any reasoning and communicating the long time series of already homogenized data in a clandestine way to the complete opposite compared to 2 years ago.
As you know yourself, all the information was publicly available so there was nothing secret or clandestine about it. And 'complete opposite'? As English is obviously not your first language I will forgive you this time, but you do need to learn the meaning of words like 'secret', 'opposite' and 'fraud' if you are going to use them.
"I will not tell you my university degrees and field of research and in which research institution I work because you or at least some others here would just not believe me and make nasty comments as wow always does.
Well I certainly won't make nasty comments if you reveal your qualifications. I don't even care if you are qualified or not. But I do care about the supposed research organisation that you claim to represent, because it's credibility and yours are closely tied. And your evasion on this issue does lead one to suspect that you are not being truthful, especially when it is correlated with your mistatements on things like statistics, and in your repeatedly drawing conclusions which are unsupported by any evidence. You are not acting in a scientific manner at all. In fact, the way you are drawing unsupported conclusions, and refusing to look at legitimate evidence, can best be described as unethical.
This is standard scientific argueing, mandas, wow, coby, marco, and you should learn this.
No it isn''t. Cutting and pasting a quote from a paper is not arguing - anyone can do it. If you want to provide references for your sources on a blog like this, you need to provide a link to the paper, not just the author's name and date of publishing. A real paper has the reference list at the end with the full name of the paper and the journal it was published in. Your list is just a bunch of meaningless names and dates that is completely unhelpful.
"It’s a shame when you reference a popular laymen internet address as support of a scientific argument and also not the reference of a review. Listen and remember: a review does principally never contain any own original research result data and is no valid scientific reference to document a soecific scientific result. You will only extremely rarely find review article references in n original article.
When someone gives you a list of 97 papers describing an issue, you should actually read them, rather than trying to play idiotic games by suggesting the information has not been provided. If you want an answer to your question, look at the reference list I provided to you and read the papers - all 97 of them. If you don't, and would rather play stupid games, then all you are doing is demonstrating the behaviour of a petulant child who sticks his fingers in his ears and hands over his eyes to avoid something he doesn't want to know.
I have said it so often here and everybody is so stubbornly unwilling to learn or understand
I couldn't have said it any better myself. It's an unfortunate characteristic of many people who blog on opinion sites. They just don't accept evidence and are unwilling to adjust their previously established viewpoint. You are exhibiting all of those traits, but perhaps you could prove us all wrong now that you have been shown to be.
freddy asked in comment 54 (and earlier) "provide me please with individual original scientific article references that support your claim of earlier spring beginnings"
I would like to note for the record that despite numerous requests from others, you have yet to provide any support for any of your assertions that is equivalent to what you constantly request of others. Nevertheless, please find below a number of scientific references to support my point about biological responses to climate change agreeing with the temperature data (which I expressed as spring is arriving earlier):
About early onset of spring:
Menzel, A. & Fabrian, P. Growing season extended in Europe. Nature 397, 659 (1999).
Menzel, A., Estrella, N. & Fabian, P. Spatial and temporal variability of the phenological seasons in Germany from 1951±1996. Glob. Change Biol. 7, 657±666 (2001).
Forchhammer, M. C., Post, E. & Stenseth, N. C. Breeding phenology and climate. Nature 391, 29±30 (1998).
Post, E. & Stenseth, N. C. Climatic variability, plant phenology, and northern ungulates. Ecology 80, 1322±1339 (1999).
Bradley, N. L., Leopold, A. C., Ross, J. & Huffaker, W. Phenological changes re¯ect climate change in Wisconsin. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9701±9704 (1999).
Sparks, T., Heyen, H., Braslavska, O. & Lehikoinen, E. Are European birds migrating earlier? BTO News 223, 8±9 (1999).
Huin, N. & Sparks, T. H. Spring arrival patterns of the cuckoo Cuculus canorus, nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos and spotted ¯ycatcher Musciapa striata in Britain. Bird Study 47, 22±31 (2000).
Crick, H. Q. P. & Sparks, T. H. Climate change related to egg-laying trends. Nature 399, 423±424 (1999).
Dunn, P. O. & Winkler, D. W. Climate change has affected the breeding date of tree swallows throughout North America. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 2487±2490 (1999).
Brown, J. L., Li, S.-H.& Bhagabati, N. Long-term trend toward earlier breeding in an American bird: A response to global warming? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 5565±5569 (1999).
Crick, H. Q. P., Dudley, C., Glue, D. E. & Thomson, D. L. UK birds are laying eggs earlier. Nature 388, 526 (1997).
