Climate Data

July 30th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

blogs:

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.

This fits in with what my view is, that there is global warming, and human activity is causing it, but that the extent of the warming is debatable and not as large as originally projected.

The study by Watts and others has been a five year piece of work. I’ll be interested if there is a response to it, based on the science. Even though it still shows warming, the difference is very significant.

Tags: ,

65 Responses to “Climate Data”

  1. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Ooh goody, we haven’t had a climate change thread for a while…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (8,428 comments) says:

    They’re still “adjusting” the data though,so when is a temperature record just that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    Global Warming is just about a dead duck.

    I just wonder what the next environmental scare to tax us to death will be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. flipper (4,050 comments) says:

    Let us wait for Jo Nova and others with REAL knowledge. Her analysis will be posted shortly. This is her initial comment (the cartoon is better):

    ” It’s all up on Watts Up now.

    ” What Anthony Watts and Evan Jones have revealed is breathtaking, a must see. Half of the warming trend has gone. 92% of the artificial rise was due to” erroneous adjustments of well sited stations”. Muller et al used an older siting classification system. The new classification system shows that siting does have a major impact on the data.

    ” We always knew thermometers were never meant to be stuck next to air-conditioners. Now we know they shouldn’t be recording global warming near airports either. “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    What’s happening with the NIWA court case decision? Same data fiddling, same bluster and obfuscation, same little cartel at the bottom of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. flipper (4,050 comments) says:

    Meanwhile, Whale reports that:

    The Telegraph

    We have been lied to…now it is official. James Delingpole explains how we have been systematically lied to by agencies.

    Have a look at this chart. It tells you pretty much all you need to know about the much-anticipated scoop by Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?

    What it means, in a nutshell, is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – the US government body in charge of America’s temperature record, has systematically exaggerated the extent of late 20th century global warming. In fact, it has doubled it.

    Is this a case of deliberate fraud by Warmist scientists hell bent on keeping their funding gravy train rolling? Well, after what we saw in Climategate anything is possible. (I mean it’s not like NOAA is run by hard-left eco activists, is it?) But I think more likely it is a case of confirmation bias. The Warmists who comprise the climate scientist establishment spend so much time communicating with other warmists and so little time paying attention to the views of dissenting scientists such as Henrik Svensmark – or Fred Singer or Richard Lindzen or indeed Anthony Watts – that it simply hasn’t occurred to them that their temperature records need adjusting downwards not upwards.

    What Watts has conclusively demonstrated is that most of the weather stations in the US are so poorly sited that their temperature data is unreliable. Around 90 per cent have had their temperature readings skewed by the Urban Heat Island effect. While he has suspected this for some time what he has been unable to do until his latest, landmark paper (co-authored with Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville) is to put precise figures on the degree of distortion involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. flipper (4,050 comments) says:

    AW
    Case has finished. Judge is deliberating.
    After Watts, NIWA will be donning a hard hat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Yes – also saw this on the BishopHill blog (a very good blog that doesnt use emotion and slander and silly words like believer and denier etc) to outline the climate situation.
    Another release from the BEST analysis soon to be released I think says that there has been a 2.5 increase over the last 150 or 250 years. Whichever it is, its starting to show that the CO2 arguement has plenty of holes in it and that the question “well if CO2 is so important then how does one explain the medievil warm period and the little ice age?” is a very valid one yet to be answered. ie: man made CO2 is but a theory and if we throw all our money and efforts at it and its wrong then we will have wasted not just money and resources but also TIME.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. flipper (4,050 comments) says:

    DPF….
    Thanks for the heads up post.
    But your initial view might need some adjustment, might it not?
    The panty waists are likely to be squirming this afternoon.
    Watching Tim Groser dance on the head of a pin will be great fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. 103PapPap (131 comments) says:

    The misleading word here is ‘science’. Climate change aka Global Warming is a model. Models are not science. Google ‘spreadsheet error Panko’ and you will find that between 20 and 40% of ALL spreadsheets in the world contain errors of some sort. As do the models (spreadsheets) used by scientists to justify their funding requests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Barry

    “……the CO2 arguement has plenty of holes in it….”

    Including a recent paper that confirms (again) that the rise in CO2 levels FOLLOWS a period of warming by several hundred years.

    http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.7/rise_in_temperatures_and_co2/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. lyndon (325 comments) says:

    based on the science

    Well for starters, a quick look suggests opinions on the surfacestation data range from ‘useless’ to ‘actually backwards’ so I wouldn’t be leaning too hard on it. But of course if an unpublished paper ‘fits with what your view is’ feel free to make as much of it as you like. Just remember to look out the window occasionally too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Lyndon

    “Just remember to look out the window occasionally too.”

