Climate Audit

Follow the Money

“I hope that Risk Management Solutions is more accurate in their day job of consulting for Swiss Re and other major insurers.”

A look at RMS Weather Risk page shows talk of modeling short term weather risks and their use in ins. contracts and derivative financial devices.

http://www.rms.com/Weather/

But nothing here about global warming/long term events at all. Curious, I found this on their site dated Feruary 1, 2007

http://www.rms.com/newspress/pr_2007_0201_climatechange.asp

an announcement which makes it appear, to me, RMS is a newbie for AGW schemes and devices.

Based on accumulating evidence, there is a resounding consensus among scientists that the Earth’s climate is changing in response to increases in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. The global warming trend has accelerated since the 1970s, and 11 of the last 12 years have ranked in the top twelve warmest years since 1850.

Hey, don’t these fellows have fiduciary duties ‘n’ stuff to make sure their information is accurate? They could be late comers, and like those at the end of any bubble, they have the most honor and respect (and money) to lose. Therefore perhaps the overreaction to Swindle

In other news, on the front page of todays Wall Street Journal (above the fold too!) “Global Warming May Be Spurring Allergy, Asthma” starting, “There’s growing scientific evidence that global climate change is linked to the dramatic rise in allergies and asthma in the Western world”. Yes, they attribute a non-global problem to AGW. Creative. I had hopes for the WSJ, but when I saw their criticism of carbon trading/AGW relegated to a small weekend editorial some months ago I figured they could very well join the carbon bandwagon.

However The Nation has not: Is Global Warming a Sin?

jae

Based on accumulating evidence, there is a resounding consensus among scientists that the Earth’s climate is changing in response to increases in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. The global warming trend has accelerated since the 1970s, and 11 of the last 12 years have ranked in the top twelve warmest years since 1850.

LOL. I hav’nt seen the words “resounding consensus” before.

There should be about 37 very embarrased professors. I hope some of their students are reading this blog.

Follow the Money

#5, Jae,

It is hilarious, but just to be clear, that specific quote comes from an RMS pr announcement about exploring AGW financial instruments, i.e., it’s not from the witchhunting complaint signed by the 37.

Reid, # 6.

Love your cynicism, IOW the truth.

Luboš Motl

Wow, that’s quite an agreement. I admire Martin Durkin, he’s clearly an unusually wise guy, but don’t tell me that the filmmaker has personally run the filters as you did. 😉 There must exist a version of the graph somewhere that is already what he needed. What about asking him how he exactly got it?

Basil Copeland

“but much less than that shown on the graph presented in the programme.

It seems to me that this is a very easily tested proposition. Take the data points from the peak and trough of the Swindle graph, and regress them on the data points of Hansen. One could test it for a linear restriction in which the intercept is 0.4 and the slope is 1.0. I’d bet that we cannot reject the hypothesis that Swindle graph is significantly different than the Hansen graph.

John F. Pittman

#6
Consider that in response to AGW our governor is requesting that the state help make insurance affordable.

“South Carolina ‘€” along with other states on the East Coast and Gulf Coast ‘€” continues to face the twin problems of escalating premiums and fewer insurers,” Sanford says in a statement. “These solutions are aimed at what I believe is ultimately the key to addressing this problem, and that is finding ways to encourage, rather than discourage, insurers to write policies along the coast.”

Well what a great way to produce profit: oversale the likelihood of catastrophe; and if it occurs the state has helped pay for it (I wonder how, sarcastic grin); and if it does not happen, you will have recieved all those premiums and state money. This type of behavior of persons asking and politicians giving is as old as time.

paul

The argument about full-disclosure is silly. Full disclosure MUST occur. There can be no rational argument against it other than a very low factor of confidence in the work. I have always understood that the progress of science was based on questioning, challenging and fierce open debate. The ludicrous stance that somehow a consensus shows the truth of the science shows exactly the opposite. Einstien said after publishing his theory on Special Relativity: “It will take only one person to prove me wrong”. It was many of those attempts to prove him wrong which helped prove him right. Open debate is not a good thing for science, it is an integral and essential part of science and debate cannot be open unless full disclosure is made.

John Lang

Here is a chart from a 1975 National Academy of Sciences report entitled “Understanding Climate Change”.

My guess is that this chart is the most accurate historical record we have. The temperature drop experienced from the Krakatoa volcanoe in 1883 and the 1930s temperature records as well as the drop from 1940 to 1970 (at least) are visible even though Phil Jones and James Hansen have subsequently written these variations out of the record.

Steve McIntyre

#17 Can you provide a full caption for this graphic and its citation?

Gary

Just wondering what a network analysis by Wegman might show about the 37 endorsers.

bender

Re #15
How science works is one thing. How policy works, another.
It’s the bridging process that was, and still is, the problem here.
At first, science is used to build policy.
But once the policy train has left the station … science only gets in the way.

Paul H

Your article reads like Chinese whispers. The original quote from Bob’s letter, with regard to the cooling period, reads as follows:

“Measurements from meteorological stations that have been published by NASA and other agencies show that the there was an overall slight decline in global average temperature between about 1940 and 1976, but much less than that shown on the graph presented in the programme.”

This confirms for anyone who reads it that Bob and co. acknowledge that a cooling does take place, so how come you are claiming that actually deny its existence within the space of few lines here:

“As noted above, Risk Management Solutions and the professors said that no such temperature decline occurred in any Hansen global data. For reference, here is Figure 1 from Hansen and Lebedeff 1988, which shows a temperature decline that visually has considerable similarity to the Swindle version. Certainly the similarities are sufficient that you’d think that Risk Management Solutions and the 37 professors would exercise a little caution before making allegations of misrepresentation to a government agency.” [My emphasis]

Bob and co. actually say:

“However, this graph does not correspond to any figure for global average temperature that has been published by NASA, and differs significantly from the graphs appearing in its recent publications and on its website (see: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/).”[My emphasis]

There is no mention here that the cooling does not exist it merely says that they “differ significantly” as your final figure appears to confirm. Perhaps you could correct the wording of the post to make it clear to readers what Bob Ward actually writes.

James Lane

Peter H,

Please produce the aerosol record for the 20th century, and then we can all agree with you.

The paper by Stern (assuming I have the right one) doesn’t say what you say it does:

Abstract: Global anthropogenic sulfur emissions increased until the late 1980s. Existing estimates for 1995 and 2000 show a moderate decline from 1990 to 1995 or relative stability throughout the decade. This paper combines previously published data and new econometric estimates to show a 25% decline over the decade to a level not seen since the early 1960s. The decline is evident in North America, Western and Eastern Europe and in the last few years in East and South Asia. If this new trend is maintained local air pollution problems will be ameliorated but global warming may be somewhat exacerbated.

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/rpirpiwpe/0504.htm

Steve McIntyre

#25,26. What I had in mind when I said “no such temperature decline” was “temperature decline of this magnitude”, which (I think) is clear from the overall text and graphics. However, I realize that this lent itself to misinterpretation and I’ve changed the text to the latter, which conveys my argument more clearly. Thanks. I’ve also edited the text to indicate that they also objected to the lack of mention of aerosols, which I may discuss on another occasion as there is another gaffe here by Risk Management and the 37 profs.

But on to the substantive allegation of the Risk Management Solutions letter. They say that the decline shown in the Swindle graphic differs substantially from the decline in the underlying Hansen data. They are wrong about this simple point – which is the point of my post. Later in the day, I’ll post up my collation of the Hansen versions together with the collation script to prove this. The numbers are conclusive. Risk Management and the 37 professors should have checked the numbers.

A collation of various Hansen versions including the Willie Soon version is here and the collation script with annotation on original sources is here

Paul H

Nicholas,

The red line clearly does not follow the path of the black line, if it did then I might agree with you. How can you say that they are the same? They both begin in 1880, yet there is 0.2oC difference in them at this point. At other points there noticeable differences between thick red and thin black.

Why does it not follow the path of the red line exactly? If the two did follow each other then TGGWS might be justified in claiming that the data they were presenting was from NASA? Why did TGGWS not use the NASA version, a version whose methodology is relatively transparent (compared to OISM)? How is anyone to reproduce that thick red line, the one that is from OISM? I’ve not ever seen a published methodology for this graphic? Perhaps Steve should spend some time chasing after OISM to try and reproduce their figure.

James Lane,

We’re talking about aerosol now, aersols were a key point in Bob’s letter, yet Steve makes no mention of aerosols. Bob’s letter states the following:

“It has been well-established in the scientific literature that the period of cooling that was most evident over North America and Europe between about 1940 and 1976 was largely due to increased concentrations of aerosols (particularly sulphates) released into the atmosphere by industrial processes, such as the combustion of coal. These aerosols lowered the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, for instance by scattering sunlight. The concentrations of these aerosols have been shown to be highest in the Northern Hemisphere, close to their industrial sources. A paper by David Stern, published in the journal Chemosphere’ in 2005, showed that sulphurous emissions around the world increased sharply between 1945 and about 1989, since when they have declined markedly. Sulphuruous emissions peaked in North America and Europe during the 1970s.”

The abstract says:

“Global anthropogenic sulfur emissions increased until the late 1980s. Existing estimates for 1995 and 2000 show a moderate decline from 1990 to 1995 or relative stability throughout the decade. This paper combines previously published data and new econometric estimates to show a 25% decline over the decade to a level not seen since the early 1960s. The decline is evident in North America, Western and Eastern Europe and in the last few years in East and South Asia. If this new trend is maintained local air pollution problems will be ameliorated but global warming may be somewhat exacerbated.”

I do not see a huge difference between the abstract and the excerpt from Bob’ letter. It’s not what I say it does its what Bob and co. claim it says, and anyway a read through of the paper shows that it confirms these things. The reference list at the back would be a good place to start if you want more information. Volcanoes also contributed to the cooling between 1940 and 1970, especially in the 1960s.

bernie

#24
Paul H:
I looked at the Stern paper. I need to read it more closely but I think he is being a bit optimistic with respect to trends in
sulfur emissions (see his estimates for China wrt other estimates – his is 30% lower). Do you have source for more recent data on sulfur emissions?

Steve McIntyre

Thanks for making those changes. There is a substantial difference between the TGGWS line (thick red) and the other lines in that final figure in 1880. Seeing as TGGWS relied so heavily on claiming that the pre-1940 temp. rise was so large this is a problem for them because it isn’t apparent in any of the other recognised and peer reviewed reconstructions.

I’ve re-plotted the figures and added a legend. I did one other important re-plot. I’d plotted the Soon version used in Robinson et al in red with line width=2 to distinguish it. This was plotted after the version from the transcription of Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 hard copy and completely overprinted it. I replotted the HL 1987 version after the Soon version in black with line width 1 to avoid another over-writing and, as you see, far from the Soon version being different from all other Hansen versions, it is an exact match to Hansen and Lebedeff 1987.

I believe that this is a complete response to the points made in #31 and I’d appreciate an acknowledgement of this. It’s pretty amazing how thoroughly Risk Management and the 37 profs dropped the ball on this.

James Lane

Paul H, if aerosols explain the 1940-76 cooling, how come Stern asserts that aerosols increased 1945-89? I mean really. There is no historical aerosol record, and Stern’s evidence contradicts the hypothsis that the 1940-76 cooling is due to aerosols. I guess the argument is tha the CO2 forcing has gradually overtaken the aerosol forcing, but this seems to be just speculation.

bender

Why would the Climate Audit peanut gallery give all of this a pass?

Pass?! That’s a bit presumptuous. One can’t spend all one’s time debunking derivative material when there’s so much primary literature to wade through.

Steve McIntyre

You ask:

Why would Martin Durkin elect to use an old version the NASA/GISS/Hansen global temperature trend, one that ended in 1988 or there abouts?

Why would SteveM bother to recreate Durkin’s graph and leave the question begging?

Look, I can’t do everything in the world and spending time on this stuff is not what I want to be doing. If Risk Management and the 37 profs had objected to Durkin using old data, then I would have dealt with that. But they denied that Durkin had used Hansen data at all – which is false and readily seen to be false. That’s something that I am able to test numerically.

The other questions are speculations which I try to avoid. I don’t see how the Team can object to people using old data or grey data versions. Think of Mann and the obsolete proxies. Why does the Team use bristlecones and obsolete proxies? Because they know what they look like and what sort of answer they will generate.

My speculation as to why Durkin used obsolete data in this case is that he used a lot of fairly old articles in other cases e.g. the Lassen and Friis-Christensen solar article. Now I think that there is a subtle argument for examining the older articles closely – once the IPCC got in full bore and people were trying, for example, to “get rid of the MWP”, you might believe that there was a fork in the road and you have to retrace things from a pre-Mann position to get a proper perspective.

In the temperature data, we’ve seen a process of back-adjustment to older data. So there’s a good reason to examine the versions prior to the adjustments so that one can understand exactly what’s in the adjustments. I don’t think that this was Durkin’s reasoning, but I would definitely want to compare the original versions before relying on the versions after later adjustments.

If one were holding a beauty contest between this and the Team’s use of obsolete proxy, which is the uglier? I don’t know. I think that I’d be harsher on the IPCC using obsolete data.

Jeff Norman

Re: #39 bender,

You are correct. I should have said: “Why would the Climate Audit peanut gallery who have responded in the thirteen hours since SteveM first posted this up give all of this a pass?”

My point is that many of the people who participate in this forum act as a Greek chorus, never challenging the narator and leaping upon those who do (did you leap?). In my opinion, these knee jerk reactions provide those who disagree with SteveM’s thesis an opening to redirect the thread into rhetorical forays that are used as criticisms of Climate Audit. It is one of the hazards of a mostly open blog forum.

Re: #41 SteveM,

Sorry, I did not mean to ruffle your feathers (too much ;-)). I meant the questions to be a rhetorical ploy to draw Paul H into a discussion of the data and the implications of the data.

Perhaps if your original article had said something along the lines of; I don’t know why he used what he did but it is in fact NASA/GISS/Hansen data so Ward et al are incorrect in their assertin of Durkin’s misrepresentation.

Did you read the rest of the post? If you had you would have seen my specualtion as to why Durkin might have used the plot that he did and why this is not necessarily bad.

kchua

Let me try this again. “Why I Flunked Al Gore” by Caleb Rossiter, American University.

Sam

#4 and #6

Listen, while I’m no fan of RMS and think their actions are disgraceful, as someone who earns his living in the industry I feel compelled to come to its defense. Most of you would not be able to own a home if it wasn’t for the insurance industry, nor buy or drive a car, and the oil industry would have a much smaller marketplace in which to sell their oil if the spreading of risk provided by insurance wasn’t available for people to invest in and establish new businesses.

Also, prices are always driven by actual loss experience. While promoting global warming catastrophe exagerations could offer short-term windfalls, the rebound effect would create a significant soft market which would devastate the industry. Like most business entities, the insurance industry prefers stability and predictability, and also requires a sufficient captial surplus to remain viable and solvent.

kchua

AIT was shown at my daughter’s school. She came away saying that she disliked the movie, although she still ‘believed’ in man made global warming. All the reference to Al Gore’s life was irrelevant and made her suspicious. She also picked up on the reference to SARs – what did that have to do with climate change she asked. My daughter is in Grade 8.

I have been trying to post links to 2 articles on Al Gores AIT without success. One was written by Caleb Rossiter of American University and is titled “Why I Flunked Al Gore”. The other is titled “Falsehoods in Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth” and can be found at johnstonsarchive.net.

L Nettles

#49

Why I flunked Al Gore

James Erlandson

37 signed. How many were asked but declined?

Nobody reports negative results.

DanC

Can someone direct me to where I can get the primer information about the temperature timelines, how they get the temperatures and the associated issues with them?

Thanks

bernie

Sam #47
My apologies – I was using a rhetorical device. I do believe that Insurance Companies serve an incredibly valuable service. But in terms of trust, insurance companies require us to trust them in any transaction far more than do oil companies. To loop back to the issue at hand, trust is the coin of the realm in most interactions and transactions. We trust scientists to tell us the truth and to guarantee that trust is not abused we set up mechanisms, e.g., replicability, to ensure that they do tell us the truth and our trust is justified. What many on this site have reminded us of is the wisdom of the aphorism, “Trust but verify.” It is unseemly to demand that others be “audited” when you are unwilling to be “audited.”

Paul M

Re 47
“Listen, while I’m no fan of RMS and think their actions are disgraceful, as someone who earns his living in the industry I feel compelled to come to its defense. Most of you would not be able to own a home if it wasn’t for the insurance industry, nor buy or drive a car, and the oil industry would have a much smaller marketplace in which to sell their oil if the spreading of risk provided by insurance wasn’t available for people to invest in and establish new businesses.
Also, prices are always driven by actual loss experience. While promoting global warming catastrophe exaggerations could offer short-term windfalls, the rebound effect would create a significant soft market which would devastate the industry. Like most business entities, the insurance industry prefers stability and predictability, and also requires a sufficient capital surplus to remain viable and solvent.”

I am also in the industry. RMS are in the business of devising and selling mathematical models that enable insurers and reinsurers to estimate their maximum exposure to a given peril, for example earthquake, wind , flood and storm. If they get this wrong, they can face bankruptcy as did many US insurers after the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 and as Lloyd’s of London did when hurricane Betsy struck New Orleans in 1965 causing insured losses of about $20 bn (in modern $). Ironically, Betsy caused similar damage to Katrina in that the levees were breached and there was a devastating mix of wind and flood damage. As we know, the levees were never raised or strengthened.

Following the WTC which resulted in the largest single event loss ever for the industry, models became even more important and are now a requirement of regulators and the rating agencies. The interesting thing is that much the same faith is now put into these models ‘€” there are three or four major vendors plus many reinsurance brokers/consultants using and adapting them ‘€” as there is in the GCMs used by the IPCC et al.

So are they better? They have a less difficult job to do in theory since they are designed to predict the financial value of insured loss when a given event happens. They do not have to predict when and if the event will happen. If this looks simple after most disasters, e.g. Katrina/Rita, the modelers announce estimated losses and they are normally in ranges of tens of billions of dollars different. Indeed, after Katrina, one of the modelers said that the reason their estimate was out was because the model could not deal with two events. Two events? Yes, the hurricane itself and then the storm surge that overtopped the levees.

The models also have difficulty in dealing with business interruption which cannot be fixed to addresses and underestimated the demand surge that drove construction prices up after Katrina. And so on.
Naturally, the modelers say they have learnt their lessons. We shall see. I might also add that if insurers prefer stability and predictability, they are in the wrong business since they are taking that risk away from their insureds.

So why is someone from RMS involved in this imbroglio over TGCWS? Well, the modelers, as well as many in the insurance industry are, at least in public, fully paid up members of the AGW brigade. I think Lloyd’s still has the original HS on its website. Exactly why is not clear. If we look at hurricanes, rating should be based upon the fact that they will always come. Sometimes more than you expect sometimes less. Yet the market rises and falls. Indeed, it is now markedly softer after the quiet 2006 season’ in the US. If 2007 is quiet then rates will fall further. If, as the experts’ (Gray) say, it will be active’ rates will rise and some may withdraw from the business. But after the next quiet spell, insurers will come back. Sorry I’m droning on. In essence, the modelers have a vested interest in predictions that AGW will make severe weather events more frequent and more destructive so that they can devise and sell better models. It’s just capitalism.

TrueSceptic

I repeat a question asked earlier by Paul H. Why does the TGGWS graph look so different to the graphs at
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ ?
Why did the programme use such out-of-date information, and why does this page waste all this time and effort proving that it did indeed do so? The issue is about divergence from the current NASA graphs. That is what you need to explain. That is what the “gaggle” of professors are pointing out. Why do you misrepresent what they say?

Nicholas

“TrueSceptic”, there are a number of different, conflicting “global” temperature graphs available. Some are synthesized from surface temperatures in various (and often unauditable) ways. Others come from satellites or balloons.

I don’t think anybody knows which is the “right” one (or indeed if any are accurate). Some of them look quite different to others. What’s worse, some of them change over time – even the historical temperatures are “adjusted” decades later! So, there are many explanations why two different people could come up with two different looking historical “global” temperature graphs, both in good faith.

Steve McIntyre

#61. First of all, I “don’t need to explain” anything in connection with this program. I had nothing to do with it.

Second, as someone with experience in business, I take legal letters to regulatory agencies very seriously. If RMS wished to make an issue out of the fact that Durkin did not use an up-to-date version of the Hansen data, then it was open to them to raise that issue. They didn’t do so. Instead, they made the stronger allegation that Durkin did not use Hansen data at all. While Durkin used a grey version that had passed through a couple of hands, in my opinion, it’s Hansen data and the RMS allegation is simply false on this count.

Secondly, the decline in temperatures from 1940 to the mid-1960s in the Swindle graphic matches the relative decline in the Hansen data that they used and differs little from subsequent Hansen versions.

It doesn’t seem to me like later versions of the Hansen data have changed the 1940-mid1960s decline very much. In earlier postings, we’ve noticed the tendency of recent compilations to adjust readings from the 1930s downwards – revising history as it were. The adjustment process in the temperature record appears quite biased to me, but that’s just an impression. However, in this case, the changes don’t seem material on the issue of the decline from 1940 to the mid-1960s, so fresher data could have been used.

Again, if RMS is going to argue against the use of obsolete versions, then the same argument should be applied to proxy reconstructions. Think back to the discussion of the Juckes submission where Juckes chose the more obsolete of two available versions. In his case, he had an incentive to avoid the Polar Urals Update with a big MWP. So if you’re going to be upset over SWindle use of old versions, you have to take Juckes (and Mann) to task as well.

BTW I’m not endorsing how Durkin did this; I’m commenting on the RMS attack. Perhaps they should have attacked on alternate grounds. But that’s not what they did.

Steve McIntyre

#66. I would say – due diligence and care is always in a company’s interest. Academics with tenure can say something silly and “move on”. Companies can’t. They are stuck with bad decisions so care is more important to them than to an academic.

That’s why I’m surprised that RMS has got involved with this complaint. It’s possible that it was a bit of free-lancing by Ward, but it seems to have gone out under the company name. This wouldn’t be the first time something like this happened. But Ward had ostensible authority and used the company name into it.

Karl Johan Grimstad

TGGWS fail to mention that there are good reasons for the cooling that occurred during the 1940-1970 period, and the Bob Ward letter makes this very clear here:

“It has been well-established in the scientific literature that the period of cooling that was most evident over North America and Europe between about 1940 and 1976 was largely due to increased concentrations of aerosols (particularly sulphates) released into the atmosphere by industrial processes, such as the combustion of coal. These aerosols lowered the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, for instance by scattering sunlight. The concentrations of these aerosols have been shown to be highest in the Northern Hemisphere, close to their industrial sources. A paper by David Stern, published in the journal Chemosphere’ in 2005, showed that sulphurous emissions around the world increased sharply between 1945 and about 1989, since when they have declined markedly. Sulphuruous emissions peaked in North America and Europe during the 1970s.

But vas it this sulphurous emissions as lead to this decline in temperatur?
Another reasons you can find in this link : http://ansatte.hials.no/hy
If same thing happen from 2006 and the next 9 years, will this end the CO2 theory ?

Paul Linsay

#69, Karl. Search for Douglas Hoyt’s comments on this site about aerosols. He made measurements a decade ago that refute the explanation.

Gerald Machnee

Re #69 – The aerosol theory causing cooling is similar to the CO2 theory causing all the warming – both are associations on a chart, but little scientific proof.

John F. Pittman

Thanks Karl, #74 interesting post.

ks

I forgot to include the following when discussing the differences between the Durkin graphs (both old and amended) in comparison to the most current NASA data.

“Durkin’s graph indicates that from 1880 to 1940 global temperature increased by more than 0.5 deg.C, while the data from NASA GISS indicates a mere 0.3 deg.C. Durkin’s graph also indicates that from 1940 to 1975 the planet cooled by nearly 0.2 deg.C, while the NASA GISS data indicate a cooling of only 0.1 deg.C.”

Steve McIntyre

#76. I commented on the amended graph because it had been amended prior to the RMS complaint, which refers to the amended graph. You quote RMS as follows:

The two different versions of the graph purporting to show “World Temperature” in the programme most closely resemble plots published by NASA and other organisations for average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, and particularly North America.

As shown in the figure above (and I’ve supplied data and script to support this), the Swindle graphic “most closely” resembles (indeed is identical to) an 11-year filtered version of Hansen and Lebedeff 1987-88 data, which is the reference in the Robinson et al article.

You say::

So it looks like the letter speaks to Durkin misrepresenting Northern Hemisphere temps as World Temps, and then you fall into the same pit.

This is an allegation, which, in my opinion, is disproved by the match to Hansen and Lebedeff global data from an older vintage. I am not “misrepresenting NH temperature as World temperatures”. I am merely attempting to track and document data versions – something that RMS should have done before making these allegations.

Please re-read the post carefully. Also please examine the data versions and script that I’ve provided for documentation. Again I’m not endorsing the Swindle arguments; as I’ve noted above, these are issues that I’ve not discussed at the blog. I’m not saying that RMS couldn’t have made valid criticisms had they carried out the due diligence that they urge on Durkin. I’m merely saying that these particular allegations appear untrue to me and inconsistent with the standards of due diligence that they advocate.

Armand MacMurray

ks,
I don’t understand your point in #76. Steve writes that:

As to the allegation by Risk Management Solutions and the 37 professors that the decline in the Swindle graphic is “much larger” than in the Hansen “global” data and must be derived from some other series e.g. NH, it is my opinion that the decline in the Swindle graphic is exactly consistent with being obtained from Hansen “global” version and this particular allegation is simply false.

in response to the letter’s

Measurements from meteorological stations that have been published by NASA and other agencies show that the there was an overall slight decline in global average temperature between about 1940 and 1976, but much less than that shown on the graph presented in the programme. The two different versions of the graph purporting to show “World Temperature” in the programme most closely resemble plots published by NASA and other organisations for average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, and particularly North America.

Are you arguing that:
1) The Hansen and Lebedeff data is not global?
2) The H&L data is not “published by NASA”?
3) The “revised Durkin graph” does not match the Soon data graph?
4) The Soon data graph is not based on H&L data?

Steve McIntyre

#82. If you read through some of the posts a while ago on Chinese and Australian stations, you’ll get a feel for what I believe is the explanation. In the early 1990s, GHCN collected some non-urban stations from various countries including Russia, China and Australia. People have surmised that stations have shut down. While some may have shut down, from the examples that I’ve studied, most of these stations are still in existence, but for some mysterious reason, it appears to me that results from many operating stations have not been collated in the GHCN collection (and thus not in GISS). I have no idea why the collation is so incomplete. I need to cross-check this further but this is what I think right now.

ks

I commented on the amended graph because it had been amended prior to the RMS complaint, which refers to the amended graph.

Mr. McIntyre, the quote you use, “this graph does not correspond to any figure for global average temperature that has been published by NASA” applied only to the original graph, which you did not mention. Later quotes did apply to both. Since “this graph” refers to the graph originally aired – http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/stemps.jpg – it is still very true that the non-amended graph does in fact, “not correspond to any figure for global average temperature that has been published by NASA” Hansen and Lebedeff, 1988 or otherwise. The complaint is accurate.

Nearly 0.2C cooling ‘€” FALSE it was only 0.1 ‘€”

An astronomical O.5C warming ‘€” FALSE it was merely 0.3 ‘€”

Is there no end to this perfidy??

Mr. Palmer, if you consider pointing out 25 years of cooling wrong by 100% and the 60 years of warming wrong by 60% to be “perfidy”, then yes, there is no end.

Are you arguing that:
1) The Hansen and Lebedeff data is not global?
2) The H&L data is not “published by NASA”?
3) The “revised Durkin graph” does not match the Soon data graph?
4) The Soon data graph is not based on H&L data?

I’m arguing that Durkin’s graph is based on the Soon data. I am further arguing that if you look at current NASA data the graph looks like Northern Hemisphere data and not Global data (which is exactly what the letter says).

As seen by Northern Hemisphere data here –

and Global data here –

I would be interested in anyone arguing why the H&L 1988 data is better than the 2007 NASA data. If I had more time I would look into the possibily of a NH bias in the H&L 1988 paper, but I don’t have the time atm.

ks

At the end of my first paragraph I should’ve thrown in, “I’m merely saying that your particular allegations appear untrue to me and inconsistent with the standards of due diligence that [you] advocate.”

MarkW

#74,

Nutation??? sounds a little squirley to me. ;*)

ks

Additionally,

Measurements from meteorological stations that have been published by NASA and other agencies show that the there was an overall slight decline in global average temperature between about 1940 and 1976, but much less than that shown on the graph presented in the programme. The two different versions of the graph purporting to show “World Temperature” in the programme most closely resemble plots published by NASA and other organisations for average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, and particularly North America. However, graphs of average temperature in the Southern Hemisphere show overall increases during the period between 1940 and 1976, albeit at a lower rate than the periods immediately before and after.

Is shown to be true by http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif
and

JerryB

RE #92,

Steve,

As you indicated in the update, Hansen does adjust (station
level) data, but he is not a collector of that data as you
suggest in comment 92; he gets it from GHCN, as well as
from USHCN, which provides GISS a slightly different set
of adjustments than those provided to GHCN.

ks

The updates look to be headed in a more accurate direction. However, there is still the quote in reference to the original 120 year graph, “this graph does not correspond to any figure for global average temperature that has been published by NASA” which seems out of place since the 120 year graph is not presented nor discussed in the post.

I’m going to have to pick on another line.

As noted above, Risk Management Solutions and the professors said that no temperature decline of this magnitude occurred in any Hansen global data.

But what they actually said was,

Measurements from meteorological stations that have been published by NASA and other agencies show that the there was an overall slight decline in global average temperature between about 1940 and 1976, but much less than that shown on the graph presented in the programme.

and as evideneced by http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif they were correct. They did not say that all published NASA data show the slight decline. So if your concern is of the difference between the Soon graph (derived in part from the Hansen data) used by Durkin and the 2006 Hansen data, then your concern is not with the accuracy of the RMS complaint.

Paul H

RE #41.

Steve M, Thanks for replying in more detail, sorry I missed out on the latter part of the discussion I was away for a couple of days. I had a bit more time to think about my earlier criticisms and I think I need to apologise for getting my point mixed up. Ward et al are making the criticism that the data used by Durkin wasn’t from NASA, and as you’ve shown this is a false claim and I should have taken a bit more care to realise this. This still doesn’t make Durkin’s use of that figure OK and I think this is why I jumped in too quickly. I’ve written a long critique on this graphic myself in a letter to OFCOM and my criticism focused on the following:

* It appeared out of date compared to NASA-GISS and HAD-CRUT.

* It was poorly cited, NASA? I read NASA and I assume that it’s going to be the most up to date NASA version of the data. It didn’t seem to be.

* It wasn’t clear that the data had been smoothed. Thank you for determining this, but the question remains: why did they use an out of date smoothed version of what is normally recognised in the scientific community?

* The data ended in 1988.

I only ever made these points in my letter. Ward et al seem to have jumped a little further than I did in making some unsupported claims specifically with regard to the fact that they think the data doesn’t look like the NASA data. Maybe their point isn’t very clear and has been poorly made; so maybe they’re trying to say it isn’t the latest version of the NASA-GISS data; or maybe they’re claiming it was completely fudged. If it’s the former then in a loose sense he was correct, the data didn’t appear to be [the most recent versions of] the NASA datasets (insert my bracket in Ward’s claim and it becomes a valid point). If it’s the latter then, Ward should have done better. Either way, I don’t think Durkin did the right thing by using the data he used. He should have cited the most up to date versions of the data and any changes that were made should have been clear for all to see. By making these choices Durkin opens himself up to some very valid criticism. If a practising scientist selected a 1987 data set over more recent versions, failed to cite it correctly, altered the appearance of the data without a clear explanation and didn’t include the data from the last 20 years then I think we’d all be asking serious questions about their professionalism.

Paul Maynard

Re 97

Er, I think that is exactly the point about much that appears on this site. The HS and variants thereof are discredited yet no publishing or archiving of data or adjustments or mentioning of careful selection. Or is it OK for Gore to literally make up the science. There was a cooling, it does not conform to the view of CO2 advocates and then an unsupportable statement is made about SO2.

Admittedly, I would prefer that Durkin got everything exactly right but hey as Steve would say this is climate science.

The TV is awash with unscientific nonesense of all sorts normally of the sort that if you eat meat you will/won’t get cancer etc. Perhaps Mr Ward should contact Ofcom about that. Also, who do you suggest that i complain to about the RIT being sent to and shown in schools all over the UK?

By the way, I would doubt that Ofcom has any competence to arbitrate on TGGWS.

Cheers

Paul

Steve McIntyre

why did they use an out of date smoothed version of what is normally recognised in the scientific community?

It’s climate science. Crowley, Mann, Juckes are just as bad. I don’t say this to justify Durkin, but to observe that any precedents will also apply to the gander.

It was poorly cited, NASA?

You think that’s bad. Look at a standard accepted by NAture in the Mann corrigendum. We had observed that Mann had used Paris precipitation data in the New England gridcell. (The rain in Maine falls mainly in the Seine). They also used Toulouse precipitation for South Carolina and the origin of Bombay gridcell precipitation remains unknown. In the Corrigendum , they listed the following as a “minor correction”:

(2) The long instrumental’ series used in ref. 1 are station temperature and precipitation station data from the NOAA Climate Data centre gridded at 5 degree latitude/longitude resolution.

Where in NOAA? Now the fact that Nature acquiesced in this type of crap doesn’t justify poor referencing by someone else, but if stuff like this is accepted by the premier journal from professionals, then it has to be taken into consideration in complaining about Durkin.

Also, consider the Thompson hockey stick in Inconvenient Truth. If OFcom is going to get into the business of wading through data versions, then you tell me where I can locate consistent original Lonnie Thompson data from which I can reconstruct the Inconvenient Truth hockey stick

If you’re going to complain about Durkin’s citing practices, so be it. But be careful what you wish for, because any precedents are going to be very uncomfortable for someone.

• Skiphil
  Posted Jul 24, 2013 at 11:13 AM | Permalink

  “Also, consider the Thompson Hockey Stick in Inconvenient Truth….”

  This seems like a good place to flag for any new readers that the saga of the “Thompson Hockey Stick” which was so misleading in Al Gore’s Nobel-favored movie “An Inconvenient Truth” proved to be grossly incorrect (the graph was derived from MBH99, not from Lonnie Thompson’s ice core work).

  This pitiful piece of agitprop still has not been publicly corrected by Lonnie Thompson and/or Al Gore, and has not generated any letters of outrage from Bob Ward, RMS, and/or 37 climate scientists:

  Al Gore and "Dr Thompson's Thermometer" #2

  • Skiphil
    Posted Jul 24, 2013 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    Oops, after the first phrase quoted from Steve those are my words below…. Sorry that I messed up the HTML tag.

Gerald Machnee

I have a “simple” request for KS. Please go over the Gore movie line by line.

Paul Linsay

#104. The conflict is in the analysis of the temperature data to validate the models. Self-deception is real easy when you believe strongly in a particular theory, e.g., AGW driven by CO2. I don’t what it’s like in other fields, but for the last hundred years in physics, experiment and theory have been well separated making it hard(er!) to do this.

John A

Piers,

Presumeably you’re not one of the scientists complaining that he was misrepresented by being included in Swindle, are you?

ks

Mr. McIntyre,

Since we agreed that the first claim in post #90 regarding the original Durkin graph to not correspond to anything from NASA was correct, let’s establish some things before we proceed on the second claim.

1) the most recent NASA data for global temperature shows much less (approx half) the decline in global temperature from 1940 to 1976 – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
2) the Durkin graph for global temperatures (Soon, et al 1998) closely resembles the most recent NASA data for Northern Hemisphere temperature – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif
3) the graph for Southern Hemisphere temperature shows overall increases from 1940-1976

These are the 3 points in the paragraph cited. “If you agree with this, then we can proceed. If you do not agree with this, provide numbers or evidence showing otherwise and we can also proceed. But no arm-waving.”

And Mr. Machnee

I have a “simple” request for KS. Please go over the Gore movie line by line.

You’ll have to explain that, because the relevance is lost to me (if not most every sensible person reading).

Earle Williams

Re #109

Entity ks,

(not assuming anything as to gender, hence I do not know whether Mr. or Ms. is appropriate. perhaps M.?)

You may not be aware, but thare are many people on this planet who feel that the Al Gore movie is full of inaccuracies and mistruths regarding the state of our environment and the certainty to which we can ascribe the actions of mankind as the primary cause of all the bad parts of our current environment. Mr. Machnee, no doubt, is one of those people. Many of these people, myself included, are bemused if not surprised at the zealous attention to detail that many AGW proponents are combing through the Swindle video looking for inaccuracies and mistruths. These same proponents refuse to acknowledge the problems of the Gore movie. Perhaps this is the context and relevance that you were unable to discern from Mr. Machnee’s post.

This is speculation on my part, but as I count myself one of the sensible people reading this thread I thought I would convery the relevance that I gleaned from it.

kind regards,
Earle Williams

ks

I appreciate the well spoken words, Mr. Williams. I guess by relevance, I meant relevance of going point by point in AIT to discuss the graph at hand. I’ve never quoted AIT in my posts thus far, nor used the film as evidence of anything. So I’m not sure why it was brought up, nor how going line by line would further anything except eating up Mr. McIntyre’s bandwidth.

Mr. McIntyre,

You didn’t disagree with #1 and #3 as I stated them, so I await you looking at the numbers with respect to each point. Speculation and conspiracy aside, you haven’t given any reason to disagree with my assertions that

– the most recent NASA data for global temperature shows much less decline in global temperature from 1940 to 1976 than Durkin’s graph
– the graph for Southern Hemisphere temperature shows overall increases from 1940-1976

Perhaps by “shaved” you meant “corrected previous errors”? Since you haven’t investigated the numbers, it would be premature for you to conclude that the 1998 Soon data is more likely valid than the 2006 NASA data (if I understand your inferences correctly, this is what you are implying). I tried using your google bar to search for Rob Wilson, didn’t find the mentioned post. [link please]

as for #2 – you claim points of difference that you have/can distinguish. feel free to fill me in. As for Durkin misrepresenting the modern NH series, I was not trying to speak to his intent. I believe he made an amateur mistake using outdated global data that resembles the most current NH data. Perhaps you would find the phrase, “Durkin mistakenly presents Northern Hemisphere temps as World temps” more accurate to what I was trying to say?

bender

ks,
The reference to Wilson is in today’s post, called:
GHCN Adjusted Data Isn’t Good Enough for Wilson

JoeS

#101

(The rain in Maine falls mainly in the Seine)

Seldom do I get blindsided into a great gut-wrenching laugh. This one did it to me. Thanks

Nicholas

OK, I have some simple questions, but I don’t think they have simple answers.

1) Is newer data necessarily “better” (more accurate) than older data? You’d hope so, but…
2) How do you tell which of two different versions of a “global temperature” is the more accurate?
3) Where are the confidence intervals? I KNOW there are many sources of error, why isn’t it shown on most/all instrumental average graphs?
4) Given that there are many ways of “processing” the data, and it’s not always clear which adjustments are valid, what’s to stop someone from trying various adjustments, all of which may be somewhat justified, and keeping ones give them the result they are looking for (e.g. greater warming trend) and discarding the rest?

It seems that the real complaint here is that Durkin used an old series.. and the claim is that this old series is less accurate than newer ones. But what isn’t made clear, is the basis for thinking that this is necessarily true. Is it just assumed?

ks

Re #114

What I said in #113

I believe he made an amateur mistake using outdated global data that resembles the most current NH data.

And it isn’t a false allegation, his graph looks like
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif much more than it looks like http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

And why are you still speaking to legal proceedings? Isn’t this a science blog?

Truescepic

#122 I still fail to see how you are in any way showing Ward’s claims to be false. You appear to be attacking a straw man.

Truescepic

#124 No. Please reread Ward’s complaints about TGGWS and then Steve M’s criticism.

Steve McIntyre

Let’s review the bidding on this. The salient paragraph is:

Measurements from meteorological stations that have been published by NASA and other agencies show that the there was an overall slight decline in global average temperature between about 1940 and 1976, but much less than that shown on the graph presented in the programme. The two different versions of the graph purporting to show “World Temperature” in the programme most closely resemble plots published by NASA and other organisations for average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, and particularly North America.

Within the corpus of NASA graphs, the Swindle version “most closely resembles” the Hansen-Lebedeff GLB version from the early 1990s, from which it was drawn. (It’s virtually identical.) So the allegation that, within the corpus of NASA plots – which is the universe specified, it “most closely resembles” NH and particularly North American plots is untrue. The allegation that the plot “particularly” resembles North America is “particularly” untrue.

Some Hansen/NASA version of the GLB series, including the current one, show a lower decline than the Swindle graphic, but other Hansen/NASA versions, including the older one from which the Swindle graphic was taken, shows the exact decline illustrated. I read the truth of the first sentence as requiring that the claim be true for all NASA GLB versions and not merely some versions. I’ve got more legal experience than most readers. I can’t imagine that any tribunal would take this sort of complaint very seriously.

For what he was trying to do, Durkin would have been better off putting the two versions up side by side and raising questions about how history is being re-written to make the temperature series fit the models better, rather than using an old series as is. My hunch is that there’s a little hair in these adjustments; I don’t know that, but I’m probably going to spend a bit of time in the next few months probing the matter. But if use of old data is an offence, then what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and someone had better send the memo to Martin Juckes. And, once again, the people who are piling on about old data had better be careful what they wish for.

Gerald Machnee

Re #109 I have a “simple” request for KS. Please go over the Gore movie line by line.
You’ll have to explain that, because the relevance is lost to me (if not most every sensible person reading).**
I do not see why you missed it, while others got it. Just take each statement that Al Gore makes in the movie and diligently check the scientific background for accuracy, then comment. Sort of like you are doing with Steve M, but do a better analysis.

Steve McIntyre

A further exchange between Durkin and Ward of RMS from the Scotsman is now online here – thanks to Wm Connolley’s Stoat for the link. In case one is uncertain about the exact parsing of his meaning in the original letter, here is what Ward says:

It showed a marked drop in temperature between 1940 and 1976. But no graph of global average temperature from a reputable source shows this sort of drop in temperature over this period.

I guess whether one considers Hansen a “reputable source” is very much in the eye of the beholder. Obviously Hansen and Lebedeff 1988 shows the precise decline shown in Swindle.

The programme’s graph may have shown temperatures from the northern hemisphere or more likely from North America, which show a cooling over that 35-year period due to the effect of industrial aerosols

This is pure disinformation on Ward’s part as the program showed neither. The graphic “particularly” did not look like North American temperatures.

ks

One last time, let’s take a look at what was said.

Measurements from meteorological stations that have been published by NASA and other agencies show that the there was an overall slight decline in global average temperature between about 1940 and 1976, but much less than that shown on the graph presented in the programme.

Looking at the data – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
Was it published by NASA? Yes.
Does it show much less decline in global average temperature between about 1940 and 1976 than the graph presented by Durkin? Yes.

It looks like an accurate claim from here.

Since I can’t spend all of my time looking at only one of your claims, I’m gonna have to move on from this discussion to some of your other posts.

John Lang

ks, perhaps you should read this “adjustment” made to the NASA GISS temperature data (paper by James Hansen of GISS) in 2001.

Click to access 2001_Hansen_etal.pdf

This is the best explanation of the “adjustments” made to the temperature data that GISS, GHCN, the Hadley Centre have published.

In this second “adjustment” to US temperature data, Hansen “adjusted” US temperatures from 1900 to 1950 DOWN by 0.1C and “adjusted” the temperatures from 1990 to 2000 UP by 0.25C.

This is only one of many “adjustments” made to the global temperature data. By my reckoning of all the changes made, (the most recent in 2006 by 0.2C) they account for 0.7C of the total increase of 0.8C in temperatures since 1900.

Maybe the changes are all justfiable. Maybe they are not. Maybe we shouldn’t rely on GISS data anymore since other than the link provided above, there is no rationale or back-up provided for the other 5 changes that have been made.

Stan Palmer

re 133

you left out the portion

this graph does not correspond to any figure for global average temperature that has been published by NASA

It looks to me that your fundamental problem is not with Durkin but with the rules of elementary logic.

ks

Also Re 137

After post #90, Mr. McIntyre removed the parts of his original post regarding that quote. However, he left the quote itself even though in post #95 I noted it was irrelevant to the 110 year graph being discussed.

ks

RMS claimed:

no graph of global average temperature from a reputable source shows this sort of drop in temperature over this period.

No they don’t. http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3

Any graph that may appear similar to Durkin’s graph that has been published by NASA has evolved substantially since publication.

Click to access 1999_Hansen_etal.pdf

Click to access 2001_Hansen_etal.pdf

Mr. McIntyre, you are trying to argue a technicality that does not reflect the current state of scientific knowledge.

Geoff Sherrington

Re # 83

I am not used to this type of communications so please do not excommunicate me if I have broken some rules.

The following is an exchange of emails I had about Australian temperature data with Phil Jones early 2006. I have tidied it up as much as I can because that’s what Phil seems to do with actual data. There are two key graphs from Warwick Hughes that I know not how to insert here – can I please be guided?

In my summary, there is a reluctance to answer direct questions with direct answers and a lot of red herrings thrown in. Readers can deduce what they like from the exchange, where Phil says he no longer has the data used in early papers. Contrast this with the statement next from Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (Blair Trewin, April 2006 email to me):

“At last count there were 74 stations which have at least some digital
temperature data (mostly monthly) available in 1890 (my comment – this must be a typo meaning 1980), plus a handful of
stations which had opened and closed before then. The data from these
stations should be publicly available (and I can’t see any reason why
any data that was available in the mid 1980’s would not be now – in fact
the reverse would be true). It is likely that a number of other stations
(possibly about 100) took at least some pre-1890 temperatures, but most
of these records were probably short and of doubtful quality.

I think Phil Jones may have digitised some monthly data himself for the
1986 data set – I know this is true for Alice Springs as we only
digitised the 1879-1924 data from there in the last couple of years.”

Here is the email exchange between Phil and me. Start from the bottom and read up.

Geoff,
I’ve found another paper you should look at. I can’t get the
pdf as it has been back-scanned yet. It is a paper by
Neville Nicholls et al. in the International Journal of Climatology,
Vol 16, 705-710 (1996). This talks about the exposure of
early Australian temperature data in the different states.
One of the most interesting of the comparisons of the
screens (old and new) was undertaken at Adelaide for
over 60 years. Whether Adelaide has an urban effect is
irrelevant to this. The two screens are the same site.
There is a plot (Figure 1) of the difference. The figure caption
isn’t very clear but the text is. The plot is for the difference
between the Glaisher/Greenwich stands which were common
in most of Australia up to the 1910s and the Stevenson screen.
For minimum temperature the difference is relatively small
and has little seasonal cycle (Stevenson warmer by about 0.1 deg
C). For the maximum though there is a marked seasonal cycle,
with the Stevenson screen cooler by about 1 deg C in summer
months, reducing to about 0.2 cooler in winter months.
I realise this is just Adelaide, but this is the longest set of
paired readings anywhere in the world. It clearly indicates
the old screens are too warm. Maybe other shorter comparisons
were made in other areas.

There are similar problems in Spain before about 1900. Here
they just switched to Stevenson type screens between 1900 and
1910 (varying between sites) with no overlap. However, there
are pictures of the old stands (based on a French model) with
dimensions/instructions etc. So what a group has done is to build
two new ones and install them at the sites of two stations (La Corunna
and Murcia – opposite sides of Spain to get a little idea of differences
in the different climates). The results from 2 years of overlap show
remarkable consistencies between the two years and some
similarities between the sites. The maximums are much more
affected – also about 1deg C warmer in the ‘rebuilt’ old screens
compared to the conventional ones. Minimum temperature differences
are on the opposite sign and much smaller – very similar to Adelaide.

Finally, if you don’t think you can compare Australia with NZ,
then compare Tasmania with NZ. Many Tasmania records are
near to the coast and they should agree with SSTs around
the island, when averaged to annual or decadal values.

I’ll be away next week at a meeting in Europe. I’ll likely have
some email but little time, so will only be answering the more
urgent emails. I’ll be back to the normal the week after.

Regards
Phil

At 07:39 31/03/2006, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
You wrote
Back to the early Australian data: I mentioned the other day that
there are problems with the early Australian data. If you look at the
pdf I sent earlier (Figure 2, panel f) you’ll see that climate models
given SSTs can’t reproduce Australian land temps (the black line)
prior to around 1910. The models can in other continents of the world.
Most importantly for Australia, they can over NZ. etc.

An important geographical difference between Australia and New Zealand is
that Australia has a hot interior and New Zealand has a cold interior. If
you consider weather stations near the coastline, the daily shapes of the
weather logs (id examined say hour by hour) might well be different, so
that an analysis of the maxima and minima might not reflect heat flux
comparably in both countries. If the land and the nearby sea have
different thermal inertias, this could well explain the differences you
are reporting. But this is only a guess as I do not know your present
detailed methodology. The same comment applies to all historical analyses
based in maxima and minima, be they daily, monthly or yearly. They are
merely indicators of flux and in the final analysis might all be
inadequate for reconstructions.

Seems to me that there is a need to devise contemporary experiments that
look at the hourly patterns, in places that geostatistics has established
a probability of connectivity and predictability.

>Geoff Sherrington.

>From: Phil Jones
>To: Geoff Sherrington
>Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 8:53 PM
>Subject: Re: Early global temperature data
Geoff,
The Australian data were not available to us in the mid-1980s. Even
if they were we were concentrating on getting data and back data for
other parts of the world (particularly the tropics, Africa and South
America, where we didn’t have anything). Just because data are
available in a country doesn’t mean we have them. The Australian
Weather Bureau now releases lots more data than it did. In the
1980s, it was releasing about 40 stations.
As an aside, your expectation that we had the data isn’t
unusual. We get requests from a number of scientists in countries (mainly
developing ones or from the ex-USSR and eastern Europe) to
send them their own national datasets. Their met services haven’t
got their own national data digitised in many cases, although the
situation is improving, but only slowly.
We searched the literature in the 1980s, but more importantly
searched a number of data archives (proper archives such as libraries),
particularly that at the UK Met Office to digitise additional data. We
also managed to get some from national met agencies. We continue
to do this and add in new datasets as and when we get the data.
For example, Canada has a project to homogenize all their
station and precipitation (daily and monthly) series. They sent us
all the final adjusted series and we include them in our database –
about 250 series. We got the data through scientific contacts at
meetings in the late 1990s. All the adjusted data are not in the
GHCN archive in Asheville, partly because they (Asheville) have
never asked for them. If you ask for Canadian data now you get
the adjusted data, but only from Environment Canada. NCDC (Asheville)
and GISS still use the unadjusted Canadian data.
We do the best we can, but we’re not some global archive.
I guess NCDC is the official archive as recognized by WMO and
GCOS, but they don’t have resources to fund anyone chasing
countries for improved past data.
>
Back to the early Australian data: I mentioned the other day that
there are problems with the early Australian data. If you look at the
pdf I sent earlier (Figure 2, panel f) you’ll see that climate models
given SSTs can’t reproduce Australian land temps (the black line)
prior to around 1910. The models can in other continents of the world.
Most importantly for Australia, they can over NZ.
I would suggest you look at NZ temperatures. The attached
paper sort of does this, but only as a part of other regions
of the S. Pacific. There are earlier papers by Folland and/or
Salinger on NZ temperatures. What is clear over this region is that the
SSTs around islands (be they NZ or more of the atoll type) is that
the air temps over decadal timescales should agree with SSTs.
This agreement between SSTs and air temperatures also works
for Britain and Ireland. Australia is larger, but most of the longer
records are around the coasts.
So, NZ or Australian air temperatures before about 1910
can’t both be right. As the two are quite close, one must be
wrong. As NZ used the Stevenson screens from their development about
1870, I would believe NZ. NZ temps agree well with the SSTs and
circulation influences.
Finally, geostatistics is being used somewhat in climatology.
It isn’t being used in climate modelling – which is using GCMs and
RCMs. You seem to have a broader definition of climate modelling.

Regards
Phil
>
>
>At 01:11 28/03/2006, you wrote:
>>Dear Phil, I continue to assert that there were well over 100 long-term
>>surface weather site records from Australia available to the public in Australa because I have been in touch with a scientist who compiled some of it into a paper. The data frequently extend back to the 1880s.

In Jones et al 1986, I have quickly counted the actual Australian
stations used and found 34 or so. Some of these start in the 1880s
(especially those in Graph 2 below, where a steady temperature increase
is shown on average) but about half or more, by eyeball, start about
1951. I have lived in several of these places before 1951, so they are
not new towns.
>>
Two graphs derived from this 1985-1990 period follow. They show the
potential for wrong results through selectivity and the potential for
artefacts from population use of energy near weather stations (heat
islands). The absence of Stevenson screens cannot dismiss the Graph 1
cooling trend from 1882 to 1951. Of the 25 stations in graph 1, only
Darwin was in Jones et al 1986. That means that 24 plausible data sets
were excluded. (There were ore than that).

What a coincidence that all these averaged data show a slight increase
from 1951 onwards, the same cutoff year as applied by Jones at al in many
other cases. Surely there is a strong case for the start point for
calculations of changes in climate to extend back to the 1880s and not
suddenly commence in the 1950s.
There is a whole mathematical branch of statistics named “Geoststistics”
which is particularly suitable for discerning if an observation at one place has predictive value for another location. (e.g. for comparing nearby stations for heat island effects). Do you know if this method has been applied to climate modelling?
Regards Geoff Sherrington Scientist, Melbourne

GRAPH 1
1413f51.jpg
Geraldton, Narrabri, Hay, Albany, Rottnest Island Lighthouse, Walgett,
Deniliquin, Bourke, Cape Naturaliste Lighthouse, Coonabarabran,
Echuca, Cooma, Darwin, Moruya Heads Pilot Station, Omeo, Dubbo, Alice
Springs, Gabo Island Lighthouse, Bathurst, Strathalbyn, Mt. Gambier,
Yamba, Wilsons Promontory Lighthouse, Newcastle Signal Station, Cape
Otway Lighthouse.

GRAPH 2
1413f61.jpg
Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart

>>From: Phil Jones
>>To: Geoff Sherrington
>>Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Early global temperature data
>> Geoff,
First, I’m attaching a paper. This shows that it is necessary
to adjust the marine data (SSTs) for the change from buckets
to engine intakes. If models are forced by SSTs (which is one
way climate models can be run) then they estimate land
temperatures which are too cool if the original bucket
temps are used. The estimated land temps are much
closer to those measured if the adjusted SSTs are used.
This doesn’t address in any way your questions, but
I thought I’d send it to you.
Back to Australia: there is a serious problem with Australian
temperatures before the early 1900s because of the screens
used. Unlike NZ, the various Australian states didn’t switch
over to Stevenson screens very early and when the change
occurred it was different in different states. The work
undertaken by Neville Nicholls and the student sought to
find the 200+ best stations across the country.
We’ve not rejected any Australian stations. The ones we
use from BoM though start around the 1900 period. All
of those we had in the early 1980s we still use. In Fig 2
of the other attachment, there is a time series for
Australia. We have adjusted some, but these adjustments
cancel. Since the paper in 2003, we’ve added in lots more
Australian data, as I mentioned before. The trend of
Australian temperatures though has not changed in
its overall character. In the mid-1980s the extra data
(above the 40 or so) were not available to us.
Climate models don’t use observational data. They are
longer running versions of weather models. They don’t get given
any observational data – except in the case of the SSTs in the
first paper I’ve attached. As I said this is one way climate models
can be run. Another way is to include the ocean, so they determine
their own SSTs.
Regards
Phil
At 23:31 24/03/2006, you wrote:
I was working on early Australian temperature records going back to the
1880s when the first global models were being constructed. I share the
general concerns in this Internet quote, but not necessarily the figures:
The central contention of these pages is that for over a decade the IPCC
has published global temperature trends distorted by purely local warmth
from Urban Heat Islands (UHI’s). These spurious trends have been promoted as “smoking gun” evidence of greenhouse warming. The data were
generated by Dr. P.D. Jones and others (1986, 91 & 94), mainly from the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia at Norwich
in the UK. The CRU and the IPCC claim that our atmosphere has warmed by
0.6 to 0.8 degrees Celsius since the late 19th Century, and ascribe
most of this to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

For example, most of the early data from the 1880s to the 1950s were
rejected because the weather stations were not housed in approved cases
or were otherwise deemed unreliable. There were over 100 weather
stations available, but in the first model(s) only about 10 were used
from Australia, most in large cities.
Today, there is a most unscientific trend to ignore the raw data and to
apply statistical algorithms to improve the data. This has the danger of
generating artefacts and I have no doubt that it does. In particular,
heat island effects continue to cause problems and the maths i have read
for their correction are highly suspect.
The early Australia data might not have come from approved weather
station cases, but very many of the sites showed a slight temperature
reduction from ca 1880 to 1950. The weather station cases would not have
been the cause of this uniform decrease. These data are valuable,
because, properly used, they extend back in time the trends that are
apparent and potentially allow the resetting of a reference starting
date for Australian surface temperatures around 1880 instead of 1980 or
whatever is the current backwards limit for “acceptable data” now.
We thought that the maximum and minimum surface temperatures for
Australia had imperceptible to slight downwards change from 1880 to 1985
or so as recorded by the bulk of the stations, especially when sudden
discontinuities were removed if they happened at different times at
different locations or were documented as instrument changes.
In short, I feel that the early climate models used selective data to
stampede the policy makers into belief in global warming, prematurely.
What say you to that?

Geoff Sherrington

To: Geoff Sherrington
Cc: Sheppard Sylvia (SCI) ks918
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 4:20 AM
Subject: FW: Early global temperature data
Dear Geoffrey,
We no longer have the Australian station date we were using in the
early 1980s. At that time we had a limited network. In the 1990s,
the Australian Bureau of Meteorology began issuing a lot more
station data each month. Up to that time it had been about 40
stations internationally. Through contacts with personnel in Melbourne,
we got access to the back data from all the new stations, so added
these. In order to use temperature data, we need historic series
with at least the 1961-90 base period. We now have access to over
100 stations from BoM in real time.
I wish more countries would release more data in real time like
Australia. Some have, but not that many – and none release extra
data in Africa, South America and southern Asia. We have
managed to get extra historic data though in South Africa, Argentina
and Brazil. We got the latter, though, on the agreement that we
didn’t pass the data onto others, but we can use them in our
gridded data. This condition also applies to a number of
European countries – again only historic data, no real time. Australia
is the only country to make additional data (additional to the about 1500
exchanged by Met Services) to us in real time.
I have looked back at a publication where we adjusted station
records for homogeneity in the mid-1980s. We didn’t omit any
Australian series then, but adjusted the following sites:
Darwin, Townsville, Thursday Island, Gladstone, Forrest,
Adelaide, Sydney and Norfolk Island. We still have these adjustments.
In the mid-1990s, we compared our Australian temperature with
a series developed by Neville Nicholls (then of BMRC, he has retired
in the last few months and now works at Monash) and a student
he had. Over the period from 1901-1992 we had a correlation of
our two series of 0.92 and with no difference in trend over these
92 years. This work was done before we got the additional
station data (so in effect we had about 40 stations, whereas
Neville and the student had almost 200). I can’t recall the student’s
name (Simon ?).
So, I can’t send you anything. We don’t have the earlier station
data now.
Regards
Phil

From: Geoff Sherrington
Sent: Fri 3/24/2006 12:09 PM
To: cru@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Early global temperature data
I seek the figures which were used from Australian weather stations at
the start of your climate modelling work in the 1980s. I seek to know
the first set of Australia weather stations used in modelling, plus the
set that was rejected and if possible, the span of data by years (or
the data itself) for each of the stations considered and eventually
used initially.
Is it possible to obtain this information?
Regards
Geoffrey H Sherrington
Scientist

David Smith

As noted in this thread, there’s been a curious near-disappearance of the inconvenient 1940s-1970s cooling trend. Another temperature curiosity that I’m beginning to wonder about is in Antarctica.

Antarctica has failed to warm, which has been a bit hard to explain by conventional AGW. Even the recent RSS satellite lower-troposphere temperatures ( link ) show no rise and perhaps even a slight fall. However, I’m noticing a rather dramatic warming ( see 90-day anomaly and 7-day anomaly maps ) in the recent reported surface data, which diverges from the satellite data.

Maybe Antarctica is indeed undergoing a dramatic warming trend or maybe someone is recently adjusting the way temperatures are estimated there. I don’t know. It is a vast area with few surface reports, so estimation is, no doubt, a key part of the reported temperature.

Something to watch.

Truescepic

#122, 123, 127
Ward said
Misrepresentation: The programme broadcast on 8 March on Channel Four presented a graph, attributed to “NASA”, purporting to show “World Temperature ‘€” 120 Years” between about 1878 and 2002, plotted against some unspecified measurement of temperature change ranging in value from about -0.05 to 0.70. The graph showed an almost continuous decrease in temperature between about 1947 and 1976.

However, this graph does not correspond to any figure for global average temperature that has been published by NASA, and differs significantly from the graphs appearing in its recent publications and on its website (see: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/).

You said (top of this thread)
this graph does not correspond to any figure for global average temperature that has been published by NASA

When a corporation, which has contracts with major insurers, makes highly visible public allegations like this, you’d think that they’d go to the trouble to ensure that the claims are correct. Likewise, when 37 climate scientists sign onto the claim, including temperature specialist, Phil Jones, you’d think that they’d also go to the trouble to ensure that the claim is correct. When they go on to argue that communications with the public – into which category their Open Letter to Martin Durkin published on a website surely qualifies – should have proper due diligence, you’d think that they’d double check that a specific claim like this was true.

and from #123
#120. My discussion was of the amended graphic. I made no comment on the unamended graphic. The original graphic appears to have dilated the x-axis on the right. I emailed and added my two cents worth urging Durkin to correct the error. He said that it occurred during the graphic preparation and amended it promptly. Even RMS notes the amendment. In most walks of life, if someone corrects something willingly, no complaint remains, but, hey, this is climate science.

By your own admission, your initial accusation was a straw man attack.

Truescepic

#122, 123, 237
You claimed (near top of thread)
As noted above, Risk Management Solutions and the professors said that no temperature decline of this magnitude occurred in any Hansen global data.

Where does Ward say this? He did say
Measurements from meteorological stations that have been published by NASA and other agencies show that the there was an overall slight decline in global average temperature between about 1940 and 1976, but much less than that shown on the graph presented in the programme

Looks like another straw man to me.

Steve McIntyre

I characterized the complaint as follows (which I believe to be the only reasonable interpretation of the quote:

As noted above, Risk Management Solutions and the professors said that no temperature decline of this magnitude occurred in any Hansen global data.

Ts argues that this interpretation is a straw man. I disagree. Any doubt as to the reasonableness of this interpretation is removed by the following quote in the Scotsman exchange previously referred to:

It showed a marked drop in temperature between 1940 and 1976. But no graph of global average temperature from a reputable source shows this sort of drop in temperature over this period. The programme’s graph may have shown temperatures from the northern hemisphere or more likely from North America, which show a cooling over that 35-year period due to the effect of industrial aerosols.

On the basis that RMS view Hansen as a “reputable source” , this sentence requires that no temperature decline of the magnitude shown in the Swindle graphic is shown in any version of Hansen global data. The claim is refuted by showing a Hansen GLB data version that has a decline of this magnitude. End of story.

Truescepic

#151

As noted above, Risk Management Solutions and the professors said that no temperature decline of this magnitude occurred in any Hansen global data.

It showed a marked drop in temperature between 1940 and 1976. But no graph of global average temperature from a reputable source shows this sort of drop in temperature over this period. The programme’s graph may have shown temperatures from the northern hemisphere or more likely from North America, which show a cooling over that 35-year period due to the effect of industrial aerosols.

The same applies: I believe that no reasonable person would read this as “no graphs have ever shown…”. The use of “shows” implies current information. I do accept, however, that your interpretation is possible, if somewhat unfair.

ks

If the legal case for Durkin is that out-dated and since corrected data refutes a quote in a media article, I see why he hasn’t filed against RMS. The claims in the formal complaint are substantiated in post #133. I take the lack of legal action by Durkin as sufficient evidence that your claims are flimsy at best and would have little chance of being upheld in court, despite your assertion to the contrary.

Steve McIntyre

#155. There are many reasons not to litigate. You obviously don’t know what’s involved in litigation.

As to the evidence that Hansen believed in a decline of this magnitude in 1990, the evidence is rock solid. I’ve collated the data from the original article and put it online. If you don’t believe my transcription of the hardcopy data, do it for yourself. It’s got nothing whatever to do with lawsuits.

Jeff Norman

Re #158. Spell check anyone?

Harold Gemert

I suppose I am off topic, but here goes:

Do you guys really think OFCOM will “investigate” the claim?

It would be interesting if they did:

a) OFCOM (and the 37 seekers of Truth) would get the media and the
public opinion against them,if only on censorship issues.
b) There would have to be a hearing of sorts : equal time for a group
– that does not exist
– that consists of cranks, naysayers and the like
– on the payroll of the oil industry (borrowed joke).

I would like to thank the complaintants for 2 reasons;

1)they are digging their own graves.

2)they have given Durkin more time to polish (and expand ?)the arguments.

I would also like to thank Steve McIntyre for his informative and highly
enjoyable website, and also the (mostly) pleasant contributors.

UC

The result is much nicer to look at. But is it a more accurate representation of reality? Hardly. It simply is a better fit to what we want to see.

Same applies to Briffa-Osborn Variance Adjustment, result looks better, but it is not more accurate (I’d say less accurate)

Steve Sadlov

RE: #164 – Why did you take the legalistic approach? What is your dog in this hunt?

If it’s only a matter of how you felt about errors and misrepresentations, it seems to me that it would have made more sense to simply write a paper refuting what you needed to refute.

Steve McIntyre

#164.
Thank you for your thoughtful letter. None of the issues raised in Swindle are ones that I’ve published on or have been ones that have been core issues at this blog. I dislike arguments when people talk at cross-purposes and enjoy disentangling knots, which was the reason why I investigated the exact provenance of the data here.

It’s nice that you’ve told us that the complaint does not “necessarily represent the corporate views of RMS”; what’s relevant is whether you’ve told this to Ofcom and what you’ve said on your own website. The complaint to Ofcom was signed using your title as an official of RMS. It didn’t arrive as a complaint from Robert Ward, 11 Green Lane, East Gore, Sussex. It’s not going to be all that easy to unring this bell. In a worst case scenario, if there was a business interference tort action, RMS would surely be named, regardless of anything you did or said now to disassociate RMS from the letter and, in my opinion, it would be impossible for RMS to extricate itself from such a tort action. This is different from saying that there was a business interference tort or that there would be any actionable damages, merely that your comment here would not suffice to disassociate RMS if such an action were commenced.

Because this letter was sent in your “professional capacity”, regardless of whether the views are “necessarily” shared by RMS and even though you personally hold these views sincerely, it’s easy for a third party to say that RMS is employing you professionally to make and pursue the complaint; you are certainly spending time on it and they are paying you. So telling climateaudit readers that this is not “necessarily” the view of RMS is not going to unring this particular bell.

In passing, if you are drawing a salary from RMS in which part of your time is spent on this sort of activity, it makes it rather hard for aggrieved warmers to complain about (say) Myron Ebell, if you are, in effect, being employed professionally to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) about what Durkin said ‘€” regardless of the validity of your complaints. As an aside, I can’t imagine why RMS would want one of their employees to be professionally involved in this particular cat-fight. If you want to do it on your own time and your own nickel, perhaps by taking a leave of absence, I could see the corporation reluctantly acquiescing in your doing this, but I must say that most corporations that I know prefer to stay out of the spotlight ‘€” and you can be sure that the spotlight on RMS and its clients will only increase.

A couple of points on the temperature history.

First, you express concern that the use of an 11-year running mean rather than a 5-year running mean “leads to many changes in the trend”. I don’t think that this is an issue or even a quibble. Sometimes decadal averages are used in climate articles. One can find all sorts of smooths in climate literature. Many series are decadally smoothed. If I were asked for an opinion on this issue, I could effortlessly show this. In your shoes, I would forget this as an issue. It’s a non-starter.

Second, all parties seem to agree that the data can be tied to Hansen and Lebedeff GLB data from 1992 or so. Accordingly, references to the OISM article are, using the terms of a Law and Order episode, prejudicial rather than probative. If it’s Hansen and Lebedfeff data from the early 1990s, then it doesn’t matter that it was also used in the OISM article and mentioning OISM is just prejudicial. Of course, climate science debate typically deals in the prejudicial rather than probative, so you would hardly be unusual. But it would be nice if your complaint and your website avoided the temptation and focussed on the salient question: whether Durkin had a duty to use up-to-date versions of the Hansen data.

IT would be interesting if a producer like Durkin were held to have such an obligation, given the pervasive use of obsolete data by climate scientists. IT’s a precedent that I would seek to apply elsewhere. We had an interesting exchange here a few months ago with Martin Juckes who was adamant that, in cases where there were older and newer versions of a proxy series, that use of the older version was less biased. The truncation of the Briffa series in IPCC TAR and AR4 is delicious example that I’m going to be spending time.

Personally, I think that, if one is going to present an older data version, this should be explicitly stated, that the newer version should also be shown and that the differences are briefly discussed. I’ve been highly critical of the use of obsolete data by climate scientists in the past and do not endorse it in Durkin’s hands.

The other thing that you should realize is that there is a highly plausible amendment open to Durkin on this topic that would comply with this aspect of your complaint and arguably make his own presentation more powerful. In his shoes, I would use the early Hansen and Lebedeff data explicitly qualifying this as what Hansen thought of temperature change in 1990. He could then seque into this part of his presentation. However, I would later show the contrast between the old data and the new data, observe that Hansen has shaved the spread between the 1930s and the 1960s, observe the conflict between Hansen as a modeler and as publisher of a recognized temperature index and use this to raise further questions. I would also use this as a wedge to get into the obstructionism of the temperature people e.g. Phil Jones’ refusal to even identify the station locations used for his recent data, even when confronted with Freedom of Information Act requests.

If Durkin did this, I think that he would be bulletproof to this aspect of your complaint and the program convey an even more depressing picture of climate science practices than it does already.

Substantively, I think that there needs to be considerable scrutiny of Hansen and Jones’ adjustment of past data. I am definitely concern about bias in the adjustment process. It would be effortless for Durking to ridicule Folland’s adjustment of buckets. I’d already raised questions about the adjustments prior to Swindle. So I’d be quite happy if this issue was in the spotlight.

L Nettles

#167 This is why I keep coming back to this place! Great Post.

TrueSceptic

#154 Yes, but Bob Ward was criticising the TGGWS that was broadcast, not some other programme that might have been made instead. The original mislabelling of the graph might have been a genuine mistake, but as you have shown, the graph does have provenance, so why omit attribution in the corrected version, when it does actually deserve it?

There was an opportunity to make a genuine case here, namely why has the data this graph represents since been adjusted so that more recent graphs look different, especially in the post-war slope? Sadly, TGGWS didn’t even address this, which would have entirely justified the use of a graph ending in 1988 in a 2007 programme.

The overall impression of TGGWS is one of carelessness, even shoddiness, and missed opportunities. There are real questions to be asked of climate science but instead we got something embarrassingly poor.

Steve McIntyre

#171. The comment in #154 was not intended as a rebuttal to Ward’s criticism. I was just musing about an alternative storyline that would have done what Durkin wanted while being bulletproof.

I agree with the point in your paragraph 1 – why wouldn’t they label the corrected graphic where the provenance was secure?

Your para 2 is not dissimilar to some of my posts. As to your 3rd para, I agree with your comment about carelessness. But there was carelessness in Inconvenient Truth – he hasn’t bothered fixing the incorrect flooding of Holland where they misread satellite imagery even though that’s been known for a while. On data provenance, think of the number of people who are frothing about provenance of Swindle series. But can anyone tell me the exact provenance of Gore’s new hockey stick?

John Nicklin

173: Steve M,

You know that you’re not allowed to question AIT, it is the true and given word from on high, it is infallable.

TrueSceptic

#173 I agree with you: this was an example where TGGWS could have done something useful but chose not to.

Steve Sadlov

It’s a no brainer, GW (of any kind) would be my choice vs GC, if asked to choose. GC brings famine, drought, war and death.

ks

Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, has issued a statement accusing the film-makers of fabricating data based on his work looking at the links between solar activity and global temperatures.

We have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless

Secondly, although the commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece

http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html

Bob Ward

RE#167 I’m not sure why you are so doubtful about my comments on the status of my complaint. Like you, I use research on climate change in my day-to-day job. A number of people that I have contact with professionally have asked me whether the Great Global Warming Swindle presented an accurate piecture of our state of knowledge. It appears to me that the programme has caused more confusion and misunderstanding than enlightenment and so I thought it would be better to clearly articulate my objection to the misrepresentations through a complaint to the broadcast regulator. I would also suggest that if I had submitted the complaint without declaring my professional interest in this subject, then I’m sure the blogs would have been awash with accusations that I had concealed a vested interest. For the record, my vested professional interest in this is that the public should wherever possible receive accurate information . I trust that vested interest is shared by everybody else on this blog.

I can’t agree with your argument that the 11-year running mean isn’t important. It clearly represents the raw data in a different way than the original authors chose to. As I mentioned, I haven’t found any other papers that have used an 11-year running mean. If you know of any then please let me have the references. And this is not an academic point, because I think it is clear that the graph presented by Robinson et al indicates that the period of cooling stopped in about 1966. I think that is less clear from the graphs published in the Hansen papers, which is obviously an important consideration when it comes to attributing the cooling to any particular factors.

And I don’t accept the argument that mentioning the provenance of the graph used in the programme is “prejudicial”. It seems to me that it would have been straightforward for the programme to have acknowledged the source, particularly as it had created so much confuson in its first broadcast by showing a different version of the graph and attributing it to NASA.

I think the difficulty with the programme is that it sets out to make one central point about the science, namely that the evidence shows that carbon dioxide can’t be influencing global average temperature, and that solar activity is the only main driver. But rather than examine the science in an objective way, the progamme tries to shoe-horn it into the central point. The programme-maker could indeed have examined some of the interesting aspects about the evidence, but instead he decided to make a programme about his own beliefs.

I could respond to your other points but I feel the prospect of finding further common ground between us seems unlikely. However this has been a useful discussion.

MrPete

Bob in #183 says:

I think the difficulty with the programme is that it sets out to make one central point about the science, namely [[a particular point]]. But rather than examine the science in an objective way, the progamme tries to shoe-horn it into the central point. The programme-maker could indeed have examined some of the interesting aspects about the evidence, but instead he decided to make a programme about his own beliefs.

By simply eliding the particular perspective of the program, Bob’s complaint becomes something I think is very much in line with CA’s perspective and one with which Bob would find much common ground here. If only, as Ed says, he could honestly bring himself to feel the same way about so much of what is published lately in AGW “science”.

AFAIK it clearly applies to Hockey Team pubs, AIT, IPCC TAR/AR4 and so much more.

UC

#183

The (ab)use of N-year running mean has been discussed here quite a lot. ( see e.g. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1396#comment-103616 )

IMO the problems are
1) not very good frequency response
2) arbitrary selection of N, which together with 1) brings up spurious correlations, Ex1, Ex2
It is good that this problem gets air time here, people get more and more interested on filtering theory..

As I mentioned, I haven’t found any other papers that have used an 11-year running mean. If you know of any then please let me have the references

Holland and Webster use 9-yr MA in the figure 1., and 5-yr MA in Figure 2. (in Heightened Tropical Cyclone Activity in the North Atlantic: Natural Variability or Climate Trend?) . Is 9-year close enough?

Jeff Norman

I am a professional engineer. The foundation of my understanding of climate science is based upon my engineering education in processes and process control. In my mind I see climate as a compilation of numerous processes that involve heat and mass transfer.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is alleged to be the result of a western industrial infrastructure. It is my profession that created this infrastructure and there is an expectation that it is my profession that will resolve the alleged problem.

This is my stake in this debate.

It is my impression that few engineers who have followed the AGW story truly believe AGW is real or as bad as it is sometimes proposed, though some find it convenient to profess a believe in AGW if it coincides with something they are planning.

The AGW process is described greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere, heating the atmosphere (particularly in cold/dry places like the poles and winter) and subsequently heating the surface (especially in those particular places). It is apparent to me that this is not happening and that perhaps the evidence for AGW is not as conclusive as some would have us believe. It is also suggested that there are some who attempt to control the data in a way to support the case for a policy response to AGW.

That’s me in a nut shell, why I believe what I believe. This is why I am more concerned about the Al Gore movie being shown in classrooms to a captured audience than I am about the Swindle program being available on television or the Internet and made available on DVD.

I have no reason to doubt that Mr. Ward sincerely believes that the Swindle is a gross misrepresentation of the science. I am curious as to why Mr. Ward believes what he apparently believes.

Does anyone know Mr. Ward’s foundation?

Truescepic

178 Are you saying that GW is happening, and that we should do everything we can to help it along?

Even if we could make it warmer only where we would like, would that be a good thing? Ecosystems are highly complex and things can go spiralling out of control until a new equilibrium is reached.

The likely outcome is that higher temperatures in places already suffering from drought and famine would become even poorer, and that the increase in size of deserts such as the Sahara would be accelerated.

Mark T.

178 Are you saying that GW is happening, and that we should do everything we can to help it along?

Nothing in post I’ve ever made would allow you to draw that conclusion. The question itself is a straw man.

The likely outcome is that higher temperatures in places already suffering from drought and famine would become even poorer, and that the increase in size of deserts such as the Sahara would be accelerated.

The other sentence in your comment is immaterial as it relies on the straw man as its basis. However, this one merits attention. The assumption that higher temperatures will necessarily cause drought and famine to both increase is pure speculation at best, completely incorrect at worst. The “extremes will only get more extreme” viewpoint of the climate is such a narrowly constrained view of the climate that it cannot hold. This is nothing more than alarmist propaganda without basis in science.

Btw, there are cold deserts, too.

Mark

ks

A quick question, if I may… why do you still have the statement:

this graph does not correspond to any figure for global average temperature that has been published by NASA

when it applies only to the 120 year original graph that you do not mention in your original post?

MarkW

#183

“I think the difficulty with the programme is that it sets out to make one central point about the science, namely that the evidence shows that carbon dioxide can’t be influencing global average temperature, ”

This is yet another strawman on your part.

Nobody ever said that CO2 “can’t” affect the global average temperature. And Swindle certainly made no such attempt.

They did state, and correctly so in my opinion, that the sun is the major driver of climate and CO2 only has a small impact.

Steve McIntyre

#198. Yes.

John Nicklin

If you want to see another approach to the Swindle issue, go over to http://climatedenial.org/ but don’t expect to post any rebuttals, their policy is not to accept postings from sceptics. I tried, no traction.

John Nicklin

I posted my submission to climatedenial.org on my blog here.

jae

199: Sigh. It’s very possible. I am currently reading “The Source” by Michener, and he does a very good job of demonstrating how this happens to people and societies. I’ll keep trying to get my head out of the cloud.

John F. Pittman

Forgive me, I am somewhat new to blogs.
I thought this thread was about the complaint by 37 professors form the lead. See very top.

In the complaint about Swindle by Risk Management Solutions Ltd., endorsed by a gaggle of 37 professors

I need some direction. The original complaint is almost without merit as per Section 5. I just wonder what #206 and “leap of faith” have to do with the starting post, and several of the other posts. I thought we were discussing Swindle and the complaint (top thread has link for this complaint). Perhaps all have concluded, as I have, that the complaint is without merit. Perhaps not. The complaint is a regulatory issue and many posts concern certain assumptions or certain claims, but do not address the regulatory issues. Whether the science is true, or false, is secondary to the complaint, since the complaint cited regulatory requirements. Regulatory issues must be met in a regulatory complaint. Proof? Otherwise EPA, your local enviro regulator, could not function, since by defintion they are regulators.

Advise me. I thought that the regulatory criteria and requirements for such a claim by Bob Ward was worth a discussion in and of itself, seperate from a discussion of which science was better. The complaint deals not with perfect science, but how we publically discuss or argue a position, with a differing opinion. AIT and Swindle present an excellent oppurtunity in how we as humans relate to science and regulations. For proof, it is considered fact that Hammurabi’s code about stoning someone who constructed a building that failed in less than ten years, was the first engineering and regulatory requirement. Apologies to the Chinese who apparently had rules for crop planting as much as 7,000 years ago.

Nicholas

jae, I think you are like me and you have an automatic distrust of what people have to say when you discover that they are twisting the truth in order to try to prove something to you. It isn’t proof that they are wrong but when I “smell a rat” (and this field seems to be full of rats) I immediately become extremely skeptical, more so than I would normally be. Rats can include hypocrisy (e.g. criticizing Swindle but not AIT), treating uncertainties as if they are fact, hyperbole, appeals to authority, obfuscation, refusal to provide data, incorrect description of methodologies, continuing to use discredited proxies or studies, etc. Can you really blame us for emotionally rejecting a hypothesis which is promoted in these ways? The problem is, I suppose, that science is not supposed to be emotional. But, who is turning this into an emotional issue? It’s not the skeptics, I can assure you of that.

David Stockwell

#207 Thanks John. Your comments are a breath of fresh air.

John Nicklin

210:

The theory of global warming is that tropospheric temperature should rise faster than surface temperature unless I’m reading people like Lindson wrong.

From what I have read, CO2 is not an insulator, but an absorber of IR at specific wavelenghts, if all the IR emitted from the surface is absorbed by x amount of CO2, adding more will not have a measureable effect. Like someone standing in front of your tv, two people standing there will not have 2 times the effect if the first person already blocks the whole view. Given that senario, CO2 is not like insulation where more is better at trapping heat. CO2 absorbs IR at one frequency then re-radiates at another, back to the surface or into space. I think.

I will admit freely that I may be wrong and would welcome the opportunity to revise my thinking.

I will also go so far as to state that I have no idea what water vapour does as an insulator.

TrueSceptic

207, 208 Yes, any blog or forum tends to spiral off when posters try to introduce their own pet ideas. In this thread we have seen several attempts to divert attention away from Ward and TGGWS to AIT, for example.

As I see it, this thread is about Bob Ward’s complaint about TGGWS and Steve McIntyre’s criticism of that. I contend that, whilst not perfect, Ward’s accusations are largely valid and hardly shoddy, whereas TGGWS contains numerous gaffes and misrepresentations. I also contend that Steve could have worded his criticisms better.

Honestly, and you can take this as an ad hom if you like, no true sceptic should want Martin Durkin on his/her side. He’s an impediment to any rational, sceptical, enquiry.

Steve McIntyre

#215. In this case, I think that AIT is a reasonable comparandum in the sense that AIT has been given a free rids by climate scientists, who are all over Swindle. This is not to justify the errors in Swindle: it was knowable in advance that any criticism of climate scientists would be severely scrutinized and much better proofing should have been done. In particular, two embarrassing errors have been attributed to the graphic artist (the initial dilation of the x-axis on the temperature chart and the Friis-Christensen graphic). In my opinion, the allegations of fabrication are unwarranted and should be withdrawn, and while Durkin has undertaken to fix both graphics (and has fixed one of them), I think that two such errors is far too many. One is too many, but things happen.

On the other hand, some of the criticisms are not much better. I find it annoying to see critics avoid the fact that Swindle actually used Hansen data, albeit a vintage version, raising a red herring of that the data was generated elsewhere. MAybe this post needs to be re-written, now that the provenance is agreed on.

I haven’t discussed the Wunsch complaint, but this is a trifle in my opinion. From Wunsch’s point of view, he may have thought that it was going to be a different sort of show, but there’s no Ofcom complaint out of that.

I haven’t posted on the troposphere issue. HOwever, I don’t think that the complaint is, in any way, justified on this count. Swindle presented the views of qualified scientists. The CCSP report relied on by Ward resolves nothing. The summary relied upon by Ward is inconsistent with the body of the report.

People make mistakes. That’s why auditing, proper disclosure and due diligence are important. Maybe the precedent of climate scientists critiquing Swindle for errors will be applied to other things.

Jaye

It’s the NET heat flow which is always from warmer to colder.

That is what people mean when they say that heat flows from warm to cold.

Jaye

RE #215

Yes AIT has been drug into the proceedings. No I don’t believe most here believe that the reluctance of the climate science community to apply the same level of scrutiny to AIT as they seem to be doing with Swindle absolves Swindle from the responsibility of being accurate. However, it is relevant to understand and expose the motives of some of these pundits. The apparent fact that AIT isn’t receiving the same level of scrutiny from those dissecting Swindle is, imo, proof of their motives. Namely they are primarily concerned with certain policy goals that uncontested works such as AIT affords them, not advancement of a certain branch of science.

mzed

#204: I am talking about the changes in the average mean temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere over the last century or so. (And to a lesser extent the oceans, though it doesn’t feel like we understand enough about ocean temperature to say with certainty what’s going on in them).

#216: “Science is practiced for many reasons and for many objectives. One of these reasons may be the provision of confirmation for deeply held social beliefs; to provide a coherent structure on which to shape a better society.; in other words to practice politics.”

Yes, of course, but the overall scientific process is still the best way to minimize the effects of those subjective motivations.

John M

#223

Yes, of course, but the overall scientific process is still the best way to minimize the effects of those subjective motivations.

As long as no one tries to shut down the debate and everyone makes their data and methods available.

Jim Edwards

#224 John Nicklin:

You’re welcome; I’m glad it worked for you.

#226 DeWitt Payne:

As Jaye [#219] stated, when you said the heat flow, of course you meant the net heat flow. I meant no nit-picking criticism of your commentary. I was merely trying to relate the common phrases one reads here to principles of statistical mechanics. You were a convenient example. That’s why I said “technically incorrect”; I’d have to be real A## to call your statement incorrect.

I’m glad you like the analogy; you figured out how to make it almost as complex as the troposphere ! Don’t forget to add something to model changes in humidity…

Dave Dardinger

re: #27

I’m sorry I missed the statistical mechanics discussion. This is one of my pet peeves. If people fail us make the “net” distinction, it’s not, IMO just a semantic problem but a physics one. Failing to recoginize the actual transfer of energy in both directions makes it possible for people to misunderstand what is happening in a particular situation and end up with the wrong model of the physical situation. Further it makes discussion of multiple body situations almost impossible to do.

Reid

Re #230 True Sceptic says: “I don’t know the status of AIT in the USA, but in the UK it is seen as a film (and now DVD) made by a politician, whereas TGGWS was broadcast as a documentary on a mainstream TV channel.”

AIT has the same status in the UK, the US and the world over. It is a documentary. If it is a political film why is it being shown in schools? I thought American political propaganda had no place in UK and European schools.

Gore won an Oscar for best documentary.

You are not a true skeptic TrueSceptic. You are a true believer, a climate inquisitor.

goshawk

While I disagree with a lot of what TrueSceptic has said on this thread, his distinction here is correct. TGGWS was produced as a television documentary for broadcast in the UK, which makes it subject to OfCom regulations. AIT was produced in the US for theatrical release, and therefore is not (at least until broadcast in the UK, when I guess it might).

TrueSceptic, as to the problems with AIT, the NY Times ran an article a few weeks ago detailing how even scientists who support the general conclusions of the film admit that it is exaggerated and erroneous. Here’s a link:

JoeS

Gore won an Oscar for best documentary

Really? I don’t think Al went home with an Oscar that night unless Davis Guggenheim gave it up to him. Al faked winning by running up onto the stage with Guggenheim.

bernie

TrueSceptic (#234)
Fair enough. So when AIT is broadcast we can expect similar complaints from those complaining about TGGWS? Can Gore et al side-step the issue by labelling it a docudrama?
Do you know of recent science oriented documentaries that have been subject to these regulations – if so, which ones and with what consequences?

bernie

TrueSceptic:
Many thanks for the reference. When TGGWS was broadcast was there a debate or an oportunity for rebuttals?

John F. Pittman

#230

I do not see such a distinction in the regulations Ward used for the complaint. However, as I have posted, both Swindle and AIT explicitly meet requirements in that one can express opinions in a documentary. After veiwing the whole TGGWS, except for some errors that should have been avoided, I really don’t understands Ward’s complaint. But I wonder if errors have to be corrected in such a literal manner. It does not seem reasonable.

This was a clear misrepresentation of a diagram published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its First Assessment Report in 1990. The schematic diagram published by the IPCC showed global temperature variations from 900 AD to 1975 (ie it omitted the record of global average temperature after 1975). This graph has been superseded by numerous studies in the last 17 years, and the IPCC published updated records of global average temperature in its Second Assessment Report in 1995, its Third Assessment Report in 2001, and its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.

Not using superceding studies does not represent a clear misrepresentation. There are studies that show similar temperature. In fact, one would hope that the IPCC 1990 graph was based on some science. One can have differing opinions and clearly not vioate Section 5.7.

The programme broadcast on 8 March on Channel Four presented a graph, attributed to “NASA”, purporting to show “World Temperature ‘€” 120 Years” between about 1878 and 2002

Mislabeling a graph unless harm can be shown is simply an error. The attribution was corrected as Ward admitted, an error on the X-axis does not change the point that the programme was making. The making of that point complies.

It has been well-established in the scientific literature that the period of cooling that was most evident over North America and Europe between about 1940 and 1976 was largely due to increased concentrations of aerosols (particularly sulphates) released into the atmosphere by industrial processes, such as the combustion of coal

Section 5.7 does not require every detail be examined. The graph and its discussion still comply.

Hence, the programme wrongly suggested that the models and recorded data are inconsistent for global average temperature, and failed to explain the likely cause of discrepancies relating to the tropics.

Well, I watched it. It was obvious that those interveiwed expressed their opinions and beliefs which according to the 2002 explantions is allowed. Not everybody necessarily agrees on any subject, nor are they required to; it is allowed by OfCom code.

Clearly the programme misrepresented the scientific evidence about the volumes of carbon dioxide that are released into the atmosphere by different sources.

This may be the only good point in the complaint. I wonder how the code handles errors. Section 5.2 indicates significant mistakes in news acknowledged and corrected on air quickly. I think the DVD should be edited. After all rather than talk of volcanoes, the Swindle could use the estimates of ocean carbon as much or more than all fossil fuel reserves.

Ice cores show that during earlier periods in the Earth’s history, rises in carbon dioxide followed increases in temperature, and therefore the current rise in greenhouse gas concentrations has not caused the recent increase in global average temperature.

This is the opinion based on his and others veiw of the evidence. All of Bob’s comments about this is his and others opinions. The code does allow opinions. By the way, the complaint did not include that there has been a general reduction in the time dependency for climate changes that started about 1949. Since that time, geologists, not just AGW proponents, have been arguing the potential of a rapidly changing climate, by 1960 a 5 to 10C change in under a thousand years was proposed. By 1981, it was being proposed that a 5C increase in as little as 50 years. By 1992 it was being proposed that temperature swings of about 5C in 3 to 5 years occurred in Greenland.

Furthermore, the programme failed to point out that the rise in temperature and carbon dioxide levels during Termination III occurred over a period of about 5000 years, much longer than the period since the start of the recent rises in temperature and gas concentrations in the 18th century.

I think Swindle and Bob’s complaint might need to review recent findings about how fast climate can change, whether it is natural or manmade. Howerver, since this is not required by the code, it is just a quibble on my part.

“In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous ‘€” because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important ‘€” diametrically opposite to the point I was making ‘€” which is that global warming is both real and threatening.”

It is clear that Professor Wunsch considers that the programme misrepresented his views about the effect of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.

As someone who has been trained in dealing with the public and with news media, I feel sympathy for Professor Wunsch. However, the placement would have to violate Section 7, such as 7.3 or 7.6. It is not that he did not say, but how they edited their broadcast to show their own opinions. However, with the different discussions of the role that Clathrates have posed in different geologic occurances, and their opinion that it is not manmade CO2 that is causing the problems, I can hardly see that them including Prof Wunsch is somehow a violation of the code.

In Bob’s next complaint

However, the programme failed to mention any of the subsequent studies that report measurements of solar activity since 1975.

Not necessary to the code. Though truly, I wish Swindle had done a better job of attribution, but do not see this is a requirement in the code as much as just good practice. However if one were to ignore media constraints that are listed in the code, and take a very strict view on errors, Swindle should correct errors before they publish the DVD.

haha

RE: But hey, this is climate science.

What do you mean?

bernie

TrueSceptic:
My comment was simply at the brevity of the official report – again thank you for the link. My assumption is that the response to Rob’s complaint, whether prop or con, will be equally as terse.

John F. Pittman

re #244

I see that what I posted in #241 is in general, the way the code is enforced by the synopsis in Wikipedia. I do not condone Durkin’s Antics, but as noted he is not an accredited scientist but a film maker. Contrasting him and Al Gore is “apples to apples.” However, when Bob Ward and the professors have certain sceintific errors in their complaint, I think that that is noteworthy. One of the most intersting is the first claim about misrepresentation. As the start of this thread indicated, it is a valid graph in several ways. The interesting part is the text of the complaint is that it was superceded. A point for all, if the knowledge base is changing so rapidly, then isn’t giving advice to policymakers or complaining about shoddy work with work that has not been accepted as the only legitimate veiw, by definition, premature. In explanation, the aerosol argument was brought up. However, there is not agreement in the literature about the claimed decreases. I have posted in the other thread that there is the study Ward referenced, there are other studies that indicate that emissions were flat or actually increasing that disagree with the referenced work, or has not been proven with real emissions data. Thus, the referenced work MAY one day be considered correct, at present, it would indicate that Ward’s complaint may not be at the level of expertise that one would wish for, or by implication he held Durkin to.

Truescepic

239 No, but C4 have promised that there will be a follow-up programme of some sort. I haven’t seen a date for that yet.

Nicholas

It was decided (I’m not sure whether by Channel 4 or by OfCom) that as TTGWS was a polemic (Durkin admits this, it isn’t meant to offer a balanced view), that a pro-AGW documentary should be shown the previous evening. I happened to catch a bit of Monbiot droning on about how we are all doomed (DOOMED!!!!).

Does this mean that every time AIT is shown, TGGWS will be shown too? If so, wonderful! I think the general concept is idiotic – but you can’t say this outcome, if it is applied fairly, won’t lead to greater debate. And how can it not be applied fairly, when its whole point is forcing there to be balance? To do otherwise would be extremely hypocritical.

Craig Loehle

The complaint by Ward and the 37 shows a surprising concept of what is required in public discourse. The code to which he refers under his complaint seems to me to relate to slandal and libel. to apply such a code to a discussion of scientific issues is very curious. Every national Geographic special must (because of the TV medium) simplify issues and the science, including leaving out complexities and showing simplified graphics. Constantly, people make statements on TV about the number of homeless, the trend in crime rates, or the % without insurance that are simply fabricated. Since these distortions do not slander someone, they are not actionable (though unfortunate). Is Ward suggesting that all such factually incorrect “speech” be subject to legal action?

jae

242:

The US used to have a policy that required news agencies to air alternative views to their opinion pieces. It isn’t just moronic, it’s a violation of the 1st amendment. House dems are (were?) trying to resurrect such policies because they don’t want to have their views drowned out in the media (hardly a fear, IMO).

This is an effort to silence, or at least buffer, the conservative radio and TV talk shows. It really bothers the libs that they cannot keep a pro-liberal program going; whereas there are dozens of successful conservative programs.

Joe Ellebracht

I guess An Inconvenient Truth is a little off topic here, but I just want to report that the sea has not yet risen to engulf Southwest Florida, where I live. In fact, the sea seeems be just about exactly where it was 5 years ago.
Also, malaria has not developed yet into a big problem, unless of course it is being hidden. No cases have been reported in the media.
Homeowners insurance with wind damage is available, even on the beach. Mr. Ward’s markeing budget needs to be increased, as some of the insurance carriers have not noticed his concerns. Free publicity is not sufficient apparently.
While most of the US population appears to have accepted AIT as gospel, the coastal county where I live is expecting a 60% increase in population over the next 20 years. There is no mention of a mandatory boat ownership requirement. Thus the agreement with Mr. Gore’s vision is not 100% yet, at least among our county officials.
The Florida electrical utility is planning a huge coal fired power plant to accomodate estimated future demand. They too seem to have ignored the message, as clearly once all of the big cities are under water demand for electricity will decline. I note that the plant is coal fired, even here in one of the sunniest parts of the country. The utility officials and the state regulators seem to have ignored the science (or magical thinking) that says solar is the way to go.
Once again science seems to be running ahead of conventional thinking at least on the local level. We Floridians will just have to wait for our country’s famed central planners to issue regulations. I have every confidence that the Corps of Engineers can build a levee system to protect us.

Mark T.

I have every confidence that the Corps of Engineers can build a levee system to protect us.

Your comment was jamming till this tidbit. As a former resident of Missouri through much of the 90s (think floods in the early 90s) and even the Florida Atlantic coast from 1995 through 2002, I can attest that I would _never_ trust the COE to build sufficient levees, particularly for the doom that the Reverend is predicting. 😉

Mark

Cash Advance

I calculated an 11-year running mean and then added 0.4 to match the anomaly-scale of the Swindle graphic (the Soon version is in red.) The Swindle version appears to match the Hansen version archived by Willie Soon up to a change in level (which is irrelevant to the issue of 1940-1965 temperature decline). As someone who’s looked at a lot of data and data versions, my own opinion is that the Soon version is a version of the Hansen data.