Roy, D. B. & Sparks, T. H. Phenology of British butter¯ies and climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 6, 407±416 (2000).
About changes in timing of autumn, which is closely related to the timing of spring in the purpose of our discussion:
Gatter, W. Timing and patterns of visible autumn migration: Can effects of global warming be detected? J. Ornithol. 133(4), 427±436 (1992).
Poleward shifts and shifts in altitude are the geographical counter-part to temporal shifts wrt ecological issues:
Convey, P. in ``Fingerprints'' of Climate ChangeÐAdapted Behaviour and Shifting Species Ranges (eds Walther, G.-R., Burga, C. A. & Edwards, P. J.) 17±42 (Kluwer Academic, New York, 2001).
Thomas, C. D. & Lennon, J. J. Birds extend their ranges northwards. Nature 399, 213 (1999). Southward, A. J., Hawkins, S. J. & Burrows, M. T. Seventy years' observations of changes in distribution and abundance of zooplankton and intertidal organisms in the western English Channel in relation to rising sea temperature. J. Therm. Biol. 20, 127±155 (1995).
Kullman, L. 20th century climate warming and tree-limit rise in the southern Scandes of Sweden. Ambio 30(2), 72±80 (2001).
Parmesan, C. et al. Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butter¯y species associated with regional warming. Nature 399, 579±583 (1999).
Parmesan, C. Climate and species' range. Nature 382, 765±766 (1996).
Walther, G.-R. Climatic forcing on the dispersal of exotic species. Phytocoenologia 30(3±4), 409±430 (2000).
Pounds, J. A., Fogden, M. P. L. & Campbell, J. H. Biological response to climate change on a tropical mountain. Nature 398, 611±615 (1999).
Bergstrom, D. M. & Chown, S. L. Life at the front: history, ecology and change on southern ocean islands. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 472±476 (1999).
Please proceed to reject them out of hand with vague hand-waves about the alleged contents which you have not and will not ever read.
If I understand Freddy correctly, Hansen fiddled the temperature record and this has caused the Arctic to melt, the glaciers to melt, and Spring to arrive earlier.
I'm not surprised he's outraged - it's an outrage!
coby, thank you for the references. If course I will read them and give you me feedback.
Vince, you certainly know that Palma de Mallorca is not in the arctic. Please be more serious and not so polemic.
coby, mandas
why don't you accept the data from GISS which I have listed in #96 as proof of data manipulation by GISS. Until 2010 all historical data have already been homogenized. The grotesque change of Palma data, look at them carefully please, after 2010 has never been announced and therefore been justified. This behavior to manipulate temperature data into a warm direction (plus 2degC) is not honourable and acceptable. Don't you understand this?
To express it simple: You cannot show all the time a temperature trend from 1881 to 2010 in Palma from 16 to 15degC, and then, of a sudden, just behave like "oops, the trend is the opposite, it's from 15 to 16degC". This is what makes people mad about the manipulations by environmentalists.
I proved my claim by presenting you direct data from scientific databases. You can do this investigation yourself and will come to the same conclusions.
mandas, you said in #126:
"When someone gives you a list of 97 papers describing an issue, you should actually read them, rather than trying to play idiotic games by suggesting the information has not been provided. If you want an answer to your question, look at the reference list I provided to you and read the papers – all 97 of them. If you don’t, and would rather play stupid games, then all you are doing is demonstrating the behaviour of a petulant child who sticks his fingers in his ears and hands over his eyes to avoid something he doesn’t want to know"
This is pure incivility by you. Why should I take you seriously when you start behaving in an uncivilized way like Wow?
Coby, the abstract of the first article in the list of references you have provided in #127 (Menzel, A. & Fabrian, P. Growing season extended in Europe. Nature 397, 659 (1999)) says:
"Changes in phenology (seasonal plant and animal activity driven by environmental factors) from year to year may be a sensitive and easily observable indicator of changes in the biosphere. We have analysed data from more than 30 years of observation in Europe, and found that spring events, such as leaf unfolding, have advanced by 6 days, whereas autumn events, such as leaf colouring, have been delayed by 4.8 days. This means that the average annual growing season has lengthened by 10.8 days since the early 1960s. These shifts can be attributed to changes in air temperature".
