Society/Culture Historical temperature record proving climate change a result of fraudulent statistics?

[medusala]

Keep tilting at those windmills, Meds! Never admit your wrong! Arrgh!

In breaking news from BP, independent Israeli government studies shows early Israeli government study proving Palestinian terrorists started the Lebanon War was 100% correct.

Your logic has blown me away.

 

[bit_pattern]

Or even better...

In breaking news from the Senator for Exxon, James Inhoffe, independent studies raised by a senate commitee occupied entirely by Senators who have never voted against the interest of the oil lobby prove that global warming is a hoax and that CO2 is just harmless plant food. These studies have been confirmed by said Senators personal relationship with God who promised that he would never send another flood, hence sea levels can't possibly rise.

You're in good company there, Meds!

 

[medusala]

Garbage in Garbage out. So much for reproduction of results

www.climateaudit.org/pdf/vr2.ppt

Question from Stephen McIntyre:
Did the Panel carry out any due diligence to determine whether these proxies [bristlecones] ere used in any of the other studies illustrated in the NRC spaghetti graph?

North

There was much discussion of this matter during our deliberations. We did not dissect each and every study in the report to see which trees were used. …The strip-bark forms in the bristlecones do seem to be influenced by the recent rise in CO2 and are therefore not suitable for use in the reconstructions over the last 150 years.

..

Many other studies use bristlecones/ foxtails, but NAS did not assess impact

All 4 studies in NAS spaghetti graph and 6 of 7 studies in MWP portion of Wikipedia spaghetti graph, viz,

Crowley and Lowery 2000 (2)
Esper et al 2002 (2)
Mann and Jones 2003
Moberg et al 2005 (3)
Hegerl et al 2006 (2)
Osborn and Briffa 2006 (2)

 

[bit_pattern]

Good thing we have the instrumetnal record that covers that period then!

 

[medusala]

Good thing we have the instrumetnal record that covers that period then!

Why? Because you know the proxies massively diverge from the instrumental record?

Sounds like data cherry picking to me.

BTW how can you use instrumental record for the MWP?

Or is this where one or two proxies known by all to be unacceptable come in handy?

 

[bit_pattern]

Well, if bristlecones are unreliable for the last 150 years because of increasd CO2 then you have to assume that when CO2 levels were stable during the MWP that they would be accurate (assuming bristlecone data even goes back that far)

But there are always still the coral, ice core, boreholes, tree rings, water isotopes etc etc etc proxies.

 

[medusala]

Two stories re Antarctica only a couple of months apart

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8200680.stm

One of the largest glaciers in Antarctica is thinning four times faster than it was 10 years ago, according to research seen by the BBC.

A study of satellite measurements of Pine Island glacier in west Antarctica reveals the surface of the ice is now dropping at a rate of up to 16m a year.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/i...c-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/

The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.

Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.

 

[bit_pattern]

That World Climate Report is an utter joke. Here is the paper that their data was "adapted" from, see how they left out all the important bits, like why the ice melt is low. Laughably transparent stuff - you mock RC and link to this sort garbage??

An updated[/url Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability

Marco Tedesco
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, City College of New York, New York, New York, USA
Andrew J. Monaghan
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season. The 30-year record confirms that significant negative correlations exist at regional and continental scales between austral summer melting and both the ENSO and SAM indices for October–January. In particular, the strongest negative melting anomalies (such as those in 2008 and 2009) are related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing when both the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases. Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends.

Received 13 May 2009; accepted 12 August 2009; published 24 September 2009.
Citation: Tedesco, M., and A. J. Monaghan (2009), An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.

 

[medusala]

That World Climate Report is an utter joke.

I actually found it on WUWT. I googled the actual study and what do you know, I could not find it on any media outlet.

This is precisely the point I am making. The media is only interested in one side of the story.

Let us say the Arctic sea ice melt was at an all time high.

Do you think that would get much coverage?

