Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Peer Review and Faking Data

Posted by greg2213 on April 29, 2013

Fist off: Peer Review, for all it’s warts, seems to be the best system we have for proofing papers against the various errors that can creep in. It’s subject to issues ranging from missed errors to “pal-review” to fraud, but what’s the alternative?

But it does need to be “cleaned up.”

From WUWT:

An article in the New York Times chronicles the descent of a sociologist into wholesale fraud. It is worth reading the whole article, because I believe it offers insight into some of the pressures, temptations, and self-rationalizations that many scientists struggle with.

And the full story: from the NT Times


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

The Psychology of Expertise, or How we Think

Posted by greg2213 on April 26, 2013

This is a really interesting piece from NoFrakkingConsensus on why predictions, in any field, tend to be so bad and yet we keep making them. And we make them with confidence. A great example is the climate and all the broken predictions (er, um… “projections.”)

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman has spent his life studying human judgment and decision-making. At 79, he is the author of the 2011 award-winning, best-selling book Thinking, Fast and Slow.

Since we hear so much about the 2007 Peace Prize that recognized the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it’s worth mentioning that Kahneman received the Nobel Prize in economics in 2002.

When his book first appeared, Kahneman wrote a long essay (3,400 words) for the New York Times magazine. Subtitled The Hazards of Confidence, it’s a fascinating read that doesn’t mention climate change, global warming, or scientists even once. But its insights are highly relevant to the climate debate.

Here’s the rest.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Time to Vote on the #1 Blogs

Posted by greg2213 on February 25, 2013

It’s time for the Bloggies Awards.

Go here for all the info and instructions and how to be counted.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Sea Ice Panics, Liberalism, Politics, History, Alarmism, Smurphy’s Law

Posted by greg2213 on December 23, 2012

The post was back in October, but what the heck.

It’s a wonderful read by Caleb Shaw which wanderers over a variety of topics.

Guest post by Caleb Shaw

During hot spells in the summer I often find it refreshing to click onto Anthony’s “Sea Ice Page,” and to sit back and simply watch ice melt. It is an escape from my busy, sweaty routine, as long as I avoid the “Sea Ice Posts” where people become anxious, political, and somewhat insulting, about the serene topic of ice melting. However by September there is no way to avoid the furor generated by melting ice. It reaches a crescendo.

I used to like the September Panic because I often could hijack a thread by bringing up the subject of Vikings. I’d rather talk about Vikings floating around during the MWP, than a bunch of bergs floating around and melting today.
The September Panic also entertained me because I used to learn about all sorts of things I didn’t know about. The debate always involved people clobbering each other with facts, and hitting each other over the head with links. In the process you’d learn all sorts of fascinating trivia about Norwegian fishermen in the 1920’s, and arctic explorers in the 1800’s, and even some science.

For example, fresh water floats on top of saltier water, unless it is the Gulf Stream, which is saltier water floating on top of fresher water because it is warmer, until it gets colder.

This science crosses your eyes, in a pleasant manner, and leads inevitably to discussions about thermohaline circulation, which is fascinating, because so little is known about it.

It also leads to discussions about how the freezing of salt water creates floating ice that is turned into fresh water by extracting brine, which forms “brincicles” as it dribbles down through the ice at temperatures far below zero and enters the warmer sea beneath. This in turn leads to discussions involving the fact that, with such large amounts of brine sinking, surface water must come from someplace to replace it, and in some cases this surface water is cold, while in other cases it is warm.

The fact the replacing waters can be warmer leads to discussions about the northernmost branches of the Gulf Stream, and how these branches meander north and south. This in turn leads to talk of the unpredictable nature of meandering, the further downstream you move from the original point where the meandering starts, and this, (if you are lucky,) will lead you to Chaos Theory and Strange Attractors.

(In the case of the Mississippi River, the subject of meandering leads you to the Delta, plus the topics of Engineers, New Orleans, and Murphy’s Law.) (In the case of psychology, the meanderings of the human mind leads to the conclusion humans are utterly unpredictable, unless they are psychologists, in which case they obey Smurphy’s Law, which states a psychologist will succumb to whatever ailment he is expert in.)

In conclusion, the September Panic can be a source of fascinating thought, providing you are willing to drift like a berg and wind up miles off topic.

I’ve been through this all before, during the Great Meltdown of 2007, and its September Panic. Those were great times, for in the period 2006-2007 the so-called “consensus” put forward a great propaganda effort, including the movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” and won Oscars, Peace Prizes, and a sound thrashing from Skeptics.