Sounds plausible. However the sample data are only from 30 years and geographical coverage is only Europe. A conclusion that spring begins earlier all over the globe cannot be drawn from the study results.
coby, mandas, wow, marco
my reproach to GISS is that they did not say why, how and when they changed historical temperature data in their database which they use to calculate global temperatures
Wow, what do you think: wil temperature data correction for the UHI effect result in cooler or warmer corrected temperature data? Be careful with your answer in order to not compromise yourself
Freddy, you have not provided proof of fraudulent data manipulation, you have only provided proof that two data sets differed. Now, I provided you links to GISTEMP and its descriptions of changes in their methodology and data entry. The "how" and "why" *is* indicated on their website. All you need to do is to read the relevant literature!
A clear problem is that you fail to have noticed that the GHCNv2 to GHCNv3 change has significant influence on the data. On top of that is the GISTEMP homogenisation, which is *clearly described in the scientific literature*. That you do not understand it is quite different from "not say why, how and when".
Also, you claim to have a scientific background, but unlike mandas, you are completely unwilling to provide any evidence at all. Well, I will be slightly less vague than you: I have a PhD, work at a top European university as a Professor, have several PhD students who work for me, as well as postdocs, and am the proud main supervisor of many PhDs who have gone out and contributed further to scientific and social advancement. I also have numerous scientific publications in the top journals within my field, and a h-index that is somewhere 20+ (haven't checked lately).
And now for my evidence showing freddy's research group is incompetent:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/6430830600…
That's a little harsh, Marco.
You can't call something fictitious incompetent.
They didn't find anything because they don't exist.
Except they (their parent organisation) did.
Your complaint, like all your other complaints are SOLELY a problem with YOU.
As Watts found out, the corrections for the UHI effect (what YOU term "manipulations of, and falsifying, the data") makes the temperature trend LESS than that reported by the corrected datasets.
You would know this if you were any sort of scientist.
"why don’t you accept the data from GISS which I have listed in #96 as proof of data manipulation by GISS."
Because it isn't.
" Why should I take you seriously when you start behaving in an uncivilized way like Wow?"
Why should you be the only one allowed to be incivil?
Freddie, are you courageous enough to admit that you are no scientist? Do you dare to be honest? Of course you may lie and nobody can verify what you said. But are you afraid of telling the truth about your professional education?
Are you going to tell the truth: that you're a nobody who never lifted a science paper in their life and that you're entirely making this up because you think it is somehow believable that you are a rational human being?
Since they both HAVE a reason AND communicated it, the data manipulation is not fraudulent.
Since you HAVE been told of this several times, your claims of fraud are slanderous.
Please inform me of your country of origin and real name so I can inform the proper authorities.
Yes, you cannot show that and did not show that.
The only one making that claim is you.
The take home message here is that this fraudulent idiot has a problem solely because they want to have that problem.
Therefore there's absolutely nothing to be gained from giving this mule what they want. The more you try to help, the less they will listen.
Wow the only thing you appear to be able to do is playing around with words: when I state something specific you just copy these in your post and address them towards me. Aren't you able to use your own words. In addition, the usage of words like "idiot" and others is very uncivilized and show your poor education.
I am trying here to proof seriourps data fraud by GISS and the only thing you are able to answer are nasty, offending and highly uncivilized text fragments,
No word from you about your professional background? Are you ashamed of it?
Freddy, all you have proven so far is incompetence. I gave you a few pointers which show:
a) GISTEMP changed from GHCN v2 to v3. This change is documented on the GISTEMP homepage
b) This change causes changes in many stations, because GHCN now offers quality-adjusted data, something GISTEMP had to do itself before. Also this change is reported on the GISTEMP homepage
c) as my final tour-de-force, I went and looked how Palma de Mallorca looks in the GHCNv3 database. Unsurprisingly, it shows that the quality-adjusted data is what is also reported by GISTEMP.
All this took me a combined 10 minutes of searching, mainly because I had some trouble finding the GHCN ID number of Palma de Mallorca. Had I had that, it would have been five minutes.
Now, for a "research group" that has looked at so many temperature records, and thus has spent so much time, to NOT notice this...is outright incompetence.
To call the changes "fraud" by GISS shows you should be very, very ashamed. In fact, I expect you to write a letter to GISS in which you apologize for making such widespread false claims about GISS and Jim Hansen, without ever contacting them to ask whether you perhaps had missed something.
He's proven incompetence in spades.
He's proven incompetence at a world-class level.
And proven nothing else.
when I state something specific you just copy these in your post and address them towards me.
In addition you merely repeat unsubstantiated claims as if that repeat substantiates them. Do you not have any substance of your own, but must rely on repeating what's said at ClimateFraudit?
In addition, the usage of words like “fraud” and others is very uncivilized and show your poor education.
"I am trying here to proof seriourps data fraud by GISS "
And failed every time, Repeating the claim is not proving the claim. No matter HOW badly babelfish translates your sentences.
And the only thing you are able to answer are nasty, offending and highly uncivilized text fragments,
No word from you about your professional background? Are you ashamed of it?
Marco, thank you for disclosing some information on your professional background. Impressive! I have no reason at all to doubt whar are were saying.
With me it's similar. I worked for nearly 13 years in two different universities as scientist and lecturer, produced every year with my peers or alone approx. 1 to 4 original articles per year, and also guided a number a students to their doctorates as supervisor. the second part of my scientific career took place in the industry where I was part of the global research unit of a world-wide acting company (not in the oil industry). I have no connections to the Heartland Institute and also not to WUWT.
Your assumption was wrong that I were not aware of v2 or v3 versions of the GHCN database, as I am downloading from time to time new versions of the whole GHCN dataset from the ftp site of NOAA of import all data in MS SQL Server databases to do data evaluations. Of course do I read all change informations from version to version by the homgenization team at NOAA (Menne, Williams et al.) and their original articles on data homogenization (2005, 2007, 2009, etc.) are very familiar to me. Same story with the GIStemp database and all relevant documentation which I download and evaluate also from time to time.
Therefore your assumption that I am devoid of any information is totally wrong. By contrast, I am tempted to maintain here, that I dispose by far of the broadest data basis and knowledge about global temperature data coverage compared to anybody else on this blog.
Marco #148, no you are wrong, it's not as easy as you assume. If you carefully examine the data I have posted above you can recognize that the difference of GISS data 2010 for the years 1881 to 1889 to GISS data 2012 is minus 2.5degC. You will not find this difference in the GHCN versions before and after any homigenizations. So your conclusion is wrong. The truth is that did something extra to the data which is not documented and reproducible. That's what I am talking about! As a professor you should do your enquiries more diligently and not so lala in a matter of a few minutes.
Wow, utterly primitive, as always, you are THE shame of this blog and coby cannot be proud to have such a uncivilized person on board. Please abstain from addressing me in the future as your contributions don't contain any substance, just repeat my words and are only primitive ad hominem attacks on me.
"I worked for nearly 13 years in two different universities as"
cleaner.
FTFY.
Except it wasn't. Remember this?
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2013/01/16-years/#comment-21596
"Therefore your assumption that I am devoid of any information is totally wrong."
Nope, it was totally on the button.
Freddie, utterly primitive, as always, you are THE shame of this blog and coby cannot be proud to have such a uncivilized person on board. Please abstain from addressing me in the future as your contributions don’t contain any substance, just repeat my words and are only primitive ad hominem attacks on everyone on this thread who DARES disagree with you.
"If you carefully examine the data I have posted above you can recognize that the difference of GISS data 2010 for the years 1881 to 1889 to GISS data 2012 is minus 2.5degC."
If you carefully do the science, you'll realise
a) that is complete nonsense
b) that the words are all confused
c) not supported by the data
d) are not proof of malfeasance
e) show you are incompetent
freddy, Marco has convincingly shown (here is the link again: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/6430830600…) that the adjustment you are using as an example of alleged fraud on the part of GISS was done to the data before they got it. You need to do better than your flat fingers-in-the-ears denial in comment #152
Good night, it is late in Australia, sorry I will miss the coming retraction and apology.
"sorry I will miss the coming retraction and apology."
Only because you're not immortal, coby. Freddie will DIE before he gives up one whit of his cries of persecution and fraud.
Freddy, you have suddenly altered your complaint. You said, and I quote:
"After GISS has changed the Palma de Mallorca data in the 2012 download you can see in a plot you can easily do that now the graph shows a cooling trend of approx. 1degC, so the net difference between the two series is a change of approx 2degC. So GISS changed the station data in a way which makes look the past of Palma cooler than it was in the 2010 dataset, hence a contribution to a greater warming trend for the annual temperature calculation."
It is difficult to read this in any other way than that you assigned the WHOLE change in the dataset to some nefarious actions by GISS in order to get a warming trend. Now you have suddenly changed it to the data in the beginning only.
But that clearly is not true. Well, it's fair enough to state that GISS also includes a further change of the data compared to the GHCN data, but it would be false to say that it made those further changes without documentation (you can run GISTEMP itself, which contains all the steps it performs, so you can see where the changes occur). What would be even more false is to claim the changes are there to inflate the warming.