 

[bit_pattern]

How is it another side to the story? It's got nothing to do with climate change. And you want the media to present it as another side to the climate change story? Unbelievable.

 

[medusala]

How is it another side to the story? It's got nothing to do with climate change. And you want the media to present it as another side to the climate change story? Unbelievable.

Unbelievable?

Ice/snow melt is nothing to do with global warming?

Fantastic. Clearly glacial melt in Greenland doesnt matter then.

I can sleep easy tonight knowing the polar bears are saved.

Huzzar!

 

[medusala]

At least we can all be 100% certain of scientific independence from those in charge of measuring temperatures.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-Met-Office-long-term-forecasts-so-wrong.html

Nothing more tellingly reflects the Met Office's partisanship, however, than the fact that its present chairman is Robert Napier, a green activist who previously ran WWF UK, one of the most vociferous of the climate change lobby groups. Mr Napier now helps run not only the Met Office (which has been part of the Ministry of Defence ever since its forecasts came "from the Air Ministry roof") but also an array of other bodies centrally involved in driving the political climate-change agenda.

He is, for instance, chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission, charged with "greening the UK tax system" by shifting 20 per cent of government revenues to green taxes by 2020.

He is a director of the Climate Change Group, an international lobby group involving "a coalition of governments and the world's most influential businesses", "helping to set the targets, create the policies, build the confidence and generate the political willpower needed to make the changes the world requires". He is chairman of the Homes and Communities Agency, which seeks to buy up land for "eco-towns" and dictates the need of new housing to comply with strict "green standards".

Mr Napier is a director of the Carbon Disclosure Project, which claims to hold the largest database in the world on corporate carbon footprints, so that companies that fail to support the green agenda can be vilified for their part in destroying the planet. He is also
a director of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, a pressure group dedicated to using the world's religions to push the same agenda. (I am indebted to a paper on the buythetruth.wordpress.com website –
"Eco-Imperialism: Every Environmentalist's Dream" – for pointing the way to all this.)

 

[bit_pattern]

Unbelievable?

Ice/snow melt is nothing to do with global warming?

Fantastic. Clearly glacial melt in Greenland doesnt matter then.

I can sleep easy tonight knowing the polar bears are saved.

Huzzar!

Ice snow melt cause by a cyclical convergence of the ENSO and SAM. Meanwhile, in the region that matters when it comes to melting snow and ice, the west Antarctic, is thinning and melting faster than anyone had previously predicted, just like tha glacier in that BBC article, and which strongly suggesting things are much worse than we thought even just a few years ago.

Huzzar, indeed

At least we can all be 100% certain of scientific independence from those in charge of measuring temperatures.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-Met-Office-long-term-forecasts-so-wrong.html

Save us your conspiracy theories.

 

[Hawkamania!]

^ And yet the Eastern Antarctic that is about four times the size of West Antarctic is gaining snow and ice. This area more than makes up for losses in the West Antarctic which was covered in another thread.

Save us from your gw zealotry.

 

[bit_pattern]

God you suck at a everything Hawky

http://www.engr.utexas.edu/news/articles/200603031012/index.cfm

http://britishpublishers.eu/Project...atid=19:environment-and-climate&Itemid=200069

 

[medusala]

Meanwhile, in the region that matters when it comes to melting snow and ice, the west Antarctic, is thinning and melting faster than anyone had previously predicted, just like tha glacier in that BBC article, and which strongly suggesting things are much worse than we thought even just a few years ago.

Hopeless

Area that matters? Melting sea ice in the arctic doesnt matter a jot re sea levels yet we hear about it all the time.

Antarctic ice does matter.

Yet you brush it off.

This is why your brand of alarmism cant be taken seriously

As for the Met

a) the guy is clearly a zealot
b) their forecasting record is a joke.

Whether that is merely incompetence or something else is open to question.

 

[bit_pattern]

Hopeless

Area that matters? Melting sea ice in the arctic doesnt matter a jot re sea levels yet we hear about it all the time.

Antarctic ice does matter.

Yet you brush it off.

This is why your brand of alarmism cant be taken seriously

No, you just don't know what you are talking about. West Antarctica has always been the concern, ice melt in the rest of the continent isn't a major contributor to sea level rise, and as your BBC article says ice is still melting in W. Antarctic at an alarming pace. This is a non story, you've been duped by WUWT sensationalism once again.

As for the Met

a) the guy is clearly a zealot
b) their forecasting record is a joke.

Whether that is merely incompetence or something else is open to question.

a) You're clearly a zealot.
b) No, their forecasting is fine, although I'll admit that their temp record leaves something to be desired, GISS is a superior model.

 

[Ripper]

Lol BP even the defense force are sceptics.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2709018.htm

 

[Hawkamania!]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/antarcticas-ice-story-has-been-put-on-ice/#more-11570

The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.

http://www.ecoworld.com/climate/ant...it-really-losing-ice-gaining-ice-or-both.html

This evidence suggests that Antarctica, where 90% of the land based ice in the world resides, is increasing in mass. And this fact is ignored or downplayed in virtually every mainstream report available today, and indeed the mainstream press continues to infer that Antarctica is melting at an alarming rate. But on balance, the ice mass in Antarctica is not melting, it is probably getting bigger.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/snow_job_in_antartica/

The latest issue of Nature boasts the cover story: Antarctic Warming. The problem is that the research paper being touted is based on bad data.
Statistician, global warming skeptic, and blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit [here] has discovered that the Antarctic weather station data—upon which the paper in Nature was based—was tainted. Temperature data from two different stations, “Harry” and “Gill” in West Antarctica were combined to produce an erroneous uptick in historical readings.
In addition, meteorologist, weather station guru, and blogger Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That has demonstrated that numerous Antarctic weather stations may have serious data problems. Snow has piled up around temperature sensors—effectively insulating the temperature monitoring stations from the bitterly cold extremes of the southern-most continent [here ]

 

[medusala]

Save us your conspiracy theories.

ha ha, on queue it's time to ramp up the propaganda. Damn those sceptics.

How dare people not embrace higher power bills.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867046.ece

Climate change sceptics are to be targeted in a hard-hitting government advertising campaign that will be the first to state unequivocally that Man is causing global warming and endangering life on Earth.
..
Ministers sanctioned the campaign because of concern that scepticism about climate change was making it harder to introduce carbon-reducing policies such as higher energy bills
..

The Department of Energy and Climate Change publishes research today showing that 52 per cent of people think climate change will not significantly affect them. Only 33 per cent think that it will and 15 per cent do not know.

Fourteen per cent of people think that climate change will have no effect on Britain, even in their grandchildren’s lifetime. Twenty-six per cent said they could think of no action they could take that would help to reduce climate change.

 

[bit_pattern]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

Oh god, you're still pushing that piece of manufactured news? How many times do you need to have this explained to you?

Here's what Allison really said

Fran Kelly: Today, some positive news. Rather than melting, the science shows that ice is expanding in much of Antarctica and that in parts is getting thicker. ...
Ian Allison: We have now new evidence that confirms that on average we are losing ice from both Greenland and Antarctica which is contributing to sea level ...
Kelly: ... but you found something that suggests its perhaps not as rapid a melt as we once thought. Can you tell us about what you've found, the difference in the East and West in Antarctica.
Allison: ... In East Antarctica there might be a slight increase due to increased snowfall. ... on average West Antarctica is losing more ice that the East is gaining
Kelly: but we can say ... that the East is thickening?
Allison: ... it's close to being in balance or gaining a bit. ...
Allison: The Wilkins shelf [collapse] is related to warming ...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/0...ce/#more-11570

Of course, what Anthony Watts isn't telling his readers is what is causing that low ice melt, the convergence of ENSO and SAM, as explained above. But, hey, why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good story!

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b..._in_antartica/

Yeah, McIntyre proved it with a blog post. No need to submit his work to a journal for review then, after all its been proved.

/yawn

 

[EasternTiger]

It appears that climate change scientists have been making conclusions first and then selecting a subset of data that confirms them second.

Yes that's because most climate change scientists are irrelevant yes-men with no ambition. Like the general populace, 99% are shit kickers and most of the important decision making is done by the top 1% who can go either way depending on whose paying for the mortgage that year.

Sensible people like myself won't be footing the bill either, believe you me.

 

[bit_pattern]

Yes that's because most climate change scientists are irrelevant yes-men with no ambition. Like the general populace, 99% are shit kickers and most of the important decision making is done by the top 1% who can go either way depending on whose paying for the mortgage that year.

Sensible people like myself won't be footing the bill either, believe you me.

They're probably Jews too...

 

[Hawkamania!]

ha ha, on queue it's time to ramp up the propaganda. Damn those sceptics.

How dare people not embrace higher power bills.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867046.ece

Climate change sceptics are to be targeted in a hard-hitting government advertising campaign that will be the first to state unequivocally that Man is causing global warming and endangering life on Earth.
..
Ministers sanctioned the campaign because of concern that scepticism about climate change was making it harder to introduce carbon-reducing policies such as higher energy bills
..

The Department of Energy and Climate Change publishes research today showing that 52 per cent of people think climate change will not significantly affect them. Only 33 per cent think that it will and 15 per cent do not know.

Fourteen per cent of people think that climate change will have no effect on Britain, even in their grandchildren’s lifetime. Twenty-six per cent said they could think of no action they could take that would help to reduce climate change.

I saw the video and it was cringeworthy. Its amazing how low governments will go with propaganda.

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ You and Meds are a testament to how susceptible people are to well targeted lobby-group propaganda. A perfect example of why denialist propaganda needs to be countered.

You keep saying "withheld". Why do you say this when the data is available?

Whoops! Looks like McIntyre has had to admit he had the data all along. What a surprise.

McIntyre had the data all along

Category: McIntyre
Posted on: October 8, 2009 3:22 AM, by Tim Lambert
One of McIntyre's repeated complaints about Briffa was that he refused to release his data. For example, in his post Fresh Data on Briffa's Yamal #1:

A few days ago, I became aware that the long-sought Yamal measurement data url had materialized at Briffa's website - after many years of effort on my part and nearly 10 years after its original use in Briffa (2000).
I am very grateful to the editors of Phil Trans B (Roy Soc) - at long last, a journal editor stood up to CRU, requiring Briffa to archive supporting data.
​

This got turned into statements like this one, from Tom Fuller:

The data, which the scientists had refused to release for a decade, came to light when the Royal Society of London demanded they archive their findings before publishing their latest paper.
​

But now McIntyre has admitted that he had the data all along. The data wasn't Briffa's and back in 2006, Briffa referred McIntyre to the original source:

Steve these data were produced by Swedish and Russian colleagues - will pass on your message to them] cheers, Keith
​

When a reader asked him why he didn't just get the data from the original sources, McIntyre dropped a bombshell:

In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.
​

He had it all along and despite writing thousands and thousands of words about Yamal somehow somehow failed to mention this until now. Truly I am in awe of McIntyre's ability to make mountains out of molehills.
The only substantive point that McIntyre made was the sample size was small, but Deep Climate reports that you get the same results with a larger sample:

Now comes new evidence that McIntyre's accusations were completely false. And not only that, one of the Russian researchers who actually control the raw tree-ring data that McIntyre was mistakenly hounding Briffa for, has apparently confirmed that utilization of a newer more complete Yamal data set has no substantial effect on Briffa's Yamal temperature reconstruction.
​

Lastly I note that Andrew Bolt back from vacation has used Yamal to declare that:

Belief in man-made global warming will soon be laughed out of existence.​

​