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

[bit_pattern]

You fail at posting.

 

[medusala]

You fail at posting.

couldnt get link to work

Nonetheless temps are still well of the their peaks despited repeated talk of GW getting worse.

 

[Ripper]

Temporary you say?

I'm glad we have your word for it...

And El Nino cooling the globe? So what caused the 1998 temp spike then? El Nina's, however, do cool the globe, which explains why we haven't set any record temps since 1998. We'll just see what happens over the next year or two.

Exactly.

Now all we need is for the Hadley data and methods made avalable for audit.

I suspect they use the same methodology as Gisstemp where they break the globe up into boxes and two thermometers [;aced om US bases reflect the temperature of the ocean equal to the area of the US.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/gistemp-islands-in-the-sun/

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/gistemp-islands-in-the-sun/


It also has me beat how they can 'reconstruct" the "global temperature back to 1850 to the fractions of a degree when there was only 20 thermometers between 50 degrees south and 70 degrees south and none between 70S the south pole before as late as 1958.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/thermometer-years-by-latitude-warm-globe/

 

[evo]

It also has me beat how they can 'reconstruct" the "global temperature back to 1850 to the fractions of a degree when there was only 20 thermometers between 50 degrees south and 70 degrees south and none between 70S the south pole before as late as 1958.

What about when they do it back 1000 years reading tree rings!

 

[Hawkamania!]

Heavens forbid that would be like real climate scientists discussing climate science. What next!

Your "real climate scientists" could use a real peer review process for a change. Or is that too much to ask?

What part of accelerating ice sheet melt do you not get?

The real concern is when the feedbacks from this melting kicks in and the process continues to accelerate until its unstoppable.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032529.shtml

Abstract A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850
A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850
Elizabeth R. Thomas
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
Gareth J. Marshall
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
Joseph R. McConnell
Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada, USA

We present results from a new medium depth (136 metres) ice core drilled in a high accumulation site (73.59°S, 70.36°W) on the south-western Antarctic Peninsula during 2007. The Gomez record reveals a doubling of accumulation since the 1850s, from a decadal average of 0.49 mweq y−1 in 1855–1864 to 1.10 mweq y−1 in 1997–2006, with acceleration in recent decades. Comparison with published accumulation records indicates that this rapid increase is the largest observed across the region. Evaluation of the relationships between Gomez accumulation and the primary modes of atmospheric circulation variability reveals a strong, temporally stable and positive relationship with the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). Furthermore, the SAM is demonstrated to be a primary factor in governing decadal variability of accumulation at the core site (r = 0.66). The association between Gomez accumulation and ENSO is complex: while sometimes statistically significant, the relationship is not temporally stable. Thus, at decadal scales we can utilise the Gomez accumulation as a suitable proxy for SAM variability but not for ENSO.

Received 31 October 2007; accepted 6 December 2007; published 12 January 2008.
Citation: Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell (2008), A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.

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://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2009/090828india_warming_fraud.html

Aug. 28, 2009 (EIRNS)—Disputing the forecast made by the United Nations body studying global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which warned in early May that the glaciers in the world's highest mountain range could vanish within three decades, V.K. Raina, a leading glaciologist and former Additional Director-General of Geological Survey of India (GSI), claimed recently that the issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalized by a few individuals. Raina, who has been associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the theory that the Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly. He maintains that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes which are witnessed periodically.

And of course: http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

I hope that helps you out DD.

 

[Ripper]

What about when they do it back 1000 years reading tree rings!

That gets a completely different result form the ones using tree lines.

Here is another graph that asks more questions than it answers.

I thought it was some heretic denialist making things up but Google is your friend.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a "rough estimate]"

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Your "real climate scientists" could use a real peer review process for a change. Or is that too much to ask?

Their works have been printed in Nature, Journal of Science, Science Magazine and so on. As well as being freely available for analysis and scrutiny on their website. Not good enough for you? Perhaps you might have the balls to ask them a question, I'm sure they will be kind enough to answer.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032529.shtml

You do realise increased snow melt is exactly as per the modelling suggests? Ie, temps warm and therefore precipitation increases.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/publications/month/paper.php?id=366

No too mention that rapid warming in west antarctica has been evident over the last 50 years.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL024042.shtml
Although the findings are consistent with predictions of increased snowfall as the Antarctic Peninsula gets warmer, the magnitude of the change is surprising.

I don't think you quite grasp the idea of rainfall, snow etc. The following should help you hawkermania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_(meteorology)

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2009/090828india_warming_fraud.html

Not sure why you are quoting studies on the Himalayas. In a word - irrelevant.
Anyway, hopefully you keep learning hawker. (Your post is a mess to quote, hopefully you don't get too confused.)

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ I like the way that he has to link to a LaRouche website to make his point!

And, yeah, the fact that Antarctica is cold has been covered many times, yet the wingnuts just can't let it go.

 

[Upgrayedd]

It's like watching a cripple fight reading these threads

Both sides scrambling to find pieces of Data to prove their theory, No matter how biast or useless it might be

I think global warming is mostly a myth (oh noes!) but hell, we might be changing the temperature slight bit, it might be just nature, how could you be soo sure it was us, large temperature changes, bigger ones then we are experiancing right now happened without us even evolving from fish, or being modeled in the image of god, people are unable to take on reason and for the life of me, become utter fanboys for one idea which could have thousands of different reasons why it might be slightly hotter for the last 20 years of summer (Note this isnt a drastic change considering how old the earth is, i would wager there most likely has been much more extreme changes)

 

[bit_pattern]

It's like watching a cripple fight reading these threads

Both sides scrambling to find pieces of Data to prove their theory, No matter how biast or useless it might be

I think global warming is mostly a myth (oh noes!) but hell, we might be changing the temperature slight bit, it might be just nature, how could you be soo sure it was us, large temperature changes, bigger ones then we are experiancing right now happened without us even evolving from fish, or being modeled in the image of god, people are unable to take on reason and for the life of me, become utter fanboys for one idea which could have thousands of different reasons why it might be slightly hotter for the last 20 years of summer (Note this isnt a drastic change considering how old the earth is, i would wager there most likely has been much more extreme changes)

Because some people have an elementary grasp of physics. The question shouldn't be are human emissions causing a warming, rather why would raising GHG concentrations to the level they are today wouldn't cause a warming. These are basic physical characteristics of molecules that were calculated to a fair degree of accuracy well over a hundred years ago.

The drastic changes you speak of take place on a geological scale, it takes millions of years to naturally raise CO2 levels by the rate that we have managed in under two hundred years. I'm not really that worried about the ice age that might hit us in five to ten thousand years time, but I am worried about what happens within fifty or a hundred years. And there aren't "thousands of reasons" why the earth might be heating up, thirty years of research has looked at every mechanism that might have triggered a warming and the evidence in conclusive, th only thing that could be behind it is the gigatons of CO2 and other GHG's that get pumped into the atmosphere every year and which previously were safely locked up deep inside the earth as oil, coal and gas. It might not be as drastic a change as past events (although if some of the nastier negative feedback mechanisms kick in then it really could become a significant event in the geologic record, but that's another story) but the simple fact of the matter is that in the 5,000 years that human civilisation has developed we have NEVER faced a climatic shift of this proportion.

 

[Hawkamania!]

It's like watching a cripple fight reading these threads

Both sides scrambling to find pieces of Data to prove their theory, No matter how biast or useless it might be

I think global warming is mostly a myth (oh noes!) but hell, we might be changing the temperature slight bit, it might be just nature, how could you be soo sure it was us, large temperature changes, bigger ones then we are experiancing right now happened without us even evolving from fish, or being modeled in the image of god, people are unable to take on reason and for the life of me, become utter fanboys for one idea which could have thousands of different reasons why it might be slightly hotter for the last 20 years of summer (Note this isnt a drastic change considering how old the earth is, i would wager there most likely has been much more extreme changes)

I agree with this post. The biggest problem to the climate debate is the lack of openness with the data and the source code used for modelling.

DD, I believe we may need to start with something basic in regards to glaciers for you. Try this link:
http://nsidc.org/glaciers/questions/what.html

Oh and just to further your education, the Himalayas' Glaciers are the third largest store of fresh water after the Antarctic and Greenland. Hardly irrelevant one would think.

 

[bit_pattern]

You fail again Hawky

Himalayan glaciers "confounding global warming alarmists"

The American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate never said "...confounding global warming alarmists..." - that's a quote from the Heartland Institute website written by... James Taylor. He's actually quoting himself and attributing it to the AMS!
To put the Himalayas in context, the original study Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin (Fowler 2006) is not refuting global warming but observing anomalous behaviour in a particular region, the Karakoram mountains. This region has shown short term glacial growth in contrast to the long term, widespread glacial retreat throughout the rest of the Himalayas. The reason for the Karakoram growth is feedback processes associated with monsoon season. Overall, Himalayan glaciers are retreating - satellite measurements have observed "an overall deglaciation of 21%" from 1962 to 2007.

He submitted that it would be premature to state that the recession of the glacier is due to global warming. On theother hand, Raina was of the view that the increase in the rate of decay of glaciers in recent times, could be due to decreasing snow precipitation. B. D. Acharya said that the Department of Science andTechnology (DST), New Delhi had been coordinating a programme on glaciers over the last 20 years, but the impacts of global warming on glaciers were still inconclusive.He emphasized that the Himalayan glaciers needed to be studied independently with the help of modern tools such as remote sensing. Studies should also be taken up in the area of snow crystal formation and melting patterns to obtain quantitative run-off data, environmental impact of glacial retreat and its relationwith global warming.


http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/feb102005/342.pdf

Decreasing snow precipitation that could quite well be caused by global warming. This is a prime example of deniers taking legitimate scientific uncertainty and spinning it as though it undermines AGW when it does no such thing.

You should try getting your info from real scientific sources and not from the friggin' LaRouche-ians.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

DD, I believe we may need to start with something basic in regards to glaciers for you. Try this link:
http://nsidc.org/glaciers/questions/what.html

Yeah, educate yourself - but make sure you ignore anything that contradicts your beliefs!

http://nsidc.org/glaciers/questions/climate.html

 

[Hawkamania!]

Wow! A one year difference is conclusive proof in BP's mind. And from tamino no less. No surprise really as this is the typical cherry picking we expect fro the gw evangelists much like the tree ring data.

Meanwhile, in a respected blog, Steve McIntyre quotes Atte Korhola on climate science:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7272

I put immediately forward a thesis that I'm glad to expose to public criticism: when later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st century as an embarrassing chapter in history of science. They will wonder our time, and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten as the actual research topic — climate change — turned into a political and social playground.

Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. It is concluded in the article that the average temperatures in the Arctic region are much higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years. The result may well be true, but the way the researchers ended up with this conclusion raises questions. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined, for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences.

The criticism by McIntyre and ClimateAudit needs to be taken seriously. RealClimate of Mann & co is mainly making fun of it in the latest post. It may well be in the long run that this is shooting oneself in the foot.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Wow! A one year difference is conclusive proof in BP's mind. And from tamino no less. No surprise really as this is the typical cherry picking we expect fro the gw evangelists much like the tree ring data.

Meanwhile, in a respected blog, Steve McIntyre quotes Atte Korhola on climate science:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7272

I put immediately forward a thesis that I'm glad to expose to public criticism: when later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st century as an embarrassing chapter in history of science. They will wonder our time, and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten as the actual research topic — climate change — turned into a political and social playground.

Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. It is concluded in the article that the average temperatures in the Arctic region are much higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years. The result may well be true, but the way the researchers ended up with this conclusion raises questions. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined, for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences.

The criticism by McIntyre and ClimateAudit needs to be taken seriously. RealClimate of Mann & co is mainly making fun of it in the latest post. It may well be in the long run that this is shooting oneself in the foot.

 

[medusala]

The American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate never said "...confounding global warming alarmists..." - that's a quote from the Heartland Institute website written by... James Taylor. He's actually quoting himself and attributing it to the AMS!

Oh the irony.

The HS crew continously refer to "independent" verification of their results by referencing their own work.

Real Climate is a busted flush.

They are the Al Gore of the blogosphere.

 

[bit_pattern]

Wow! A one year difference is conclusive proof in BP's mind. And from tamino no less. No surprise really as this is the typical cherry picking we expect fro the gw evangelists much like the tree ring data.

Meanwhile, in a respected blog, Steve McIntyre quotes Atte Korhola on climate science:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7272

LOL! I literally spat beer all over my screen reading that. Respected by whom exactly? As opposed to what, Tamino's Open Mind??? You do realise that Tamino IS Briffa, no?

When was the last time McIntyre submitted a paper for review, rather than posting hopelessly erroneous blog postings that demonstrate quite clearly that the man doesn't have a grasp on the research he is attacking?

If you have some better data on glaciers then lets see it - should be good for a laugh considering that graph contains all of the latest data on glacial mass.

 

[Ripper]

The blog wars are heating up/

Real climate's response to Macintyre. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/comment-page-9/#comments

Climate audit's latest effort.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7278


No one appears to have contradicted Macintyre on the science so far.

 

[bit_pattern]

The blog wars are heating up/

Real climate's response to Macintyre. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/comment-page-9/#comments

Climate audit's latest effort.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7278


No one appears to have contradicted Macintyre on the science so far.

I guess you missed the main thrust of that RC article (which got posted a few pages back I might add). Science isn't a war to be fought in blogs, it is meant to be conducted in the pages of reviewed journals adn it takes time for responses to be constructed. If McIntyre had any self respect he would have submitted his work for review before slandering the good name of researchers who actually publish work, and not sit on the sidelines smugly trying to pick holes in other peoples work from the safety of a freaking blog.

Keith Briffa is a very ill man, but rest assured he will mount a response to this slanderous and erroneous attack on his research.

 

[Copernicus]

I guess you missed the main thrust of that RC article (which got posted a few pages back I might add). Science isn't a war to be fought in blogs, it is meant to be conducted in the pages of reviewed journals adn it takes time for responses to be constructed. If McIntyre had any self respect he would have submitted his work for review before slandering the good name of researchers who actually publish work, and not sit on the sidelines smugly trying to pick holes in other peoples work from the safety of a freaking blog.

Keith Briffa is a very ill man, but rest assured he will mount a response to this slanderous and erroneous attack on his research.

I am curious as to who might publish him, since it seems the big science journals and global warming folks seem to have competitions as to who can lick arse the most. You don't see too many "anti-GW" articles in large peer reviewed journals.

 

[bit_pattern]

I am curious as to who might publish him, since it seems the big science journals and global warming folks seem to have competitions as to who can lick arse the most. You don't see too many "anti-GW" articles in large peer reviewed journals.

Nah, that's a load o rubbish. The only way it wouldn't get published is if it couldn't pass review, which one has to wonder if that was a part of th reason he prefers to publish on his blog. The reason you don't see too many "anti-GW" articles in large peer reviewed journals is because there is precious little science being conducted by the denier crowd, they prefer to conduct their campaign from the pages of schlock pop-science books, the hallways of free market think tanks, or from the safety of blogs where they don't have to prove anything to anyone except their sycophantic readers who are already sold on believing that it is all a grand conspiracy. There is absolutely no evidence that they are being censored from journals in some vast, nefarious conspiracy, that's just spin from the deniers. They don't publish because they simply don't have a case to make.

 

[beaver fever]

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/how-to-read-rc/#more-5566

 

[bit_pattern]

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/how-to-read-rc/#more-5566

Step 3 – Make straw man accusation. Steve never said this IS what happened, and it is actually irrelevant to his post.

facepalm.jpg

Nah, he just insinuated then let his supporters run wild with the clams of cherry picking, which he only denied belatedly once he realised that he could get himself sued for that kind of slander and tacked on a disclaimer in his comment section.

I presume that these 17 ring-width series from living larches are a sample from a larger program on living larches. This graphic shows the use of over 30 cores from about 600 to 1500 and the use of about 17 cores in the 19th and 20th century (presumably the 17 cores from living trees.) …
Rob Wilson could do that in an hour. What about the rest of the Yamal data? Where is it?
To what extent is the Yamal HS a product of the selection process and to what extent is it climatic? Without the complete data set, it is impossible to set aside the troubling thoughts that one is faced with in these circumstances. [Emphasis added]​

As to whether the selection was previously made by Hantemirov and Shiyatov or not – I discussed this in the previous post and noted that there was evidence that the selection might have been made by them.

http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/



Nah, no accusations of cherry picking here! 8)

 

[beaver fever]

A response to McIntyre that soley focuses on perceived insinuations, which were nonetheless not explict. Are there actually any criticisms of McIntyre's work? I haven't seen any yet.

How do you feel about the response in the link I sent to RC's set of graphs?

 

[bit_pattern]

Go and read Briffa's response posted a few pages back. As I've pointed out, the man is very sick atm (nice one McIntyre, kick a bloke when he's down) but he has promised a more comprehensive response, however these things take time. Science isn't meant to be conducted in blogs, and people who buy into these 'blog war' type attacks think that you should get an instantaneous response just like with any other internet subject, and when there isn't a response posted within days then it somehow reflects on the strength of the science. Do you know how long it takes to get a paper from submission to publications when you go through the proper channels? A review process can take up to six months or more, you often see papers labelled "Submitted on x date, published on y date", because to do science properly, and to thoroughly test ideas, takes time.

The RC post was never meant to be a rebuttal, it was simply an attempt to highlight the slanderous nature of McIntyre's post and the fact that he doesn't have the balls to put his money where his mouth is and submit his work for review.

As for the criticisms of RC's graphs:

The famous original hockey stick (redux), created using decentered PCA and known incorrect methods on very questionable data – Not Yamal data. This has been repeatedly proven incorrect and should be ignored.

Utter, uter nonsense. A single data set was found to be faulty, but as the NAS found some years ago i doesn't actually alter the results of the study. Indeed, you can remove the MBH98 data set and still get the same rsults. This has been replicated by other researchers, and supported by a dozen different proxy reconstructions.

Very short glacial retreat record where only about 5 glaciers represent the globe pre 1800. Note that nobody’s claiming it didn’t warm here.

Ironic, considering the main thrust of McIntyre's argument seems to be that the Yamal data doesn't match the instrumental temp record, the only relevant conclusion you can take from that is maybe tree rings aren't reliable proxies (assuming his own cherry picking isn't found to faulty when other researchers go over it with a fine tooth comb)

Borehole reconstructions, the worst kind of proxy. Completely useless for temperature reconstructions due to water flow through the boreholes.

Uh, self proclaimed blog experts, the WORST kind of self proclaimed experts.

I could go on but frankly I couldn't be bothered. This such a pointless debate, one that only exists in the minds of a few bloggers without the balls to put themselves on the line and actually publish their work, because they are more interested in sowing the seeds of doubt in the publics mind than they are "correcting" the science.

 

[medusala]

Utter, uter nonsense. A single data set was found to be faulty, but as the NAS found some years ago i doesn't actually alter the results of the study. Indeed, you can remove the MBH98 data set and still get the same rsults. This has been replicated by other researchers, and supported by a dozen different proxy reconstructions.

Why do you persist with this nonsense? Those studies are hardly independent and they use virtually the same data set.

The HS is simply indefensible. Why do you defend it, Al Gore etc?

It is just propaganda if not outright fraud.

Ironic, considering the main thrust of McIntyre's argument seems to be that the Yamal data doesn't match the instrumental temp record, the only relevant conclusion you can take from that is maybe tree rings aren't reliable proxies (assuming his own cherry picking isn't found to faulty when other researchers go over it with a fine tooth comb)

Has not Briffa himself said that himself? Has not the IPCC and many others said in the past that certain tree rings were not suitable as proxies?


There are huge issues with splining proxies on to the instrumental record.