You see, I did the analysis on the GISTEMP data you provided, and the 2012 data shows a trend of 0.71 degrees per century. Now let's take a look at that GHCNv3 with the quality controlled adjusted data. It's a little bit tricky because of the extra data before 1880, but since that is above the trendline, we can safely say that trendline is an underestimate of the trend from 1880 onwards. Here it comes: that trend is higher than that of GISTEMP. Much higher. As in close to TWICE as high, or about 1.3 degrees per century. That is, the further changes of GISTEMP compared to GHCNv3 DECREASE the trend. Which is rather contradictory to part of your claim of GISS fraudulently changing data to inflate the trend.
Of course, you may still disagree with the data, but you have failed to show:
a) that those changes were made without documentation (again, the various changes have been described, and the homogenisation procedure is also described. Obviously, when station data changes, including that of surrounding stations, the homogenisation procedure will give different results)
b) that those changes are fraudulent (a change for which you cannot find the reasons, and even *if* undocumented, does NOT by definition make it fraudulent)
c) that those changes are made to inflate the trend. In fact, here I have shown that if GISTEMP had wanted to inflate the trend of Palma de Mallorca, they shouldn't have done any homogenisation, but just use the quality controlled adjusted data from GHCNv3. Much higher trend!
If the research team actually existed in real life, I would despair for them if their efforts managed as big a failure as that fred has demonstrated here.
If it were merely a hobby, or someone else's statements they were repeating (which is actually the case: that team is a fiction, just like the complaints of freddy here), then to have so badly failed at their entire reason for being paid is rather soul destroying, isn't it.
Wow, Freddy is likely one of the EIKE people, of that I am quite sure. They have been going on and on and on about supposed data fraud in GISS, proving it by...errrr...errr...showing that the data was different in 2010 versus 2012.
"FRAUD! FRAUD! CAN'T YOU SEE?!
What? There may be reasons to perform adjustments? Well, maybe, but as long as we don't understand them, it's fraud. There!"
Coby: "Marco has convincingly shown (here is the link again: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/6430830600…)"
No, he has not, since the graphs in the linked image show a comparison of quality-adjusted vs. non-adjusted temperature values from Palma de Mallorca from the current version of the GHCNv3 database as downloaded from the NOAA webpage. By contrast, I was talking about T differences between Q-adjusted data 2010 vs. those from 2012 from the GISS webpages. A completely dfferent stuff.
Why can't you understand this difference (same question to Marco).
You should learn to improve the precision of your arguments. It's difficult to discuss with people who compare bananas with fishes.
Ah, right, they're not paid to investigate what the facts are, they're paid to rake mud.
They're doing that.
Just very very badly.
And fred here is the best they can get for a front-man???
Yes, he has.
It is understood.
What is not understood is how this is malfeasance or fraud.
You should learn to improve the precision of your arguments. It’s difficult to discuss with people who compare bananas with fishes.
"Well, maybe, but as long as we don’t understand them, it’s fraud. There!”
And there is why fraudulent freddy here refuses to read anything or see anything in the evidence given him: it's his job to not understand.
As long as he doesn't understand, it's "fraud".
wow, excellent argumenation from you as learned from AGW church argumentation schools: I grant you the mark "excellent": maximum partizanship, maximum hostility, maximum incivility, maximum distance to substance on case, maximum self-complacency with oneself and the AGW church. Well done. Al Gore will reward you with profits from sold CO2 certificates. Your isolated mental world seems okay. Congratulations again!
A little bit about YOUR background, as you are the only one here who is afraid of disclosing a little bit about himself?
Unlike the church of denialism, we learn facts and use them to inform ourselves. This doesn't work for denial.
Yup, denier trope #1.
Sad.
Freddy, how can we be sure you downloaded the "Q-adjusted" data from Palma de Mallorca in 2010? From my analysis, the 2010 data look suspiciously much like the quality-*un*adjusted data of the GHCNv3.
Also, it is obvious for anyone that the change from v2 to v3, and the inclusion of quality-adjusted data in GHCNv3 into GISTEMP will have an impact on the station data if that quality adjusted data is significantly different from the original data. You can even check what happens with the two different data sets by simply downloading and running the GISTEMP code. If that's too much, I already pointed you to clearclimatecode.org, which has a 'simpler' version of the GISTEMP code (old code to which stuff is added tends to become cluttered).
Also, you have disastrously failed to substantiate your claims of data fraud. All you have documented is that because you do not really understand where the changes come from, you decide to claim fraud.