Lots more here: September Panics and Smurphy’s Law

Highly recommended.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Al Gore’s (un)Reality Show

Posted by greg2213 on July 17, 2011

Update 8/6:

Mr. Gore expresses his frustrations with trying to push his fantasies against reality. Defeated Gore unleashes: ‘It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company

The Hockey Schtick pokes some holes in Gore’s “argument”

More on the Failure of Al Gore

Original post:

Al Gore is preparing an event, for Sept 14, to show the world his delusion of climate change.

Well, I don’t think it’ll amount to much, but WUWT has a post on how Al’s delusions might be challenged.

Plenty of comments and plenty of suggestions appear there. Most of the comments are suggestion arguing with the facts to counter the delusions, but I think that’s a poor idea.

There are no facts supporting CAGW, and a lot that counter CAGW, but still the hysteria goes on. There’s too much emotion, money (taxes, investments, fraud,) power (control,) and greed wrapped up in it for it to go away.

So here’s a better suggestion, I think. A commenter says:

I am reading Ann Coulter’s new book, “Demonic” and it has good lessons about dealing with a mob and the warmists do fit that description. This post recommends reasoned arguments. Mobs do not respond to reasoned arguments. You need to provide them with mental pictures based on good arguments such as:

  • Headline: “Electricity prices to double.” followed by a picture of the sweltering poor unable to afford air conditioning.
  • Headline: “Greens stop coal plant in Africa.” followed by a picture of a hut where burning dung has to be used to cook food.
  • Video of some idiot saying, “Energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.”
  • Video of the unemployed in Montana where an aluminum plant was shut down because the greens in California will not allow power plants to be built.

Get the picture? Every time the warmists show a picture of a polar bear, show a picture from Detroit.

I think this is one of the very best suggestions in the whole thread. It’s not Gore’s beliefs which are destructive, it’s the policy changes that he and his ilk wish to inflict upon us.

So let’s show the consequences of those policies.

How about a video of people trying to manage with their 6 hour a day eletrical alotment, then the camera pulls back to show that it’s us, under Gore’s policies.

People freezing in the UK because the windmills are frozen/broken and not generating anything. The video can open with the green elites (eg: Gore) living high in their heated mansions with all the lights on.

Show the relatively clean industries that are being shut down, for green reasons, and then being moved to China (and elsewhere,) where there are no restrictions on pollution. A big net loss, but the greens feel happy as long as they don’t think too deeply about it.

Show the Gov types adding up their new tax revenues while the sidebar to the video show unemployment climbing.

Show the toxic chemicals and manufacturing that goes into making electric vehicles and some types of wind and solar devices.

Show a video with a guy in coveralls making remarks about CO2 pollution and how it’s bad for everything, then opening up his greenhouse, which is at 1500 ppm CO2, and showing the lush growth.

Make it sexy enough and you might get some media outlet to run with it, since they do love scandals and scare stories.

CAGW isn’t about facts, it’s about emotion, power, and money. So we need to show who’s profiting from the policies, who’s paying for the policies, and who’s dying from those policies.

Another comment that provides a good starting point:

Rather than tackle gore on science, how about on behavior. how a person acts tells you much more about what they truly believe, as compared to what they say.

For example:

1. gore lives in a big house and creates lots more co2 than the average person. does he want us all to live like he does? if not, then why does he live like this?

2. gore has 4 children yet is going around telling women to have less children. apparently at the same time he was going around trying to spread his own seed, if events with tipper are any indication.

3. gore in the past made his money selling tobacco. an addictive substance that causes great harm. reportedly his sister died of lung cancer. gore is a rich man. he says he regrets selling tobacco. has he set up a substantial trust fund with his wealth to pay victims of tobacco?

4. gore was heavily invested in co2 tracing before ccx was sold. has he simply moved his investments into another co2 vehicle such as redd? has he filed a conflict of interest statement?

5. gore says sea levels are rising dangerously but bought a property vulnerable to sea level rise. does this make sense if sea levels are rising dangerously?

6. gore in his movie misrepresented the connection between temperature and co2 in the ice cores. he used a clever wording to overcome the causation problem with temperature leading co2, to imply that temperature was caused by co2.

7. etc. etc.

These points would seem to be the sorts of things that the average person would use to evaluate whether gore can be trusted. most people would skip the science because it isn’t their specialty. what most people look at is behavior to judge if the person is truthful or not. most people recognize that folks don’t always tell the truth, even to themselves.

Posted in Al Gore, Policies, Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

New Study Proves Climate Change Happens At Low CO2 Levels

Posted by greg2213 on July 28, 2010

From C3 headlines, via Climate Depot:

Read here. One of the major stuck-on-stupid positions that global warming alarmists claim is that only human CO2 increases cause climate change. This idiotic stance eventually resulted in the bogus hockey-stick study that the world’s preeminent statisticians found to be so….well….really bogus. The hockey-stick of course purported to show that no climate changes had occurred over the last 1,000 years until the late 20th century. This idiocy became so apparent that even the IPCC retired the hockey-stick to barely a footnote in its last report.

In spite of the bogus hockey-stick, researchers across the world kept working to better understand past climate change. Another study just released has found that the arid central Asia (ACA) region has had significant climate change over the last 1,000 years during periods of low, unchanging CO2 levels.

The rest: Global Warming Alarmists Take Another Hit: New Study Proves Climate Change Happens At Low CO2 Levels

I think the assumption that CO2 levels has remained unchanged over the last 1,000 years is likely incorrect, but measuring it over those longer periods is tough. Chemical measurements of CO2 levels have shown large variations in more recent times (since 1800) so it seems reasonable to assume such variations over longer periods.

Still, it’s another nail in the CAGW coffin.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Damn Lies, Statistics, Perspective, Graphs, and Background Pics

Posted by greg2213 on April 13, 2010

Background pics?

It’s  generally accepted, though still debatable, that global temps have gone up about .6C over the last 100 some odd years. This is averaged over the whole year and some months will show a higher rate, others a lower one.

But .6C isn’t particularly alarming. It’s interesting only because we’re living through it, it’s by no means unique to this period in time. Given data manipulation and heat island effects it can be argued that there has been close to zero warming, on average, but let’s go with the .6 number.

How do you make it into a scarier picture? After all, there’s all that grant money to think about, not to mention Al Gore’s fortunes, incredible tax revenues, increasing government power, massiive boosts to the bottom line of any corporation that can play in the carbon market (Big Oil, Brokerage firms, UN IPCC Chief Pachauuri’s firms, etc.)  Showing a warming picture that’s just  interesting won’t do.

So let’s grab a particularly terrifying pic from WUWT:

US Annual Temperatures by Month

US Annual Temperatures by Month

What’s shown here is the average monthy temperature for many different years, each year being a separate line. The red line is 2009 and it seems to be pretty average. So where’s the catastrophic warming? Think the background pic does anything to add to the alarm? I don’t either.

Then compare that pic to this one, also  from the same post:

US Temps Rising Rapidly?

US Temps Rising Rapidly?

Nice background pic, hmmm?

Squish 120 years of temps into a short space and widen the vertical graph, both of  which exaggerate that upward sloping red line. Make the scale in degrees Fahrenheit, instead of Celsius, since .6C becomes just over 1F, so looks bigger (scarier.)

So the two graphs display the same data, but which one do you think will be more likely to be on the cover of any report by any of the above listed warming beneficiaries?

Here’s the WUWT post with the graphs, more discussion, and the usual bazillion comments: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics … and Graphs

More stuff:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

About those Statistics

Posted by greg2213 on March 21, 2010

From Watt’sUpWithThat –

The quote in the headline is direct from this article in Science News for which I’ve posted an excerpt below. I found this article interesting for two reasons. 1- It challenges use of statistical methods that have come into question in climate science recently, such as Mann’s tree ring proxy hockey stick and the Steig et al statistical assertion that Antarctica is warming. 2- It pulls no punches in pointing out an over-reliance on statistical methods can produce competing results from the same base data. Skeptics might ponder this famous quote:

“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” – Lord Ernest Rutherford

Also in the article is part of the Science News article and a link to The Reference Frame Defending statistical methods

Leif Svalgaard comments:

It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation
Clearly not written by a scientist. We validate a hypothesis by its predictions or explanatory power or even ‘usefulness’ [even if actually not the correct one – e.g. the Bohr atom]. Statistics is only used as a rough guide to whether the result is worth looking into further. Now, if a prediction has been made, statistics can be used as a rough gauge of how close to the observations the prediction came, but the ultimate test is if the predictions hold up time after time again. This is understood by scientists, but often not by Joe Public [his dirtiest secret perhaps 🙂 ].

One of the issues in climate “science” and all the arguments that go back and forth is about the meaning of short term trends. Bascially, do they mean anything other than, “nice weather this year (and in Spokane, it is) …?”

So statistics can be used to tease all sorts of trends and numbers out of the data (regardless of the quality of the data.) So here’s a comment from the same thread that, I think, really illustrates the whole point:

steveta_uk (04:31:35) :

After reading some of the “random walk” posts recently, I thought I’d try a little experiment, which consisted of writing a bit of C code which generated pseudo-temperature records, based on a random +- 0.1 annual deviation from the previous year, centered around 15C, and with a bias factor that made the temperature drift towards 15C if it starts drifting away.

So this 15-minute job produced 10,000 years of temperature records which I imported into a spreadsheet and drew some pictures.

There’s basically with a boring average close to 15, and lots of apparent noise between 13 and 17C. But zoom in a bit, and you see features like little ice ages, medieval warm periods, “hockey stick” features, and all sorts.

And apply some of the trend analysis functions to selected parts of the “noise” and it finds all sorts of things.

And it’s all random.

From another comment. Take a busy street, with traffic moving nicely. Consider crossing the street (J walking) and ask yourself some questions. Can you get a definite answer?

  1. Is it dangerous to cross that street? Most of us might say something like, “hell yes.”
  2. Will I be killed if I cross the street (make some assumptions about how, when, speed of crossing, etc.?) The answer isn’t yes or no, it’s only something like, “Possibly, yes.”
  3. Change the previous to Will I be killed or injured… Then the answer still can’t be yes or no, but is still, “possibly, yes” though it’s more likely than the previous.
  4. You are now across the street. Are you dead, yes or no?

So really, 2 & 3 are statistical answers while 1 & 4 aren’t. While the answers to 2 & 3 aren’t certain (ie: yes or no) they are correct. The point, obviously, is that the answer really depends on the question and all the assumptions around that question.

Here’s a great example, from another comment.

Smokey (07:01:15) :

  • Here’s a good example: click
  • Another: click
  • John Daly’s chart: click
  • And the original alarming CO2 chart: click

So yeah, while we need the statistics and while they can provide useful info, they aren’t the only thing and can certainly be used to excess. It’s put very nicely in that old quote, “Lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Snowball Earth Could Make for Permanent Ski Conditions

Posted by greg2213 on March 6, 2010

If you Google (or Bing or Y!) Snowball Earth (or go here) you’ll find something akin to the following idea. Some 700+ million year ago the Earth was covered in ice. That ice extended all the way to the equator. Some say it’s happened at least twice. Around 715 million year back and again at around 600 million years.

WUWT has a post in the subject: “sea ice extended to the equator 716.5 million years ago” Fascinating stuff, i think. It’s also likely that CO2 was far higher in those days, so why did it the world freeze over? There have been a few other ice ages since then, long before the current set, despite higher CO2.The article doesn’t actually say anything about CO2, though the graphic does.

I’ve seen some remarks by Geologists who suggest that land-masses at the poles are necessary for ice ages, along with certain formations of the continents. Circulation is cut off and the world cools. Enough ice forms, albedo increases, the cooling accelerates, and you have an ice age (I’m way over simplifying here.)


The article and the commenters raise some questions:

  1. Are there any papers which contradict the idea? One commenter said a paper has already debunked it.
  2. Are there any other hypotheses that would explain the scientists’ observations? Axial tilt? Weaker sun combined with…? Asteroid hit causing massive planet-wide volcanic activity, combined with the correct placement of the land masses?
  3. The article admits that they don’t know the triggering causes for the Earth becoming a snowball, or for leaving that phase, though there is a vast igneous province that suspiciously dates to about the same time. Super volcano?
  4. A commenter says that while Geologists generally believe that CAGW is complete bunk, biologists are believers. Why? I have a biology degree (ancient, moldy, but still there.) I’d think that biologists would be the first group to be hollering that more CO2 is a good thing and that life shows remarkable adaptability.
  5. Another commenter states that when the current series of ice ages ends (in a few million years) CO2 will bounce back to a more normal 1200ppm to 2500 ppm. Why? Outgassing from the oceans?

Posted in Global Cooling, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

1934 Warmer than 1998? Yes, No, Yes, No…

Posted by greg2213 on January 18, 2010

8/26/14: Found this (referenced on G+: ) –  Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.

Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

this is the link. 

8/17/14: Our Climategate buddies told us that they wanted to get rid of the 1940’s temperature blip, without even knowing why it existed. So they did.


In 1998, Hansen wrote: it is clear that 1998 did not match the record warmth of 1934, which occurred during the Dust Bowl era. Here.

Update 4/29/13:

It’s necessary for NCDC to heavily adjust temps to continue the alarm. The high temps in its published reports are far from what’s shown by their data. The animation below switches between the measured data, and the published temperatures.


And here’s the original page.

Update 4/13: More records set way back when. 

He (James Hansen) wrote this in 1999, before he completely turned to the dark side of fraudulent science.

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath…..

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

The US Used To Be Much Hotter

Update 3/25: And still more from Goddard: All GISS US Warming Is Due To Data Tampering

Update 2/4: More from that tireless Goddard fellow. Far more heat records set in the 30s than this last year. Now one could probably quibble about averages vs record setting (ie: a high average might not mean more records) or about this just being US temps. Funny how such scrutiny isn’t given to hysteria supporting the warming meme. 40% Of US All-Time Record Maximums Were Set During The 1930s

Update 1/31: More GISS shenanigans. Using iffy data for Antarctica in order to manufacture warming.

Update 1/25: PDF of a German study of doctored GISS records. It’s all in German, but the conclusion (on the last page) is in English. Here’s the original and here’s the local copy. Some people are having difficulty loading the original file, but the local copy seems to work just fine.

  • Modifications obviously in most stations, perhaps in all.
  • Modifications yielded mostly a stronger warming
  • Some indicate cooling – to pretend homogensization
  • Methods vary depending on setting: decreasing data of beginning sections, decreasing data between 1920 and 1950, increasing data of final sections, deleting data of disturbing sections.

Update: 1/11/13: Yes, still more. Here’s Part 2. And what’s this nonsense about 2012 being warmer than 1998? GISS is the only record which comes even close to that. The 30s were the hottest and driest.

Update: 8/8/12: More warm fails and adjustments. Hansen claims there’s something unusual about modern warmth. He’s wrong. More debunking of Hansen.

More Hansen/GISS data tampering, and still more.

Update 7/10/12

NY Times hysteria about melting ice over the last century, WUWT comment.

More headlines, from various sources. Part one of that article is here and discusses the “Global Warming” proposition.

An issue is that pretty much all of the warming observed over the last hundred years or see seems to be the result of adjustments to the historical temperature record. This image tracks some of those adjustments to the NOAA adjustments. Temps were modified to be cooler in earlier years and warmer in later year. The graph shows the magniture of the adjustments.

Update 11/13/11:

Guess we’ll just have to say “yes” to that question:

NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade, summers are cooler, winters are getting colder – Scroll down the post to hit the 1934 stuff.

Update 8/1:

More “adjustments” from GISS. Steve points out that “Through the magic of adjustment, GISS has been able to cool the past by two degrees…”

GISS raw data shows Brenham, Texas cooling

GISS raw data shows Brenham, Texas cooling, then warming.

Elsewhere, Greenland puts on over 250′ of ice since ’42…

Two B-17 bombers and six P-38 Lightning fighters are buried under 265 feet of ice and snow that has accumulated since bad weather and low fuel forced them to abort a flight to England in 1942.

the rest: Team Aims to Dig Up Planes Buried in Icecap;8 Aircraft Worth Millions Crash-Landed in Greenland 47 Years Ago

This is for the wags who whine that the US is only 2% of the Earth’s surface area, so doesn’t really count:  Just 2% Of The Planet. More on the Bad Weather page.

Update 7/22/11:

From Goddard, Steve: – Prior to the year 2000, the two hottest years in the GISS US record were 1934 and 1921 respectively. 1998 was the third hottest year, and more than half a degree cooler than 1934.

After adjustments, 1998 became warmer. Here’s a blink graph, from Steve’s site, comparing the two. Click the image for a slightly bigger (and complete) picture.

1934 temps compared to 1998 temps

Update: another post on the subject, with lots of links in the comments to more interesting stuff.

In 2000, USHCN apparently wasn’t happy with the fact that the 1930s was the warmest decade – so they gave the past a demotion and bumped the 1990s way up….

Here’s the rest: Cooking The Books At USHCN

Recently there’s been some news about some fudging of the numbers in the land based  temperature data used to determine which way the climate is heading. This isn’t the same thing as another manipulation of the temperature record, though it may be related…

The Cricket discusses number fudging

Check out any temperature record going back to the beginning of the 1900s and you will see a bump in the 30s and 40s. 1934 was the hot point of that bump.You’ll even see this in the various (discredited) hockey stick graphs. Of course, pretty much all of those sticks and other graphs show current temps to be significantly warmer than the 30s.

So why is this interesting? Because, depending on a couple of things, it seems that 1934 was actually about as warm as 1998. Which pretty much kills off any hockey stick. (update note: this is for US data, but since the US data has been called the gold standard for temp data I think my remarks still apply since they are regarding manipulation, even though ’34’s warmness may have been regional.)

How did ’34 get so warm (or cool off?)  a few years back 1934 was originally shown to be as warm as 1998, then NASA adjusted the data to show 1998 as warmer. Then Steve McIntyre, of Climate Audit, pointed out some errors and the “official” temperature data was adjusted again to show 1934 as the high point. In fact, only 3 of the top ten dates, from that set of data, are from the current decades.

Naturally the alarmist crowd said that the adjustments (boosting 1934) were insignificant. CA has more discussion on this issue, including this one: Does Hansen’s Error “Matter”?

The temps have been adjusted again, a few times, since then. This is why you generally won’t see graphs showing  ’34 to be close to ’98. In fact,  here’s a graph that shows the competition between 1934 and 1998 as the warmest years. Looks like someone can’t make up their minds…

The Air Vent has more detail on this, noting that ’34 has been as much as .5 C higher than ’98. Doesn’t sound like much until you realize that the entire trend from 1895 to now is about 0.6C

A quick detour:

Ok, there are a LOT of issues with the land based temp records. does a nice job of questioning the quality of these stations. Location quality, station quality, areas covered (and not covered,) recording error, heat island effects, physical moving of the stations, physical changes to the station (paint, screens, gear., etc.,) and probably more.

There are also questions of data manipulation shown in the Climategate mess (including the loss of raw data) and some other emails that show NASA manipulation of data. Currently it looks like the surface temperature record might be called unreliable.

End of detour

Let’s pretend that the surface record is basically good and get back to the adjustments. Note the above linked table, on CA, of the top 10 warm years.

Now, the real reason that this adjustment stuff is interesting is this: If it can be shown that the 30s were as warm as the 90’s then:

  • the Catastrophic Warming idea is dead.
  • The world may well be warming, generally, but Man’s part in it is tiny and any warming, long or short term, is due to natural causes and there has been no increase in warming since the 30s peak.
  • Al Gore (all other hysterics) and the UN IPCC are selling pure fantasy.
  • With there being no there there, grant monies for AGW research will fall precipitously.
  • Not to mention that all of the CO2 power and money grabs, real and planned, are reduced to nothing more than power and greed.

There’s a major vested interest, by many parties, in maintaining the idea that the last few years were definitely warmer than the 30s. Sales of Al Gores’ books and movies, for example.

Are current times warmer? That’s very hard to say. The satellite records just don’t go back that far. They only go back to a time when the news media was pumping “the coming ice age.” Satellites can’t say a thing about 1934. The surface records, which should be able to say something about ’34, are iffy, at best.

So if you believe in AGW, and/or that the keepers of the data are 100% honest and that they are doing the best they can with an iffy product, then ’98 was warmer the ’34 peak and the modern warming took us to a higher level than that reached in the 30s and 40s. That doesn’t say that people were responsible for that warming, but it opens up the possibility.

If you believe that the data has been fudged and that 1934 was about as warm as the ’98 peak then the more recent warming is just a rebound from the 50 & 60s dip, not an increase from ’34. This means that there is no longer term warming and Mr. Gore should get a new job.


Another comparison of the 30s/40s to modern times. Also explains why there was a “concern” about the coming ice age in the 70s. BTW – everytime I see that second graph the 40s hump is a bit smaller and the modern hump is bigger. Now imagine the earlier hump being the larger one. That’s what the data looked like before the various “adjustments.”


another page that makes a similar point:

NASA’s James Hansen is the United States’ leading scientific alarmist about global warming. He believes global warming is accelerating. Apparently it’s his revisions of the data that are causing the acceleration.

This document examines the historical revision in the global temperature change as defined by Hansen over the decades. Hansen’s global temperature graphs are examined from 1981 to 2007.

from a comparison of Hansen’s own charts

Posted in Fudge, Surface Record, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »