Watts temperature under fire -including by co-author

August 7th, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

I blogged last week on a report by Antony Watts which found the increase in US surface temperature in the last 20 years was less than previously reported. It was all about appropriate adjustments to station data.

The Washington Post blogger Jason Samwnow blogs:

The blogosphere has quickly pointed out two problems with Watts’ estimates:

1) Independent satellite data – which Watts posts on his blog each month and has stood behind – indicate a warming over the U.S. closer to NOAA’s estimate. This point was raised by ClimateAudit blogger Steven McIntyre: “Over the continental US, the UAH satellite record shows a trend of 0.29 deg C/decade (TLT) from 1979-2008,” McIntyre said.

Interestingly, McIntyre is listed as a co-author of the Watts paper but begins a blog post expressing “puzzlement at Anthony’s [Watts’press release] announcement”and qualifies his involvement as “very last minute and limited”. And he admits to not having “parsed” parts of the Watts study.

2) Watts’ failure to make certain adjustments to the raw data, as NOAA has done, is a serious flaw knowledgeable bloggers say. Specifically, Watts did not apply a time of observation bias correction according to Howard Universitychemistry professor Josh Halpern, who blogs under the pseudonym Eli Rabett. McIntyre also addressed this problem: “There is a confounding interaction with TOBS [time of observation] that needs to be allowed for, as has been quickly and correctly pointed out.”

Also the listed co-author has blogged:

People have quite reasonably asked about my connection with the surface stations article, given my puzzlement at Anthony’s announcement last week. Anthony described my last-minute involvement here.

As readers are probably aware, I haven’t taken much issue with temperature data other than pressing the field to be more transparent. The satellite data seems quite convincing to me over the past 30 years and bounds the potential impact of contamination of surface stations, a point made in a CA post on Berkeley last fall here. Prior to the satellite period, station histories are “proxies” of varying quality. Over the continental US, the UAH satellite record shows a trend of 0.29 deg C/decade (TLT) from 1979-2008, significantly higher than their GLB land trend of 0.173 deg C/decade. Over land, amplification is negligible.

The satellite data is generally seen as accurate, and supports the records that show around 0.3 degree warming a decade. It is worth noting that even if you think Watts is right that it is lower at 0.15 – what is not disputed that temperatures are increasing. It is also very basic uncontested science that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will have a warming effect. What is contested is how large and fast that warming will be.

Tags:

60 Responses to “Watts temperature under fire -including by co-author”

  1. tvb (4,432 comments) says:

    This is margin of error stuff. There are probably are number of complex interacting factors operating. But there is a big industry around global warming including politicians who have careers resting on the issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    Dihydrogen Oxide is a well known green house gas.

    If Maoris own it can we blame them for global warming?

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

    This whole “under fire” thing is a typical tactic of the warmist creed to split the ranks of the so-called “deniers”.
    McIntyre is being typically prudent about his work and it is a credit to him that he applies his principles across the board.

    Regardless of the Watt’s et al paper’s future in peer review, the crowd-sourced surfacestations.org project was a valuable piece of work in determining station quality, something that the official agencies should have taken care of themselves.

    The “basic science” comments don’t really stack up
    “Basic science” assumes a black body model for the Earth, which is obvious nonsense.

    The fact is we know virtually nothing about how CO2 interacts with the complex non-linear system that is our atmosphere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    I think that when you cut through the emotion and the rhetoric and get right down to it, the data makes it clear that increased surface warming is directly linked to the increase in anal sex. The increases reflect the increase in ambient air temperature due to the additional friction created and released as heat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    So, the science is settled. LMFAO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    If its the graph I vaguely remember looking at, I noticed that the reprots were as you repeat here, up to 2008. But the graph goes on a few more years after that, and I noticed a distinct flattening of the trend…

    Besides which 30 years climate data is like taking a poll of 3 people.

    Not to mention that Antarctica was once a lush tropical rainforest without any help from humans… Maybe this is simply natural cycles…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Rick Rowling (813 comments) says:

    Kowtow: one of the reasons @KiwiblogKomments exists on Twitter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    davinci

    I thought there wasn’t a lot of friction involved.Lubricants you see, produced from fossil fuels,I wonder what the carbon footprint of the average bum fuck actually is.

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

    I hope we’re not taking sex advice from kiwiblog comments, but just in case: please don’t anyone use oil-based lubricants with condoms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. grumpy (261 comments) says:

    “hmmokrightitis (695) Says:
    So, the science is settled. LMFAO”

    Under the circumstances LMFAO might not be the most appropriate comment………………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. wreck1080 (3,924 comments) says:

    The problem for me is that there are too many people trying to get rich from global warming.

    So, it is impossible to trust anyone one way or another.

    The global warming scientists could be right. While on the other hand, the skeptics could be right. There are so many people with self interests in this I don’t know who to believe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    Steve McIntyre is quoting figures only up to 2008. But Roy Spencer’s article at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/05/our-response-to-recent-criticism-of-the-uah-satellite-temperatures appear to imply a warming of closer to 0.03 deg C/decade.

    And here http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
    The mid-troposphere is where the ‘climate scientists’ said that the warm spot would be found.
    The decadal trends as at July are: Global: +0.05 °C; Northern Hemisphere: +0.08 °C; Southern Hemisphere: +0.01 °C

    So, we have figures that are about 10% of the ones DPF has quoted. This will be due to the global cooling trend from 2002 to 2012. In a few more years we are likely to have a trens of 0.00 degrees for the previous 40 years (this despite a large increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere over that time).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Ross12 (1,432 comments) says:

    The Watts paper will have further work done on it ( Watts has openly acknowledged some its short comings — there is nothing wrong with the basis of it ). It will be peer reviewed and turn out to be an important piece of work.

    Another interesting thing to look out for is the result of the NIWA court case –it appears NIWA have dug themselves into a big whole and we can expect the proverbial to hit the fan.

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

    Yes, the Watts project brings better data and better analytical techniques but the analysis to date is inadequate to draw any conclusions. Wait for it to be properly refined.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    kowtow

    I wasn’t talking the “gay” first-timers’ anal sex. I’m talking a real man’s old school anal sex – prison style!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Ross12 (1,432 comments) says:

    In the meantime the some of the increase in our power bills just disappears across the horizon.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7412785/NZ-vents-170m-under-ETS

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    Still they cling to the belief that global warming is a myth a vast conspiracy to defraud us all a

    Watts was shut down in his claims that the USA temperature record was corrupt when BEST revisited the data and came to the same conclusion as the other three temperature record sets His latest paper does nothing to change this

    The basic science of global warming is indisputable
    The data sets that document this warming are well documented and reliable

    The Consequence are as yet fully know yet we do know that it will cause massive upheaval to our civilisation
    Global mean temperature increases to 4 °C above preindustrial levels will be outside of the the limits for human adaptation in vast areas of our globe. We are on track for this to happen by 2100

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

    “We are on track for this to happen by 2100.”

    Twaddle. Go back to your bible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    Twaddle to you wilky
    1c +( 0.3c x 90)=3.7c
    Basic Math
    Everything else is just detail
    like
    If you add in the effects of methane release from permafrost and the fact that co2 levels in the developing world are increasing at 10% per annum it starts to look like it will be more like 6

    Of course those in denial will keep trying to find justification for their beliefs

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

    Note also the link in the WaPo blog to http://www.skepticalscience.com/watts_new_paper_critique.html

    If Watts’ paper is subject to proper refinement it seems reasonable to think it will end up confirming the generally supported data.

    At the risk of repeating myself, the intial announcement was an entirely unreviewed piece of work claiming to overthrow the scientific establishment, complete with notable hints of maximising self-publicity.

    Credit to DPF for running the responses, but I invite you all to take a moment to consider: in what other field would you give something like that a second’s thought in the first place?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Mooloo (1 comment) says:

    Twaddle to you wilky
    1c +( 0.3c x 90)=3.7c
    Basic Math

    Too basic for you. It’s wrong. 1 + 0.3 x 90 = 28.

    It’s also stupid, because the earth is clearly not actually heating at 0.03°C per year. No-one’s figures show that — not BEST, not GISS and most certainly not the satellites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    lyndon
    Watts paper was released to take the attention away from the latest BEST release on 29 July 2012 he even admits that on his blog
    “About a week ago I learned Muller was going to release and do the media blitz, ” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/backstory-on-the-new-surfacestations-paper/
    BEST release
    http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

    It worked reasonably well last week but the fall out from his piece of junk science will do more than the BEST release to discredit the denial camp

    Then of course you have the present record temperatures in the states which make the denialists look like idiots in real time

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

    At 12:20 today Griff said:

    Science is not done in court or by journalists or found on blogs if you want science fact go to .edu or .govt not blogs blogs are reflection of the views of the bloger not scientific fact

    And within a few hours you’re all lathered up over a blog post by The Washington Post blogger Jason Samwnow? Any flasing neon signs saying “Hypocrite!”? You bet ‘ya.

    I guess if Jason the blogger says it’s good science to have temperature sensors near air-conditioning ducts, on runways and over subway ventilation shafts then we’d better accept that, right? 

    As for BEST,  Elizabeth Muller is listed as “Founder and Executive Director” of the Berkeley Earth Team along with her father Richard Muller. But since 2008 it appears she’s been earning money as a consultant telling governments how to implement green policies, how to reduce their carbon footprint. Any bias there, mmmm?

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

    The basic science of global warming is indisputable

    Bollocks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. UrbanNeocolonialist (290 comments) says:

    Last 32 years (satellite era) is less than 0.14°C/ decade, not 0.3 as stated in post.
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/UAH-TLT-June-2012.png

    And of course no statistically significant warming since the late 90’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    krazykiwi soooo apt that handle
    Acutely this post from DPF does not cover any new ground. It just gives me another opportunity to put the boot into nutters
    I had already commented days ago on the reason why Watts released his “paper”
    The Paper as such will never be published by any scientific journal. It is as full of holes as a tonne of swiss cheese

    If you actually examine the temperatures produced at the “dodgy” sites highlighted by Watts the temperatures are cooler than they should be raotfl

    The great thing is as time goes on you idiots look more and more stupid. I can not loose :lol:

    The next big joke for me will be the result of the present court case against NIWA Hopefully it will include costs against the NZ climate change coalition not just their trust

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

    Talking of dodgy papers, has anyone heard any more about Gergis et al?
    You remember, the Southern Hemisphere hockey stick reconstruction?
    This was tossed out by some statisticians and Steve McIntyre.

    Prof David Karoly of Melbourne University wrote to McIntyre to thank him, then proceeded to slag him off in the Australian Book Review or similar

    This is how government science works, apparently

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    UrbanNeocolonialist
    :lol:
    And you post to the data from a nutjob site that does not include the decay in orbit correction

    Something that has been known about since the nineties
    Here are the relevant papers

    1. Spencer, R. W. & Christy, J. R. Precise monitoring of global temperature trends from satellites. Science
    247, 1558±1562 (1990).
    2. Spencer, R. W. & Christy, J. R. Precision and radiosonde validation of satellite gridpoint temperature
    anomalies. Part II: A tropospheric retrieval and trends during 1979±90. J. Clim. 5, 858±866 (1992).
    3. Christy, J. R. & McNider, R. T. Satellite greenhouse signal. Nature 367, 325 (1994).
    4. Hurrell, J. W. & Trenberth, K. E. Dif®culties in obtaining reliable temperature trends: Reconciling the
    surface and satellite MSU2R trends. J. Clim. (in the press).
    5. Houghton, J. T. et al. (eds) Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge Univ.
    Press, 1996).
    7. Hurrell,J.W.& Trenberth, K. E. Spurioustrends in satelliteMSU temperaturesfrom merging different
    satellite records. Nature 386, 164±167 (1997).
    8. Hansen, J. et al. Satellite and surface temperature data at odds? Clim. Change 30, 103±117 (1995).
    9. Christy, J. R., Spencer, R. W. & Braswell, W. D. How accurate are satellite `thermometers’? Nature 389,
    342±342 (1997).
    12. Wentz, F. J. A well-calibrated ocean algorithm for special sensor microwave/imager. J. Geophys. Res.
    102, 8703±8718 (1997).
    13. Liebe, H. J. An updated model for millimeter wave propagation in moist air. Radio Sci. 20, 1069±1089
    (1985).
    14. Gaffen, D. Temporal inhomogeneities in radiosonde temperature records. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 3667

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

    The great thing is as time goes on you idiots look more and more stupid. I can not loose

    You truly are the Giff that keeps on giving. One minutes blogs are junk. Next minute you’re endorsing one because some blogger is spouting stuff that floats your boat. Really hypocritical Griff. But please keep commenting. It’s amusing to watch.

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

    Certainly the gift that keeps giving. Griff is quoting from Christy and Spencer, two well known sceptical scienctists

    Christy recently gave a testimony to the US congress slamming climate alarmism

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

    Griff at 4.42

    Stop playing with yourself. get your hands off your cock and onto a book…..

    As far as I know NO-ONE is saying the climate isnt warming. Even blind people know its warming. Evemn I know its warming – and when i think its warming – it truely is…….

    The basic science of global warming is NOT well established. The observation that climate is warming is well established, but the reasons why are far from being established.

    Its the WHY that is unknown. If its not CO2 (and theres no proof at all that its is) and its soemthing else – then we are all in the shit (no pun intended) – because by the time those living off the CO2 gravy train are bought back into line and we realise that stopping carbon emissions is a waste of time, then it will be too late to take sensible actions – like breeding plants to handle higher temperatures and developing drugs to handle tropical deseases in mid latitudes and building sea walls around cities and stopping develoment close to the sea)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    KK you can read but your comprehension skill suck
    The blog that dpf posted is endorsing things I had already commented on so turn your statement around the blog is endorsing me not me endorsing the blog
    As I am the only warmest who is regularly posting on this site a little conformation is a good thing

    “Griff is quoting from Christy and Spencer”
    Where? I referred to a paper that is not a quote are you disputing the paper Christy, J. R., Spencer, R. W. & Braswell, W. D. How accurate are satellite `thermometers’? Nature 389,
    342±342 (1997).

    “Christy recently gave a testimony to the US congress slamming climate alarmism”

    That is very stroung language to use unfounded in this case I can not be bothered discussing cristys congress report unless you would like to give specific claims of cristy then I am quite happy to refute each one

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    “The basic science of global warming is NOT well established. The observation that climate is warming is well established, but the reasons why are far from being established.”

    Helps if you actually read links
    go to the BEST website I linked to then discuss their latest conclusions from the release that Watts tried to usurp

    In other words get with the programme

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

    Christy’s testimony is here

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    I have read it i don’t do moving pictures it is to slow
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/christy-once-again-misinforms-congress.html
    seeing as you linked to u tube i will link to a blog
    fell free to dispute the blog

    Christy’s testimony is broken into five distinct climate myths:

    1) Disputing the accuracy of the surface temperature record;

    2) Exaggerating the discrepancy between modeled and observed global warming;

    3) Denying the consensus on human-caused global warming;

    4) Cheerleading fossil fuels as the best thing since sliced bread; and

    5) Denying that climate change is linked to extreme weather.

    As always seems to be the case when climate contrarians are invited to speak to policymakers (or the public), Christy has done nothing more than repeat a bunch of common and long-debunked climate myths. Even worse, in doing so Christy referenced the unpublished and incomplete paper he has co-authored with Anthony Watts, which contains numerous fundamental errors that completely undermine its conclusions. Despite these errors, and despite the fact that the paper has not been reviewed or even submitted to a journal, and despite it contradicting his own satellite measurements which he has held to be the gold standard, Christy presented those wrong conclusions to US Congress.

    Unfortunately, one of the two main political parties in the USA only seems interested in propagating climate myths rather than educating themselves about what the body of climate science research tells us. And just as unfortunately, John Christy seems more than happy to provide them with the desired misinformation. In fact, during the question and answer session, Christy refused to admit the simple reality that global warming is not a hoax, which makes it very difficult to take anything he says seriously.

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

    Griff, Against my better judgement, I’ll keep this simple for you:

    1. I you believe it’s good science to have temperature sensors near air-conditioning ducts, on runways and over subway ventilation shafts?

    2. Do you support the WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO?

    3. Do you see any conflict of interest Elizabeth Muller consulting to, and earning fees from, the US government on Green policies and carbon reduction strategies while simultaneously co-founding the Berkeley Earth Team and promoting the notion that human Co2 is leading towards a cataclysmic result for humankind?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    Here’s a new reason to disregard peer reviewed science: Global Warming Debunked by Intelligent Design.

    So, instead, the “godfather of global warming” has essentially said, “Nope, we can’t figure out the puzzle because it’s too complex. But statistically this is so unusual that it must be man-made global warming.”

    Welcome to the world of Intelligent Design, Mr. Hansen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    YOU are an idiot I have told you can you not read or comprehend

    1 If you examine the sites identified by Watts as suspect you will find that they actually read too cold. taken out of the record makes it warmer!

    2 last sentence

    3 Not relevant Muller was chosen to head BEST because he was a known sceptic on climate change and a respected scientist. I see a conflict of interest with Watts being funded by heartland and the oil industry a fact he lied about

    An adhomenim is pointless bullshit would you like to attack the rest of the team

    Richard A. Muller, founder and Scientific Director. Professor of Physics, UCB and Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). Muller is a member of the JASON Defense Advisory Group.
    Robert Rohde, lead scientist. Ph.D. in physics, University of California, Berkeley (UCB). Rohde’s scientific interests include earth sciences, climatology, and scientific graphics. Rohde is the founder of Global Warming Art.
    David Brillinger, statistical scientist. Professor of Statistics at UCB. A contributor to the theory of time series analysis.
    Judith Curry, climatologist and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
    Robert Jacobsen, Professor of Physics at UCB and an expert in analyses of large data sets.
    Saul Perlmutter, Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Professor of Physics at UCB.
    Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Professor of Physics at UCB and former California Energy Commissioner. Research he directed at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory led to the development of compact fluorescent lamps.
    Charlotte Wickham, Statistical Scientist.
    Jonathan Wurtele, Professor of Physics at UCB and Senior Scientist, LBNL

    And this was from Watts when BEST was set up

    “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. beautox (422 comments) says:

    The climate is indeed warming slightly. Wow. It would be amazing if it was not changing – there’s no reason for such a complex system to be static.

    But the big elephant in the room is whether it’s caused by increased CO2, or whether the warming CAUSES the elevated CO2. Past studies have shown CO2 rises lagging behind climate temp increases, suggesting that warming causes more CO2 (eg to be outgassed from the oceans). All without human help.

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

    Skeptical Science.

    Yeah Right.
    and authored by Dana Nuticelli (dana1981) no less

    I gave up with SkS a long time ago. Same activist drivel as everywhere else, including a good chunk of the IPCC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Johnboy (16,722 comments) says:

    Vegetarians fart more than meat eaters so a discerning man, that loves his pork chops and fillet steak, could only suspect that the recent rise of the anti-obesity brigade has a lot to do with the increase in air temperatures.

    When you combine that with the increase in sunlight striking the Earth since the anti-smoking mob caused the “Great Stubbing Out”. I suspect we are fucked and doomed to slowly broil to death in a healthy vegetarian stew. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    beautox
    warming slightly yeah right at an unprecedented rate faster and higher then at any time in the last 1,000,000 years
    co2 has lagged behind temperature change in the prehistoric record
    co2 is not at present its leading the change

    andyscrase
    Ad hominem pointless and irrelevant
    “Same activist drivel as everywhere else”, yes same as NASSA ,all major scientific bodies and the governments of most nations the UN and the scientific community as a whole it must be massive global conspiracy :sarcastic:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Still Here (1,091 comments) says:

    Griff
    How much money has been dolled out in the last 5 years to study Global Warming?
    Any idea?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. swan (665 comments) says:

    “What is contested is how large and fast that warming will be.”

    Also what is contested is what the policy response should be to a given expected range of future warming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    Still Here
    Do you think we should not try to understand wot is happening to the world we live on
    If you actually read up on this subject it would give you an understanding of the consequences humanity is facing
    I do not mean the small number of denial nutters I mean the actual scientific community

    Conspiracy theory’s are for weirdos

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

    1 If you examine the sites identified by Watts as suspect you will find that they actually read too cold. taken out of the record makes it warmer!

    1. To be clear, you’re claiming that measurment stations near air conditioning ducts, and on airport tarmac areas read colder that the ambient temperature away from these urban features? Sigh, all Watts and his volunteers did was use the newly approved site classification system against unajusted data. That you warmists are happy to knowingly rely on data that fits the alarmist model is evidence of significant scientific fraud. There is secondary/tertiary law and science subject matter here for decades hence.

    2. You didn’t answer the question. You’re wriggling Griff. Surely you must have a cut’n’paste answer from a blog somwhere?

    3. Nonsense, and you know it. Second thoughts, it is probably a bit complex for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. UrbanNeocolonialist (290 comments) says:

    “And you post to the data from a nutjob site that does not include the decay in orbit correction”

    Actually The Blackboard is a pleasant mix of warmists and skeptics, and is primarily focused on analysis issues, ie statistics, something that the warmist “Team” have demonstrated striking incompetence at over the last decade (made worse by the pal-review process).

    The orbital decay correction in UAH satellite data set was sorted out a few years back. Do try to keep up, and there is almost no difference in trend between RSS and UAH:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/LT-UAH-versus-RSS.gif

    And the various interpolated ground based sensor temperature series are also in reasonable agreement over that period.

    All these temperature series are around 0.15°C per decade over last 30 years. Which is no different from 1920-1940’s. (the previous positive phase of the 60 year PDO cycle)
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/rss/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/plot/gistemp/from:1910/plot/esrl-co2/from:1910/normalise

    Anyone looking at that graph can see that the IPCC’s attribution and extrapolations based on 1980-2000 rise are quite ridiculous, and that long term natural cycles are responsible for much (not necessarily all) of recent warming.

    So a few awkward questions for true believers to answer:
    1/ Why was the temperature rising rapidly prior to WW2 when CO2 rise was minimal?
    2/ Why did temperature fall from 50’s to 70’s when CO2 was rising and why has there been no significant temp rise in last 15 years?
    3/ Why has the temperature varied by 2-3°C over the last 10000 years, mostly hotter than today?
    http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/GISP-last-10000-years.png
    4/ Why is there a long term cooling trend over the last 10000 years?
    5/ What caused the Minoan, Roman, Medieval warm periods at 1050-1100 year intervals over the last 3300 years, all of which appear to have been generally warmer than today?
    6/ How can you be sure that whatever caused those warm periods is not in action now (we are due for another warm period in that series).

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

    Griff.
    I gave up on Skeptical Science a long time ago.

    One of their points is that John Christy “denies” the consensus.
    What the hell does this mean?
    Science is not driven by a show of hands

    Skeptical Science have a project called TCP – The Consensus Project – to propagandise the idea that there is a consensus.

    Why did you go straight to SkS and ignore the testimony? Do you prefer activist propaganda to the words of a scientist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    So (in desperation) the Washington Post is now a reliable source for the warmista cult, Y / N ?

    Better go read Jo Nova et al @ joannenova.com.AU

    You can read on by going to her links (better late than never….,.!):

    Ray Evans reviews The Denialist Victory

    Ray Evans writes a review below of Robert Manne’s essay in The Monthly entitled A Dark Victory: How vested interests defeated climate science. (Forgive me Ray for slipping in one or two thoughts of my own below). Ray Evans is the secretary of The Lavoisier Group one of the first original skeptical groups in Australia (I’ve put a few notes on that at the base of the article). It was Graham Readfearns review (ABC Drum) that apparently brought the Manne article to Ray’s attention.
    Dear All,
    Readfearn’s review was a lamentation of defeat and disappointment. So I immediately bought a copy of The Monthly and with eager anticipation began to read Robert Manne’s account of the tragedy which he claims has befallen him and his fellow warmists. It was a disappointing read.

    There was nothing new in Manne’s arguments seeking to legitimize his passionate belief in imminent climate catastrophe. His palpable anger, bordering on hatred, of the global warming sceptics, or to use his loaded term, denialists, all of whom were Americans, was unsettling.
    “While climate change denial . . . exists almost exclusively in the English speaking democracies [sic] . . and although it has spread to Canada, Australia and the UK, within the Anglosphere its place of origin and heartland is the US.”

    Robert Manne places the sceptical scientists from the US in a political context. He names Frederick Seitz, Fred Singer, William Neirenberg and Robert Jastrow as attached to the Marshall Institute and as “Cold Warriors who had once supported the Vietnam War and the neo-conservative hawkish policies of the early Reagan administration”. As far as I am aware, neither Neirenberg nor Jastrow have played any part in the global warming debate.

    Richard S Lindzen [who has visited NZ under the auspices of the NZBRT] is undoubtedly the most distinguished scientist within the ranks of the scientifically qualified global warming sceptics. He is Professor of Meteorology at MIT, his publication record is awesome, and his leadership role in sustaining what was originally a small band of scientific brothers (but now much larger) was critical. Robert Manne, although admitting Lindzen’s scientific eminence, then dismissed him as “the fanatically anti-communist Lindzen.”

    An important weapon in the warmist armory is the accusation that global warming sceptics are in the pay of the fossil fuel industries; Big Oil is usually cited as the primary villain. The Lavoisier Group whose annual income rarely exceeded $20,000, was routinely dismissed by every Green organisation in Australia as in the pay of the fossil fuel industries. The ratio between the financial resources enjoyed by the warmists (most of their money – including Robert Manne’s salary – comes from the taxpayer) and the sceptics, is at least 100 to 1 [JoNova thinks it's closer to 5,000 to 1]. And yet, despite this huge advantage, despite the enthusiastic support of the chattering class elites who control the ABC, the Fairfax media, the universities, and what is left of the protestant churches, Manne concludes his lamentation with these two sentences :
    The long war the denialist movement had fought against science and against reason, in the US and throughout the English-speaking world, has indeed achieved a famous victory. This is a victory that subsequent generations cursing ours may look upon as perhaps the darkest in the history of humankind”

    [Darkest in the history of humankind? Deniers are worse than Pol Pot and The Black Plague? -- Jo]

    How was this victory possible? There are, in my view, two reasons. The first is mentioned by Manne.
    “More importantly, it was becoming clear that the most important effective denialist media weapon was not the newspapers or television but the internet”.
    Manne is right here. Just as Gutenberg destroyed the monopoly which the Church had enjoyed for many centuries on publishing the Bible, the writings of the church fathers, and other religious documents, so the internet has destroyed the power which was described in the Climategate emails. This is the power which a small group of people in key institutions such as the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the Hadley Centre at the UK Met Office, and which, across the Atlantic, included James Hansen at NASA, and Michael Mann, now of Penn State University, (but in 2000 at the University of Virginia), were able to wield by excommunicating (to use religious terminology) any scientist who did not subscribe to the warmist doctrines they were promoting throughout the Anglosphere. ”

    read more at
    joannenova.com.au

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    The climate alarmists are loosing !!!

    Meanwhile in the real world The temperatures keep climbing.
    Some one should tell Gaia that’s not OK the warmists have lost :lol:

    The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2012 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). This is the fourth warmest June since records began in 1880.

    The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C (2.34°F) above average.

    The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.07°C (1.93°F) above average.

    On April 9, 2012, NOAA officially classified March 2012 as the warmest March ever recorded in the United States since record keeping began in 1895. Over 15,000 U.S. warm temperature records were broken during this time (7,755 daytime records, 7,517 nighttime records). Many areas saw temperatures some 20 to 40 degrees above average. Every state in the United States, including Alaska, experienced record high temperatures during the month of March 2012. The last time the United States experienced such warm temperatures in the month of March was back in 1910. However, the warmth of 2012 was nearly 0.5 degrees warmer than 1910.

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

    Griff.
    How much warming has there been in the last 15 years?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. tom hunter (4,899 comments) says:

    The graph here was presented to the U.S. Senate by Climatologist Dr. John R. Christy, just a few days ago.

    As you can see, almost all the extreme state temperature records were set some 80 years ago. The decade of the 1930’s leads by quite a multiple. As the associated article points out:

    American climatologist Stanley Changnon has documented how the 1920s and 1930s also witnessed significantly higher numbers of thunderstorms and associated violent weather than today. University of Alberta Emeritus Professor Keith Hage’s research showed that severe and destructive windstorms over Alberta and Saskatchewan peaked during the 1920s and 1930s and have lessened since.

    The Prairies also witnessed unusually cold winter conditions during the 1910s and 1920s. Meteorologists still do not understand why the climate of North America was so anomalous during this period.

    The 1920s and 1930s also had more frequent, more severe, and longer lasting droughts in the American Midwest than in recent times. Many years in those decades had almost no rain at all for the entire year and there were no historic floods in the U.S. Yet climate activists blame global warming for this year’s droughts across the Mississippi River watershed resulting in very low river levels, forgetting about events 80 years ago when no one even thought about human-induced climate change.

    I’ve had to listen to many warmists denying that they’re exploiting “weather events” to boost AGW catastrophe theories – but that’s usually only when presented with severe cold snaps or flooding, which don’t intuitively tie well to “Warming”. Naturally enough, the moment a bunch of droughts appears anywhere in the world the previous denials are dropped and we’re right back to scare-mongering, as we see here. We’ve not had a severe drought across most of the North Island for some years now, as we had in 1972 and 1978, but I guarantee that the moment we do the warmists will hit the media with the loudest screams of doom that they can muster.

    Of course if one wants to exploit the more subtle (and defensible) theory of Climate Change due to “increased energy in the system”, then one can use the exact opposite situations that occurred in the American Mid-West quite recently:

    … it was only nine years ago (2003) that historic highs were recorded along Old Man River and we saw the most devastating floods along the Upper Mississippi River Basin in modern times. Five years later, another historic flood occurred when the Cedar River (Cedar City, Iowa) rose to more than 11 feet above the previous record. Extensive flooding was also reported in 2008 in Illinois, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Why did such floods occur if human-caused global warming is supposed to be causing this summer’s droughts?

    Well, I’ve already given that answer. Perhaps the likes of Griff would be better off listening to those few warmists who have stated that this Armageddonist approach actually harms the AGW movement – but from my perspective I’m quite happy for such claims to continue to be made.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    FOR FUCKS SAKE
    Did you read the post above?
    On April 9, 2012, NOAA officially classified March 2012 as the warmest March ever recorded in the United States
    The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record
    The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record
    Arctic sea ice extent for July 2012 was the second lowest in the satellite record, behind 2011.

    Reality will continue to happen
    No matter wot Watts Nova and the rest of the nutters say

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. tom hunter (4,899 comments) says:

    I think you should keep using capital letters Griff – and forecasting the end of humanity unless your recommendations are followed.

    You do realise how similar you sound to Andrei and company on gay marriage, no?

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

    “warmest year on record” means very little in a scientific sense
    Statistician Matt Briggs wrote about this here:

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=45

    So the prediction that “2008 will be in the 10 ten warmest years” has an overwhelming probability of being true regardless whether man-made global warming is significant or not, and regardless whether an increasing or cyclic climate holds. That is, no matter what, this prediction is probably true, and it is useless as its intent was to give indirect evidence that the increasing climate scenario holds and that the man-made component of global warming is significant. It does neither such thing. Presenting this prediction as news is a clever debating tactic, but it is misleading, because the alternatives are not presented, even though the forecast is just as much evidence for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    tom hunter
    Were have I forecast the end of humanity?
    Quote my recommendations

    I will give you a forecast
    Beef prices will drop this year and increase in the following two
    Dairy prices will continue to rise

    Due to the problems the USA is experiencing with the grain harvest this year accompanied with the demand for bio fuels.
    beef because a dry summer farmers sell of stock to reduce impact. it then follows a drop in supply the next year prices increase
    Dairy will continue to increase as grain prices rise due to crop failure

    All good for NZ in fact ACG is going to be of benefit to NZ into the future due to our maritime climate and farming Technics

    The capitals are because you naturally shout at thickos

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. tom hunter (4,899 comments) says:

    Were have I forecast the end of humanity?

    Well let’s just see here from this thread alone …

    we do know that it will cause massive upheaval to our civilisation

    to 4 °C above preindustrial levels will be outside of the the limits for human adaptation in vast areas of our globe

    unprecedented rate faster and higher then at any time in the last 1,000,000 years

    If you actually read up on this subject it would give you an understanding of the consequences humanity is facing

    My sincere apologies Griff, you’ve only suggested that Vast And Terrible things will happen to humanity rather than it ending, and you have indeed not offered any recommendations as to what to do.

    So basically for you, this is just a blog shitfight over statistical significance and semantics on an issue that even many of it’s supporters are crying in their beer about having lost in practical terms.

    Wow – it really is, for you, like Andrei and gay marriage.

    Oh, and by the way …

    Dairy prices will continue to rise

    The first Fonterra statement of the new season came in yesterday, with protein at $5.2776/kg compared to last year’s start of $6.1982 and 2010-11’s rate of $6.5890.

    Fortunately I relied on my own analysis of global drought, subsidies, grain prices and so forth, when plugging in my forecast numbers to this years budget. Had I relied on the predictions of the theories of Griff-The-Mysterious-Warmist, I’d probably be looking at a budget blowout. Perhaps it’s time your fantabulous models were re-inserted into the dark, moist place from whence they came for more of the processing that first produced them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/grain-financing-idINL6E8J3P7820120807
    Corn and wheat prices have risen about 50 percent in the past six weeks and soybeans by around 20 percent, sparked by the worst U.S. dry spell in 56 years. With no relief in sight, buyers have started returning to the market, which could prolong the rally.

    diary
    http://www.nzxfutures.com/dairy/quotes/wmp
    WMPFQ12 AUG 12 2820
    WMPFJ13 APR 13 3300

    20% rise in whole milk powder six month contract

    If you like to bullshite find an idiot some of us can use the web tom

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Griff (7,822 comments) says:

    “fantabulous models were re-inserted into the dark, moist place from whence they came for more of the processing that first produced them.”

    NO Tommy my forecast came from a recent analysis on Reuters that I am to lazy to search for so I paraphrased from memory.It Seems that someone is a little fucked when it comes to their budget then

    “lost in practical terms.”
    Opinion stated as fact. I actually expected better from you Tommy. There is no winner there is just the fact that Gaia is warming. No matter how hard Watts and co deny this the temperature continues to rise. In the end they will run out of excuses and will be relegated to a foot note in history just like the flat earthers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. tom hunter (4,899 comments) says:

    If you like to bullshite find an idiot some of us can use the web tom

    I’ll stick to my Fonterra statements rather than the world of futures trading – practical data you know – or perhaps you don’t!

    And what do you mean by There is no winner, when you just told me that All good for NZ in fact ACG is going to be of benefit to NZ into the future. You really just don’t keep track of what you say even from comment to comment do you sweetie? ;)

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