And then you decide to scold wow for incivility?? You've got some nerve, Freddy!
Tell us, do you get paid for this work you do?
Well, that PROVES you are here solely for the grant money!
No, I don't get paid. But you don't believe me anyway, since you think I am a crook from the oil industry. So yeah, you are right as always. You have got me, I am the idiot from Heartland
"No, I don’t get paid"
So you're a benefits scrounger, then.
" since you think I am a crook from the oil industry"
So where did I say that?
Your meds are making you hallucinate.
wow, yes you are right on all accounts.
sorry to have bothered and disappointed you. yes, I am a benefits scrounger and have taken too many hallucinogens today. will try to improve everything tomorrow.
"This is pure incivility by you. Why should I take you seriously when you start behaving in an uncivilized way like Wow?
I don't give a flying fuck whether you think I am uncivilised or not. But I would rather be uncivilised than act in a thoroughly unprofessional and unethical way as you are doing.
You have made claims of fraud - with no evidence.
You have stated without evidence that there was data manipulation by one organisation, and therefore concluded that there is no global warming, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
You have stated that something occurred secretly, despite the information being made freely available on a public website.
You claimed to represent a 'research organisation', when no such organisation exists.
You claim to be a professional scientist - but refuse to disclose your qualifications, continue to misrepresent science and act in an unscientific manner, and make basic mistakes in subjects like statistics that no-one with an undergraduate degree in science would make.
You ask for evidence of a claim of early spring, but when shown the evidence you refuse to read it.
You demand peer reviewed science as evidence for our claims, but fail to produce any for yours.
You claim that you are going to expose NASA for fraud - but all you are doing is big noting yourself in an attempt to impress the gullible.
And finally, there is this post to wow at #167:
"...wow, excellent argumenation from you as learned from AGW church argumentation schools: I grant you the mark “excellent”: maximum partizanship, maximum hostility, maximum incivility, maximum distance to substance on case, maximum self-complacency with oneself and the AGW church. Well done. Al Gore will reward you with profits from sold CO2 certificates. Your isolated mental world seems okay. Congratulations again!..."
Thanks Freddy. As soon as people like you start talking about AGW churches and Al Gore, then we know without any doubt what they really are. You are not a scientist, and any claims to the contrary are obviously a lie. You may have studied for an undergraduate degree in science, but you are no scientist.
You are just a sad troll living in your mother's basement. You have a spreadsheet, and have plugged in some numbers from a couple of met stations, down some basic linear regressions, and think that your findings overturn years of work by real scientists. You haven't. You should meet a former troll at this site known as Dick Wakefield - you share similar delusions.
mandas, congrats also to you. You are completely right, and I apologize to have disappointed you.
However, our team has meanwhile investigated over 100 T series from GISS with all the clandestine data manipulations which I have presented to you for the case of Palma de Mallorca. I will update you on the results. We compile now a report which will be submitted to critical and objective addresses (unlike you in your partizanhip) and also to the offices of a US congressmen to which we have excellent contacts (e.g. Rep. Joe Barton, Rep. Steve Scalisle, Louisiana, Rep. Michael Burgess, Texas, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee, Rep. Newt Gingrich, etc.)
mandas, your argument is again false: reproaching somebody of not agreeing to AGW consensus topics does somebody not disqualify to be a scientist. There are thousands of scientists who do not believe in AGW climatology assertions and are nevertheless scientists, of course.
BTW, I define a scientist a person who works as scientist to make money for a living. By this definition you are no scientist, according to the information you have given here, since you are a manager.
frankie, you already admitted you take drugs.
Please stop posting whilst under the influence of idiocy.
Which weren't clandestine.
And you didn't even notice that the dataset you got was the raw data.
"your team" is incompetent. But you're in the lead on that, fraudulent freddie.
mandas, why are you ALWAYS wrong and don't appear able to read. You maintain that I have refused to read literature about the early spring stuff from coby. You are a liar and have committed injustice because I have started reading the literature and given already feedback on one of the studies. what drives you so to lie? Is this a major part of your character?
Regarding the GISS data fraud you have never given feedback on the unexplainable differences which I have documented between the 2010 and 2012 values of a single station. IT CANNOT BE THAT THE TRENDLINE FOR ONE STATION CHANGES BY 2DEGREES CELSIUS TOWARDS WARMING FOR TEMPERATURE RECORDS MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO. HOW BLINDED MUST ONE BE TO OVERLOOK THAT THIS IS INTENTIONAL BETRAYAL ON SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY. WE WILL STRIVE FOR JURIDICAL PROSECUTION OF SUCH UNBELIEVABLE DATA FRAUD.
wow, NO RAW DATA, you polemic warming partizan. that's what does not go into your brain. you cannot check the nature of any data since you are totally uncapable to deal with computerized data, have no clue on data homogenization and no skills regarding scientific work. you repeat only what others tell you. in addition you are highly uncivilized and plainly hostile to somebody who wants to provide the objective truth to you.
"NO RAW DATA,"
Yes, that's what you thought you had.
But you're such a colossal incompetent you didn't and still don't know it.
You just don't want to know, hence it's completely irrelevant what you say.
Go somewhere where they care what the terminally insane say.
Here?
Nobody gives a shit about your paranoia.
Freddy, why are you ALWAYS wrong and don’t appear able to read?
@Richard Simons
I have answered your question in #47 and now it's your turn to answer my questions, as you promised. Why do you hide away?
Wow, am I here on a psychiatric ward. I have listed downloaded qc data from you beloved GISS and maintain that they are RAW DATA? Are you really intellectually reduced? Please download the data yourself from GISS, analyse the data and then publicly admit here that you are a big idiot. Are you completely able to download station data from GISS the way I have now x times explained to you and do the same analysis OR are you uncapable of everything except expressing nasty phrases?
Complete system breakdown at GISS since days:
The error message says:
"— Please Note —
Due to technical problems with the GISS webserver, much of our site content is currently not available.
No interactive content, such as creating scientific plots using web forms, is currently enabled.
"
Hence since days it is completely impossible to download a major part of GISS temperature data. I therefore strongly assume that GISS is aware that data fraud has been detected and Hansen and his employees are aware that manipulations have been detected and they now try to escape somehow the compromising situation. For god's sake have we downloaded all manipulated temperature already some time ago and will be able again to examine what GISS will have changed this time without any announcements towards a mythical warmer world which pleases so the environmentalists and Al Gore.
Freddy, I already showed you that the quality controlled adjusted data from GHCNv3 for Palma de Mallorca has a trend that is MUCH LARGER than the trend for the same station in GISTEMP. As in TWICE as high. The trend in the quality-unadjusted data is about the same.
What you are thus accusing GISS of is the deliberate data manipulation to REDUCE the trend!
Are you sure you want to go there? Now, Barton will take anything that fits his ideology, but even he will be careful in accusing an organisation of fraud when the facts show that those who make the accusations do not have any evidence of fraud. All they have is evidence they do not understand what has happened, which is more likely to be due to incompetence (or even more like, due to ideological blindness) than due to any nefarious data handling by GISS.
I look forward to you guys submitting your report, but I look forward even more to the epic slapdown you will get.
Marco, yes we want to go there, because we feel to be on save grounds with our allegations. And, you are wrong with your conclusion that GISS has reduced the warmng trend.
Question A to you:
Have you been able to verify that the series of annual mean temperature values of quality-adjusted data from 1881 to 2010 for the station 64308306000 (Palma de Mallorca) as downloaded from the GISTemp database in March 2010 (left column values in post #96 here) is correct?
Question B to you:
Have you been able to verify that the series of annual mean temperature values of quality-adjusted data from 1881 to 2010 for the station 64308306000 (Palma de Mallorca) as downloaded from the GISTemp database in March 2012 (right column values in post #96 here) is correct?
Question C to you:
In case you confirm the validity of the data as asked for in question A and B, would you kindly be willing to plot the 2010 data series from #96 and add a trendline, and do the same with the 2012 series with a trendline, and draw a conclusion on the differences of the two trendlines achieved?
I would be curious to know whether you would then insist that GISS has reduced the warming trend as compared to the GHCN values, as you have maintained in your previous post.
Freddy, I can answer yes to questions A and B. As to question C, -0.7 vs +0.7 per century (approximately).
Having done that, I still insist that GISS has *reduced* the warming trend as compared to the GHCN values. I recommend you once again look at the quality controlled adjusted data in the GHCNv3 database and determine its trend. You don't need the 'raw' data, it can be done by eye. It's about +1.3 degrees per century. I therefore maintain that the GHCNv3 database has a warming trend for Palma de Mallorca (in the quality controlled adjusted data) that is TWICE that of the warming trend in the GISTEMP data you provide.
I also really look forward to your report. You think you are on solid ground, but so far everything you have shown here shows that you do not have the ability to properly digest scientific information. I can only hope the other members of your "team" have a slightly more functional brain and realize that you need a little bit more than "A =/B, therefore fraud". Especially when the one data set you keep on using as THE example actually shows that the warming trend for that station in GISTEMP is lower than that of the input data...
Let the frothing little retard do it.
Fred, why the hell should we care what you think?
Go ahead and go to court and accuse NASA of fraud.
This isn't the place to make your accusations. Because we'll require that you provide your proofs.
Every time I read one of your raving posts I feel intellectually reduced by the drag of such insane comments.
NOBODY CARES.
And this isn't the place to make your accusations either.
Go and take NASA to court.
This isn't a court.
Go away and do something.
Hey guys here, whatever the truth is on the case presented here, you don't appear to bother whether temperature data have been "upgraded" towards warming by 2degC in a specific example, regardloss by whom, your main thing is that temperatures go up by whatever reason. You don't care about the reason. Artificially changed temperatures into the desired direction, that is what makes you so proud of your wisdom.
You don't seem to know what true or false means, fred.
What makes you say that we don't care IF IT HAD BEEN?
You haven't shown the case.
Therefore we don't care ABOUT A FALSE CLAIM.
Your complaints mean nothing. If you DID manage to find proof, why the hell are you bringing it here? WE can't do anything about it.
So you're wasting your time, our time and society's time.
The fact that you are here instead of making a claim to a court indicates that you KNOW you have nothing, else you'd be pursuing this case.
Or that you don't care if temperature data has been "upgraded" to warming.
Your problem is also that you don't know what "increasing" means.
Since the trend was REDUCED, it is a solid stone-cold FACT that you don't care about evidence, only the claim.
Freddy, since you claim to know the relevant literature, you should also know that the raw data needs to be corrected for a variety of factors. That these changes are sometimes significant should not surprise anyone.
Of course, you do *know* that, but based on your prior comments (such as on the CO2 increase in the atmosphere and your inability to even acknowledge that the trend in the GHCNv3 data is *larger* than that in GISTEMP for Palma de Mallorca) it is obvious you have ideological problems accepting this.
This is quite different from me: I have no problem accepting scientific information, even if I do not *like* that information. In my opinion it would be great if adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere had little to no impact on anything. Unfortunately, science shows it does.
You guys are exactly like the evolution deniers, afraid of what it means to you if you accept the theory of evolution as the best available scientific explanation as to how life has evolved on earth.
Unbelievable, the GISS download server for station data is still out of function.
Error message:
— Please Note —
Due to technical problems with the GISS webserver, no interactive content, such as creating scientific plots using web forms or searching the publications database, is currently enabled.
----------
Very strange! Fixing a web server or a database is normally easy stuff. What's going on at GISS?
Freddy, don't act like you suddenly are just an honest concerned citizen. You already linked it to your claims of fraud.
Perhaps you realized you could not sustain that claim either? After all, EIKE has been trying to create noise about the 2010-2012 difference since early last year!
Also, why not send an e-mail to Reto Ruedy, if you really ARE so concerned? Reto doesn't mind answering e-mails with honest requests for information.
Marco, please don't waste genuine people's time.
If fraudulent freddy here knows he has a case, then he should bring it to the courts.
Let him waste the time of people who can do something about it.
Oh c'mon, Wow, you *know* he won't contact Reto!
Why not? He'd pastebomb the poor man and then whine and complain (and insist he's part of the conspiracy against him) because he won't immediately agree with him.
Much better, he should go to a courthouse and talk with a judge and get this into court.
Because when he wastes the courts time, he's going to have to pay or be incarcerated. Probably to a loony-bin. Poor inmates...
In short, if you have evidence of a crime, you don't go running to a blog to make a complaint.
You go to the police.
mandas, why are you ALWAYS wrong and don’t appear able to read. You maintain that I have refused to read literature about the early spring stuff from coby. You are a liar and have committed injustice because I have started reading the literature and given already feedback on one of the studies. what drives you so to lie? Is this a major part of your character?
Yes - it's a character flaw of mine. I don't tolerate fools very well.
Freddy, please help us all out by reducing global warming be ceasing to breathe out CO2.
Mandas, instead of writing BS you could demonstrate your knowledge on suspected AGW by answering the following question:
What is the single most specific piece of evidence for anthropogenic global warming?
Freddy/Kai, I see that after you got your answer on stoat, but didn't like it, you now try here. If any of us believed you were honest in your desire to gain knowledge, we might answer. However, I don't think anyone even considers you anything other than a troll.
16 year temperature trend:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997…
Up.
CO2 absorption spectra.