    It’s called weather.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    This fits in with what my view is, that there is global warming, and human activity is causing it, but that the extent of the warming is debatable and not as large as originally projected.

    The earth  has been warming and cooling quite nicely, all by itself for ~2 billions years. It has been hotter with lower C02 and cooler with higher CO2 levels. We’ve had 17 years of at best flat, at worst cooling temperatures while CO2 levels have risen. There is evidence that CO2 following temperature, not the other way around.

    The scam continues to unravel, but not before we’ve all been conned and guilted into handing over more tax to those with global governance aspirations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @KK
    Dont worry KK.
    The ENSO is leaning towards another El Niño.
    This means warmer weather for the South Pacific.

    The warmistas will blame the warming on evil CO2 as most of their followers (and the MSM) haven’t got a clue and are easily fooled.

    http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/elnino

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. James Stephenson (2,171 comments) says:

    Models are not science.

    Of course they are. Where we deviate from science, is when observation doesn’t match the model’s prediction, and we don’t bin the model and try again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    we haven’t had a climate change thread for a while

    This topic is less about climate, and more about taxation and spending policy being developed on the basis of junk science. The very notion that an apocalypse awaits us unless we’re taxed into stone-age energy consumption habits should now be well settled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    DPF — I don’t think this study says anything about whether human activity is causing warming. What it does is go back to the very basics of how the data is collected and how accurate the data is. ( for the USA data)
    There are two things of interest — the figures that Watts has come up are in line with the satelite figures and if when the paper is peer reviewed there no glaring errors then it puts a huge number of papers published in recent years into doubt because they were done based on inaccurate data sets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. andyscrase (89 comments) says:

    So we’ve had exaggeration of land temps in the US, NZ (according to the NIWA court case) and also Australia.

    This is getting to be a bit of a theme

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. flipper (4,050 comments) says:

    Ross12
    You have rose tinted spectacles.
    If you are waiting for Mann et al to ride to the rescue, don’t hold your breath. He and Hansen are dead.
    The fraudulent data now exposed by Watts et al under-pinned the fraudulent claims by the wamista cult and their followers.
    By the way, check out the names of the co-authors of the Watts report!

    Game set and match!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. andretti (130 comments) says:

    The lefties favourite tax grab is slowly unraveling for them.This has always been (for anyone with common sence which thankfully is most of us)a sham.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    Flipper — I’m not sure how you interpret what I’ve said as being somehow against Watt’s’ work and in support of AGW.

    I totally support what he has done and think it is highly significant. My comment about the satelite figures is to highlight the fact that Mann and the IPCC continue to use land based temp. data sets and not the satelite figures , but Watts has shown through another measuring method that there is reasonable agreement.
    So I agree with what you are saying ( esp. about the other authors)

    BTW — I note on other blogs that Mann and Connelly have been highly critical of the Muller / BEST report and media comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. pete (416 comments) says:

    This fits in with what my view is, that there is global warming, and human activity is causing it, but that the extent of the warming is debatable and not as large as originally projected.

    If you get your climate science from cranks like Watts you’re going to have a distorted view of the science.

    I’ll be interested if there is a response to it, based on the science.

    Victor Venema reviews the paper here.

    My take on this: Someone has a weather station in a parking lot. Noticing their error, they move the station to a field, creating a great big cooling-bias inhomogeneity. Watts comes along and, seeing the station correctly set up in the field, says: this station is compliant, and therefore the raw data will provide a reliable trend estimate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. kowtow (8,428 comments) says:

    andretti

    They wont let facts get in the way of a tax grab. Notional don’t seem interested either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. lyndon (325 comments) says:

    Reading Venema (and the comments) makes this sound more like an exposition of Watts’s stated (much-disputed) position that Brand New Thing.

    I was just back because this popped up:Richard A. Muller seems to have at least convinced himself http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/climatechange-denier-changes-his-mind-20120730-238fv.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    pete: perhaps. Or perhaps someone has a weather station in a great big parking lot. They find lots of warming. There is a sattion nearby that is well sited. That station shows little warming. NOAA average the two. Watts et al are saying “hang on, how about we discard the measurement from the parking lot.”

    That’s what the paper seems to actually say. Whereas your view seems to be based on something else – wishful thinking perhaps?

    My view (for what it’s worth) is that the satellite trend is probably the most accurate one. It doesn’t go back far enough, but for the time period we have it shows less warming than the surface stations. Some warming still, and probably CO2 caused. But the key argument here is whether or not our warming is harmful – the taxes and attempt to force change really fast are based on doomsday stories. If the warming is only half what was previously believed we presumably have twice as long to deal with it, and therefore could afford to wait for some of our renewable and other technologies to become economic, instead of just subsidising them to force them into the market.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Looking at the unadjusted figures it’s hard to imagine there would be a lot of funding for research….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    BTW — I note on other blogs that Mann and Connelly have been highly critical of the Muller / BEST report and media comments.

    Meh, Connelly is COMPLETELY discredited in my view. He’s the Green Party activist, co-found of RealClimate.org who was banned from Wikipedia for systematically deleting or editing any climate-related article that didn’t agree with CAGW dogma:

    All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. 

    When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. 

    Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

    The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

    Quite possibly the most significant case of journalistic fraud ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. pete (416 comments) says:

    PaulL:

    That’s what the paper seems to actually say. Whereas your view seems to be based on something else – wishful thinking perhaps?

    Based on basic probability: Pr(A) <= Pr(A and B)

    The station is well-sited at present. We know that a lot of stations were moved from inappropriate built-up areas to better sites, resulting in a cooling bias. If you take a station that is well-sited at present, it is more likely to have had such a move. So it’s no surprise that you get a lower trend if you take stations that are well-sited at present.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    pete: and if you assume the opposite, do you get a warming bias? My recollection was that when a site is moved the site id is changed, rather than the same temperature trend continuing. This is certainly what happens in NZ when I looked at the data for some sites. Do you have reason to believe what you are saying is true – i.e. examples or evidence? Do you have reason to believe that this study didn’t incorporate analysis of prior locations of those stations – did you verify that they haven’t already reviewed for or corrected for this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    this fits in with what my view is, that there is global warming, and human activity is causing it, but that the extent of the warming is debatable and not as large as originally projected.

    Simplistic rubbish. The average global temperature increase is clearly defined. It is simply not debatable. The effects of the warming certainly are debatable, though. Is this what DPF means?

    But to which “original projection” is DPF referring to? Would there be a peer reviewed journal article in sight? I guess not.

    And all the above nonsense while yet another so-called sceptic, the scientist behind BEST, admits the error of his ways:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?hp

    As for NIWA, while New Zealand’s average temperature increase is in line with the global increase, like all averages it encapsulates highs and lows. That’s why it’s called an average.

    The court case will be thrown out, mark my words.

    I also suggest that, in light of recent compelling science that will be on display in the next IPCC report, the wisdom of rebuilding Christchurch when the sea will increasingly encroach on those brand new buildings and parks will be open to question.

    Insurance companies will take our money while the going is good, but as the future becomes more certain over time, the government ie taxpayers, will be left holding the baby in that regard.

    O happy days

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    pete

    So it’s no surprise that you get a lower trend if you take stations that are well-sited at present.

    Right, so if we model from the poorly sited stations we get what ?

    (other than poor conclusions from a poor model based on using adjustments according to a model of how we think it works to ‘bring them into line’)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    krazykiwi

    Luc is here now, you place nice OK !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. pete (416 comments) says:

    PaulL:

    did you verify that they haven’t already reviewed for or corrected for this?

    I can’t verify until Watts releases his station list. But Fig 18 talks about the “raw” data, which suggests even basic adjustments (e.g. time of observation bias) haven’t been made.

    My recollection was that when a site is moved the site id is changed, rather than the same temperature trend continuing.

    Different weather services have different practices, but I expect NZ is better than most because of our weather obsession.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Awwwww burt. I was just sharpening my teeth :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Griff (7,675 comments) says:

    A feeding frenzy for the nutters
    :lol:
    Watts with some miss direct PR to drag the attention away from the BEST release on Sunday

    From the BEST release http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

    “Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.”
    The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 16 preexisting data archives.
    A data set that is vastly more conclusive than watts partial usa data set
    not that the nutters will care they need some good news since heartland has imploded

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    It is simply not debatable

    Proof that Luc has no idea what science is about. Go on. In the corner with Jones, Mann, Biffra, Connolley, Gore et al.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Luc

    Are you suggesting a link between climate change and Christchurch earthquakes? It’s not too hard to imagine that an additional say 15cm of sea water would change the weight distribution around the coast and possibly left the overall water table. With that going on it’s not hard to imagine a correlation between increasing sea levels, seismic activity and volcanic activity around the pacific ring of fire.

    There could be a whole new slogan here Luc… Ride your bicycle to work and you might not need to rebuild your city. Nah… Go green cause the shakin is mean…. that might work….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Excellent page showing some of the egregious manipulations made to introduce a false warming trend into official data:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/history-of-how-this-fraud-was-perpetrated/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    Krazykiwi — I added the comment about Connelly and Mann to show guys like Griff that even the ardent warmists are out already rubbishing Muller / BEST’s report and media comments.

    Wat dabney — that is a very nice summary by Steve Goddard

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Griff (7,675 comments) says:

    ross 12
    WTF
    Muller and BEST have already shot Watts dead Their initial published study from 2010 found a negative bias due to the urban effect. Blogg postings are not proven science just more dribble from the nurtters
    0.15 degree per decade is more than the ofical global surface figures.The whole story is just spin from the denial lobby

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    Griff , have you actually read the paper ? What Watts has done is use the new Leroy (2010) classification system , which has been recognised by the World Met. Organisation as the official international classification system to rework the data . Muller used the old 1999 system. In his earlier work he only used some of data collected by Watts ( it was not compltete at the time).

    Also just for you : 1. Connelly on BEST http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/07/28/muller-is-still-rubbish/

    2. Mann on Muller : http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/michael-mann-is-all-really-about.html

    3. David Appel on Muller : http://davidappell.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/where-best-should-have-stopped.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    The BEST papers didn’t pass peer review. Or are we changing the rules now griff?

    too funny isn’t it? Petard, hoisted… pwned

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Their initial published study from 2010 found a negative bias due to the urban effect.

    You mean the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, which introduces a false warming signal and should be countered by lowering the measured temperature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    No no no wat. All adjustments must be upward. It’s in the script. Follow the script and the money keeps flowing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Ross12 – I know. I just couldn’t resist the temptation to re-post the deceipt of Connolly. Absolutely outrageous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Griff (7,675 comments) says:

    Best is inderpendent set of data points that back up the CRUTEM4, NASA GISS ,NAOA temperature records
    It was done to prove that Watts and the rest of the deniers were right and the records were suspect
    The data set created by BEST correlates strongly to the other three therefore reinforcing the facts of global warming
    Watts is full of shit science by university drop out and blog hahahahahaha
    Joe nova lord nutjob and the rest have lost the game
    In the USA the weather is fucked and those that acknowledge climate change has grown to 80%+

    Face it guys you have lost No amount of PR will regain the ground lost in the last year

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Peer reviewed griff?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    “In the USA the weather is fucked and those that acknowledge climate change has grown to 80%+
    Face it guys you have lost No amount of PR will regain the ground lost in the last year”

    You must be stoked Griff, you are winning!
    Hooray!
    How’s the smoking going?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Oh joy, Luc does it too:

    …Would there be a peer reviewed journal article in sight? I guess not.

    And all the above nonsense while yet another so-called sceptic, the scientist behind BEST, admits the error of his ways:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?hp

    Where’s Muller’s peer reviewed journal article Luc?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    those that acknowledge climate change has grown to 80%+

    Citation please. (Impossible, of course because ‘acknowledgement of climate change’ is a completely nonsensical notion. Unless some survey company can find 10’s of millions of Griffs, in which case the climate is the least of our worries.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Rightnow – I wouldn’t place too much importance on peer reviewed status. The hockey team and IPCC have significantly corrupted that process. It can be recovered, but only after a few climate alarmists are behind bars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    I don’t KK – but I do like to point it out when griff and Luc trip themselves up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Richard Muller being slammed by Ross McKitrick

    http://www.rossmckitrick.com/

    Some people still think science is about PR and consensus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Griff (7,675 comments) says:

    hahahahahahaha
    Blog science by high school drop outs does not get peer reviewed or even published in real science journals!!
    Ask the yankee farmers about global warming
    Any one willing to bet on grain prices next year? When the drought will break in the US grain belt? dust bowl 2014 ?How about arctic summer ice cover?
    Reality has a habit of getting in the way of political spin Wait till net year when the southern osculation kicks in
    Denial creditability= 0% :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Griff, Citations please. Peer reviews please. Second thoughts, as you were. You’re doing enough damage to the alarmists’ cause just by commenting. As for grain, the price is skyrocketing because junk, alarmist science says that the grain that would feed a person for a year is better used filling a SUV tank once. The people, mostly poor, are fighting back and it’s costing them more of what little they have. You are a utter moron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Griff

    The drought in the US is pretty bad. However, not as bad as the droughts in the 30’s and the 80’s.
    You do know what caused those droughts don’t you?
    This drought is a is a US centric event caused by local weather patterns.
    Compare this with the the Pacific Northwest where it was colder than the 30 year mean for the fifth straight year.
    As for the ENSO leaning towards another El Niño, yes. That will mean a warmer and drier South Pacific.
    But what has that to do with ‘global warming’?

    Look at the Annual Global Average Land Temperature Anomaly data from the NOAA and the Monthly Global Average Land Temperature dta from the Hadley centre. Both showing no temperature increase over the last decade. The Hadley data shows a (Although statistical insignificant) temperature decrease.
    Global warming has stopped. CO2 is still increasing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “Wait till net year when the southern osculation kicks in” – ah yes, the annual Invercargill kiss a fish you catch in a net competition. You’ll be taking your boat down for it no doubt griff?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Griff (7,675 comments) says:

    You really do live in a special world of your own KK hows the rapture pack going
    The usa grain harvest is not looking to hot or is that too hot haha most of the grain belt is in extreme drought great for nz sucks for the rest of the world You think agw is a load of bs hahahahahahahah idiots. No need to argue with fools nature is providing the proof

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Griff (7,675 comments) says:

    I love your unsupported statements no need to argue when the opposition bullshits the data so blatantly
    The last decade was the warmest on record the next warmest the decade before !!!
    Some findings, sure to chill the hearts of global warming deniers, include:

    –The average “lower 48″ temperature for June was 71.2 degrees Fahrenheit, two full degrees above the 20th Century average. The Northwest went against the trend with Washington experiencing its 7th coolest June on record.
    –The January-June period was the warmest half of any year on record for the contiguous United States. The national temperature of 52.9 degrees was 4.5 degrees above the average.
    –Each of the last 13 consecutive months has ranked in the warmest third, for that month of the year, in records from 1895 to the present. The odds of this occurring randomly, NOAA calculated, are 1 in 1.594 million.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. 103PapPap (131 comments) says:

    I say again: Models are not science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Griff: and that all based on an inaccurate data set contaminated by urban heat islands. Amazing that it would show more recent times to be the warmest on record. I think the point here is that many people accept there is warming, and even that much of that warming is man-made. There are quite a few people who dispute the magnitude of that warming (blind freddy can see the problems in the measurements and in the models), and also dispute the likely impact of that warming. In short, yes there is a problem, but not convinced the problem is so big as to spend mega dollars trying to fix it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. lyndon (325 comments) says:

    WaPo blog: plague on both their houses, but more on Watts’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/more-evidence-attention-grabbing-climate-studies-prematurely-rushed-and-potentially-flawed/2012/07/31/gJQAYJkCNX_blog.html

    My takeaway: NOAA data repeatedly reviewed and is *in line with other data*.

    For mine: We have someone who made his name disputing mainstream science applying maximum publicity to a result that contradicts every other observation and had not been subject to any review. In what other field would that be worth a moment of the general public’s thought?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    lyndon: that would be in line with the other data that is also massaged to be in line with NOAA? I think the question here is whether it is in line with reality, not whether there are a series of data sets that all agree with each other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    We have someone who made his name disputing mainstream science

    What, like Galileo? Or the Wright brothers? Or Pasteur? Pinning your argument on the vacuous notion of ‘mainstream science’ means you understand little about science.

    applying maximum publicity to a result that contradicts every other observation

    In the case of this UHI example, there were plenty of observations questioning the equipment placement and adjustment methodology. Watts et al simply used the site classification system recently approved by the WMO, and then and proceeded to analyse the previous adjustments. The result showed up adjustments which confirmed bias, rather than sound scientific practice.

    and had not been subject to any review.

    You should be smart enough to know (a) that not everything of scientific merit is peer reviewed, and (b) that the peer review process has been abused to the point of tribalism in many instances. For example, remind me how much of the IPCCs gold standard climate bible, which Pachauri has for years claimed that only peer reviewed material is used, when in reality AR4 was filled with press releases and Green activist writings? Well, less than 65% was peer reviewed, some papers were altered after peer review. Disgraceful.

    In what other field would that be worth a moment of the general public’s thought?

    I’m not sure too many other fields are promoting an upending of global energy production, the introduction of a global taxation system, and imposing economic hardship on billions on account of a climate models that are rapidly giving way to observation. These things are probably worth a few moments of thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote