Monday, 28 July 2008

Climate data fudged, consensus breaking down. Politicians still ignore reality.

The great scandal of climate science is not only the manipulation of data being undertaken by people like James Hansen but also the failure of the mainstream climate community to make public their research data in spite of the fact that it's been created using billions of dollars of the public's money.

The Climate Fortress attitude is best summed up by Phil Jones' response to an enquiry from Steve McIntyre:
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.
Intellectual property rights have something to do with the accuracy of science? Jones has had his snout in the public trough for 25 years and his data is not available?

Jones is afraid of someone finding something wrong with his data?

What sort of scientist is afraid of the truth?

A climate scientist, of course.

These people will be remembered along with Lysenko and Hwang as modern day scientific shysters.

The facade that is climate science is breaking down under an increasing barrage of analysis being done by scientists who are no longer afraid to speak out, as the UK Telegraph's Christopher Brooker highlights.
Considering that the measures recommended by the world's politicians to combat global warming will cost tens of trillions of dollars and involve very drastic changes to our way of life, it might be thought wise to check the reliability of the evidence on which they base their belief that our planet is actually getting hotter.

There are four internationally recognised sources of data on world temperatures, but the one most often cited by supporters of global warming is that run by James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

Hansen has been for 20 years the world's leading scientific advocate of global warming (and Al Gore's closest ally). But in the past year a number of expert US scientists have been conducting a public investigation, through scientific blogs, which raises large question marks over the methods used to arrive at his figures.

First they noted the increasingly glaring discrepancy between the figures given by GISS, which show temperatures continuing to race upwards, and those given by the other three main data sources, which all show temperatures having fallen since 1998, dropping dramatically in the past year to levels around the average of the past 30 years.

Two sets of data, from satellites, go back to 1979: one produced by Dr Roy Spencer, formerly of Nasa, now at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, the other by Remote Sensing Systems. Their figures correspond closely with those produced by the Hadley Centre for Climate Studies of our own Met Office, based on global surface temperature readings.

Right out on their own, however, are the quite different figures produced by GISS which, strangely for a body sponsored by Nasa, rely not on satellites but also on surface readings. Hansen's latest graph shows temperatures rising since 1880, at accelerating speed in the past 10 years.

The other three all show a flattening out after 2001 and a marked downward plunge of 0.6 degrees Celsius in 2007/8, equivalent to almost all the net warming recorded in the 20th century. (For comparisons see "Is the Earth getting warmer, or colder?" by Steven Goddard on The Register website.)

Even more searching questions have been raised over Hansen's figures by two expert blogs. One is Climate Audit, run by Steve McIntyre, the computer analyst who earlier exposed the notorious "hockeystick" graph that was shamelessly exploited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore. (This used a flawed computer model to suppress evidence that the world was hotter in the Middle Ages than today.) The other site is Watts Up With That, run by the meteorologist Anthony Watts.

It was McIntyre who last year forced Hansen to publish revised figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest years of the 20th century were not in the 1990s, as Hansen had claimed, but in the 1930s. He has now shown that Hansen had been adjusting almost all his pre-1970 global temperature figures downwards, by as much as 0.5 degrees, and his post-1970 figures upwards.

Although Hansen claimed that this only resulted from more careful calculations, McIntyre pointed out how odd it was that the adjustments all seemed to confirm his thesis.

Watts meanwhile has also been conducting an exhaustive photographic survey of US surface weather stations, showing how temperature readings on more than half have been skewed upwards by siting thermometers where their readings are magnified by artificial heat-sources, such as asphalt car parks or air-conditioning systems.

All this has raised such doubts over the methodology behind the GISS data that informed observers are calling for it to be independently assessed. Hansen himself is notoriously impatient of any criticism of his methods: earlier this month he appealed to Congress that the leaders of those who question global warming should be put on trial.

It is still too early to suggest that the recent drop in temperatures shown by everyone but him is proof that global warming has stopped. But the fact is that not one of those vaunted computer models predicted what has happened to temperatures in recent years. Yet it is on those models (and Hansen's alarmist figures) that our politicians are basing all their proposals for irrevocably changing our lives.
(Nothing Follows)

17 comments:

Ellen K said...

Can we petition the Nobel Prize committee to take back Al Gore's prize? I mean if they can take back Olympic medals years after the fact, then it would seem that cheating on the data to support one's dubious claims would be tantamount to some sort of cheating.

Anonymous said...

What kind of idiot would think that there is any difference between what GISS measurements tell us and what the others tell us? Only someone who didn't realise the four datasets measure anomalies relative to different reference periods. Understand this rather basic point and you'll know that GISS, UAH, RSS and HadCRUT all tell us the same story.

Anonymous said...

And just what do you think that story is? I look at it and don't see looming catastrophe. Do you?

---Krumhorn

Timm said...

Can we please see that same graph with the temperatures on the left using a scale equal to the bottom? I think you will see a nearly straight line! The weatherman can't tell me with any certainty what the temperature will be next Tuesday, especially not within a tenth of a degree. So, why should I believe he can tell me what the temperature will be in 30 years, within a tenth of a degree?

Anonymous said...

You don't often see the moronically stupid "you can't predict the weather next week" argument these days - most people have long since realised it's only convincing to the braindead. Sure, no-one knows if it will rain on a random Tuesday in 2015. But pick a random Tuesday in December 2015 and a random Tuesday in June 2015, and I'll bet you a very large sum of money that I can predict which day will be hotter here in London. And I'll bet another large sum of money that I can predict how temperatures on our two random Tuesdays will compare with temperatures exactly 100 years later.

Krumhorn - are you blind? The story is steadily rising temperatures. Simple as that. Do you have the wit to wonder what will happen if temperatures continue to rise?

Kaboom said...

Fudgie (or "scientist" as he likes to be known) is quite correct.

The world is warming up, year after year, until it burns to a crisp.

The facts are there, people.

Timm said...

Isn't it amazing how anonymous people can be so ignorant and rude. How about a more technical question since my last comment was too stupid for a genius of your stature. As there have been previous times throughout history where the temperature has far exceeded our current temps, such as during the Medieval Climate Optimum and The Bronze Age, maybe you can tell us when the earth's temperature stopped naturally changing and began changing through the evil hand of humans?

Does the end of the Little Ice Age have anything at all to do with our rising temperatures? What caused the Medieval Climate Optimum and why can't the same forces be at work today that were acting on the environment at that time? Are the rising temperatures on other planets in our solar system also our fault or are they rising naturally?

So you can tell us with absolute surety that the temperature 100 years from now will be warmer than now? In 1972, could you have also told us it was going to be warmer now than then, or would you have predicted cooler? By the way, I don't want to know the temps in 2015, I want to know next week!

Historically, warm periods have seen great advances for humanity, while cold periods have been times of famine and disease. Me and my stupid, ignorant ilk will take the warmer temps, you can have the famine and disease.

Anonymous said...

I love the argument that a Tuesday in December will likely be cooler than a Tuesday in June.... and that's proof that the global warming alarmists know their stuff. There's a fine mind at work on that one.

Sorry, I ain't buyin' any of it.

How about taking a longer view of Earth temperature changes? It's part of the dopey hubris of our contemporary age that we think that the only thing that is important is what we experience today.

If man made CO2 is the forcing agent in our climate, then someone needs to explain how CO2 has been rising, but the temperatures over the last decade have not. And then how do we explain previous warming periods in which CO2 levels were lower?

This is just another device in which worldwide socialists can conceal their objectives. Is there any wonder that it is the loopy libs that are promoting this hoax? It's all about command and control.

--Krumhorn

Anonymous said...

maybe you can tell us when the earth's temperature stopped naturally changing and began changing through the evil hand of humans? - The temperature never stopped changing naturally, obviously. The influence of humanity began when human activity appreciably altered the concentrations of the gases whose absorption properties determine the radiative balance of the atmosphere.

Does the end of the Little Ice Age have anything at all to do with our rising temperatures? - no. In what possible sense could it? You seem to be trying to say that rising temperatures are caused by rising temperatures.

What caused the Medieval Climate Optimum and why can't the same forces be at work today that were acting on the environment at that time? - the same forces are at work. Solar activity, volcanoes, and on longer timescales orbital variations, obviously all continue. But now there's the extra factor of rising CO2 concentrations.

Are the rising temperatures on other planets in our solar system also our fault or are they rising naturally? - which planets?

So you can tell us with absolute surety that the temperature 100 years from now will be warmer than now? - unless CO2 concentrations fall dramatically, then yes I can.

In 1972, could you have also told us it was going to be warmer now than then, or would you have predicted cooler? - 1972 is irrelevant. It's 2008 now.

By the way, I don't want to know the temps in 2015, I want to know next week! - then fuck off and find a weather forecast.

Krumhorn - temperatures continue to rise. What makes you think there has not been a rise over the last ten years? In any case, climate change cannot be measured over a single decade - a bit like how the growth of a tree cannot be measured over the course of an hour. It's amazing how many climate idiots don't understand this simple point.

Jack Lacton said...

Fudgie,

You really are out of your tree with that last post.

However, it does show that you're probably part of the Sierra Club / Greenpeace or similar rabble (Hadley included) that are pushing one line only.

Answer me this, if you're not too cowardly.

1) What do the models ascribe the warming at the end of the LIA to?
2) When run backwards for 1500 years what temperatures do models get for the LIA and MWP?

Timm said...

The temperature never stopped changing naturally, obviously. The influence of humanity began when human activity appreciably altered the concentrations of the gases whose absorption properties determine the radiative balance of the atmosphere. So when exactly did this change take place? I keep hearing that the earth has warmed over the last 130-140 years, which amazingly seems to be right around the time the LIA ended. If we hadn't pumped the evil CO2 into the atmosphere, would the LIA have ended? If the natural changes are still taking place, how can you separate them from the man-made variety?

no. In what possible sense could it? You seem to be trying to say that rising temperatures are caused by rising temperatures. The planet has been through numerous ice ages during its existence. Each one has been followed by a period of warming. I am saying that the increase in temperatures is not only natural, but completely normal. If the temperature hadn't risen, then the LIA wouldn't have been determined to have ended.

But now there's the extra factor of rising CO2 concentrations. The historical CO2 records show CO2 rising after the warming has taken place. In fact, the increase in temperatures may actually be causing the increase in CO2. I remember reading about a study that was done in Northern Europe (Denmark?) that proved this very thing in a laboratory setting. It has been a few years, so I likely won't be able to find it now.

which planets? Jupiter, Pluto, Mars and Neptune's moon Triton. While there is debate about what is causing this, once again there is no hard scientific fact.

unless CO2 concentrations fall dramatically, then yes I can. CO2 is a very small part of our atmosphere, the number one greenhouse gas is water vapor. The CO2 levels have been increasing steadily for the last decade, but global temps have hardly changed and aren't expected to change much over the next decade.

1972 is irrelevant. It's 2008 now. In 1972, the worlds' scientists were predicting a new ice age and doom and gloom. Thus, if you followed the science of the day, in 1972 you would have predicted the world would be a much cooler place in 2072. If I am not mistaken, the first Earth Day was held to raise awareness to the global cooling crises.

Lastly, there is a chart at the following website (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/
Moberg2005.html)that shows the temperatures over the last 2000 years for the Northern Hemisphere. It very clearly shows the MWP and the LIA, as well as our warming from the mid 1800's to the mid part of the 20th century. I see nothing that looks all that scary to me!

That's enough for me, arguing with a zealot is pretty pointless.

Anonymous said...

All these questions could easily be answered by any mildly intelligent person with the curiosity to learn. The fact that you don't know the answers suggests that you are being wilfully ignorant.

Fucky first:
What do the models ascribe the warming at the end of the LIA to? - first, you should remember that the little ice age was not a global phenomenon but was largely confined to northern temperate latitudes. Second, models don't do the ascribing, scientists do, with models only being one of their tools. Among the factors causing its end were fewer large volcanic eruptions, and increases in solar activity (end of the Maunder Minimum)

When run backwards for 1500 years what temperatures do models get for the LIA and MWP? - why on earth would you run models backwards for 1500 years? I presume you mean run forwards from a point 1500 years ago. Anyway, have a read of Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years.

Now 'timm':
So when exactly did this change take place? I keep hearing that the earth has warmed over the last 130-140 years, which amazingly seems to be right around the time the LIA ended. If we hadn't pumped the evil CO2 into the atmosphere, would the LIA have ended? - yes. Solar and volcanic effects were the main causes of the end of the cooler temperatures in the northern temperate regions.

If the natural changes are still taking place, how can you separate them from the man-made variety? - there is no if. Natural changes obviously continue. It's not difficult to calculate the relative effect of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic effects. Natural factors cannot explain the rapid rise in temperatures since the 1970s.

I am saying that the increase in temperatures is not only natural, but completely normal. If the temperature hadn't risen, then the LIA wouldn't have been determined to have ended. You are trying to conflate two different things. The little ice age ended in the mid 19th century. Currently, temperatures have been rising rapidly since the 1970s. One effect was mostly natural, the other is mostly anthropogenic.

The CO2 levels have been increasing steadily for the last decade, but global temps have hardly changed and aren't expected to change much over the next decade. - climate change cannot be measured over a single decade. None the less, the fact that eight of the ten hottest years on record have come in the last decade is rather significant. Who doesn't expect temperatures to change over the next decade?

In 1972, the worlds' scientists were predicting a new ice age and doom and gloom. - no they weren't. And in any case it's irrelevant. In 1972 astronomers didn't know that Uranus had rings, AIDS was unknown to medical science, and the world wide web did not exist. So what?

If I am not mistaken, the first Earth Day was held to raise awareness to the global cooling crises. - mistaken would be a charitable word. You've just made that up entirely.

The graph you link to strangely stops about 40 years ago. When you include measurements of temperature since then, you get this.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I missed out one point. the increase in temperatures may actually be causing the increase in CO2. I remember reading about a study that was done in Northern Europe (Denmark?) that proved this very thing in a laboratory setting. It has been a few years, so I likely won't be able to find it now. - completely incorrect. Isotopic ratios show conclusively that all the additional CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850 has come from fossil fuel burning. I believe that you've just made up the paper you mention.

Jack Lacton said...

Fudgie,

It is quite disingenuous to claim that scientists weren't predicting a pending ice age in 1972.

There were many scientists quoted in the media at that time. The belief was much more widespread than simply one article in Time or Newsweek.

If you talk to any elderly scientist and ask whether that was the prevailing view in the early 70s then he'll say yes.

Anonymous said...

So here's a nice simple little challenge. Find us a peer-reviewed journal article from the 1970s which predicted an imminent ice age. Should be really easy, right?

Jack Lacton said...

Fudgie,

You really are a nong.

Do you go around telling people there were no peer reviewed science in the 70s for a cooling therefore it wasn't the prevailing view of the day?

I presume you do.

The false science of climate change didn't hit the world until the 80s, as you well know.

How are you going with your Tuvalu proof?

Anonymous said...

That barely made sense, fucky. If the prevailing view in the 1970s was that an ice age was imminent, it should be very easy for you to find a paper which came to that conclusion.

What Tuvalu proof?