2010 Global Temps

[BethesdaWX]

I will try to look through these later...I'm working on a job application that's quite urgent right now so I can't spend too much time worrying about global climate change. It's freezing here in Middlebury, that's all I need to know to prepare for tonight

It's a whole series of emails....add to that falsified temperature predictions, repeated errors in the GISS dataset from the same man who made the high predictions, extreme predictions about hurricanes/natural disasters that have turned out to be utter B.S. etc. Not exactly a pretty picture from those who are supposed to be scientists and guardians of the truth.

Oh, I'm very sorry to disturb you. Good Luck on your app!

[nzucker]

Oh, I'm very sorry to disturb you. Good Luck on your app!

I think it's more a question of my disturbing myself, unfortunately.

I really should close these damn forums and just do the application LOL.

[skierinvermont]

I will try to look through these later...I'm working on a job application that's quite urgent right now so I can't spend too much time worrying about global climate change. It's freezing here in Middlebury, that's all I need to know to prepare for tonight

It's a whole series of emails....add to that falsified temperature predictions, repeated errors in the GISS dataset from the same man who made the high predictions, extreme predictions about hurricanes/natural disasters that have turned out to be utter B.S. etc. Not exactly a pretty picture from those who are supposed to be scientists and guardians of the truth.

99.9% of the emails show climate scientists working diligently to produce the best science as best they can. There are a few poops in there. Many of the seeming poops though need to be understood in context. The error you are referring to in Hansen's GISS is obviously accidental and is insignificant anyways. Accidents happen.

[nzucker]

99.9% of the emails show climate scientists working diligently to produce the best science as best they can. There are a few poops in there. Many of the seeming poops though need to be understood in context. The error you are referring to in Hansen's GISS is obviously accidental and is insignificant anyways. Accidents happen.

Too many "accidents" and "poops" add up, my friend.

There shouldn't be any reason to be manipulating and adjusting data as is discussed in the e-mail about 1940s temperature trends. Why not just admit it was a warm period?

[BethesdaWX]

99.9% of the emails show climate scientists working diligently to produce the best science as best they can. There are a few poops in there. Many of the seeming poops though need to be understood in context. The error you are referring to in Hansen's GISS is obviously accidental and is insignificant anyways. Accidents happen.

Nah, about 75% are good emails, about 20% show poor data management, FOI flops, and about 5% are showing manipulation.

The email I posted was one of about 10+ examples of purposful manipulation, fraud, and carelessness.

Bottom line, whats going on there is unaccpetable, period.

[skierinvermont]

Too many "accidents" and "poops" add up, my friend.

There shouldn't be any reason to be manipulating and adjusting data as is discussed in the e-mail about 1940s temperature trends. Why not just admit it was a warm period?

Well first of all you really need to stop bringing up the GISS error. It didn't effect global temperatures and errors like this are expected. There are similar errors in the cold direction you just don't hear about them from right wing bloggers like Watts.

From the sound of the email there was an ongoing effort to improve the quality of the data. Reexamining places where the data doesn't fit expectations is often a method of searching for the most likely places for errors or biases. It's not the most scientifically sound way of doing things, but it can be effective. It doesn't sound like he wanted the data adjusted without justification.. he may have been just suggesting this is a place to look for errors because it seems kind of strange.

[skierinvermont]

Nah, about 75% are good emails, about 20% show poor data management, FOI flops, and about 5% are showing manipulation.

The email I posted was one of about 10+ examples of purposful manipulation, fraud, and carelessness.

Bottom line, whats going on there is unaccpetable, period.

The email you posted is not necessarily purposeful manipulation.. see above. It depends on the context. It seems more likely he was suggesting the 1940s was a place to look for errors because the 1940s warming seems strange to him.

Show me examples of manipulation. I've read most of the supposedly egregious emails.. and most of them have been taken out of context. In most cases the way in which they have been taken out of context (such as "hide the decline") has been deliberately manipulative on the part of skeptics.

Initially I thought these climategate emails were more nefarious, but as I have grown to understand the context I see that they are not. Some of them demonstrate less than perfect adherence to the scientific method... but there's nothing really surprising in any of them.

[BethesdaWX]

The email you posted is not necessarily purposeful manipulation.. see above. It depends on the context. It seems more likely he was suggesting the 1940s was a place to look for errors because the 1940s warming seems strange to him.

Show me examples of manipulation. I've read most of the supposedly egregious emails.. and most of them have been taken out of context. In most cases the way in which they have been taken out of context (such as "hide the decline") has been deliberately manipulative on the part of skeptics.

Its Poor data Management at best, most likey manipulation, borderline fraud. What is contained in that email is Poor science.

And No, Hide the Decline was not taken out of context. It describing how the "trick" (being bristlecone pines), overly weighted at the end, to give the hockeystick its curve. Mann was eventually forced to give up his data, when he then saud he "Lost" the data ( )

I'm going to go through all the emails sometime soon, there are just too many.

[skierinvermont]

Its Poor data Management at best, most likey manipulation, borderline fraud. What is contained in that email is Poor science.

And No, Hide the Decline was not taken out of context. It describing how the "trick" (being bristlecone pines), overly weighted at the end, to give the hockeystick its curve. Mann was eventually forced to give up his data, when he then saud he "Lost" the data ( )

I'm going to go through all the emails sometime soon, there are just too many.

There was very good reason to "hide the decline." The data that showed the decline was bad data (as discussed widely in the scientific literature). If I could go back and do it myself, I would also "hide the decline." It's bad data and should have been thrown out.

And by the way, initially I thought these climategate emails were more nefarious, but as I have grown to understand the context I see that they are not. I remember being outraged the first time I read "hide the decline." Nate and I even lambasted the scientists on our radio show over some of the emails. Then I learned the context and what they were actually talking about. Some of them demonstrate less than perfect adherence to the scientific method... but there's nothing really surprising in any of them.

[BethesdaWX]

There was very good reason to "hide the decline." The data that showed the decline was bad data (as discussed widely in the scientific literature). If I could go back and do it myself, I would also "hide the decline." It's bad data and should have been thrown out.

Overly weighting the bristlecone pines at the end was what did it. Also, we know the hockeystick is in error leaving out the MPW & RW, + the LIA

[BethesdaWX]

There was very good reason to "hide the decline." The data that showed the decline was bad data (as discussed widely in the scientific literature). If I could go back and do it myself, I would also "hide the decline." It's bad data and should have been thrown out.

And by the way, initially I thought these climategate emails were more nefarious, but as I have grown to understand the context I see that they are not. I remember being outraged the first time I read "hide the decline." Nate and I even lambasted the scientists on our radio show over some of the emails. Then I learned the context and what they were actually talking about. Some of them demonstrate less than perfect adherence to the scientific method... but there's nothing really surprising in any of them.

I disagree, but we probably will never know

[nzucker]

There was very good reason to "hide the decline." The data that showed the decline was bad data (as discussed widely in the scientific literature). If I could go back and do it myself, I would also "hide the decline." It's bad data and should have been thrown out.

And by the way, initially I thought these climategate emails were more nefarious, but as I have grown to understand the context I see that they are not. I remember being outraged the first time I read "hide the decline." Nate and I even lambasted the scientists on our radio show over some of the emails. Then I learned the context and what they were actually talking about. Some of them demonstrate less than perfect adherence to the scientific method... but there's nothing really surprising in any of them.

I would still lambaste them, they shouldn't be "adjusting" data just to fit their personal conclusions and biases. What's the point of having a dataset if you're just going to adjust it to match your own beliefs anyway? Why couldn't the 1940s have been unusually warm given the combination of high solar/+PDO during the era? That would only be a surprise to someone who is tied up in the concept of anthropogenic factors being the main drivers of the climate. The e-mail shows that everything is being shaped to confirm a pre-existing hypothesis; that's not an experiment that adheres to the scientific method. Why shouldn't we be shocked about this?

[BethesdaWX]

I would still lambaste them, they shouldn't be "adjusting" data just to fit their personal conclusions and biases. What's the point of having a dataset if you're just going to adjust it to match your own beliefs anyway? Why couldn't the 1940s have been unusually warm given the combination of high solar/+PDO during the era? That would only be a surprise to someone who is tied up in the concept of anthropogenic factors being the main drivers of the climate. The e-mail shows that everything is being shaped to confirm a pre-existing hypothesis; that's not an experiment that adheres to the scientific method. Why shouldn't we be shocked about this?

Agree 100%

"If it don't fit in our bias, it ain't true".

[skierinvermont]

I would still lambaste them, they shouldn't be "adjusting" data just to fit their personal conclusions and biases. What's the point of having a dataset if you're just going to adjust it to match your own beliefs anyway? Why couldn't the 1940s have been unusually warm given the combination of high solar/+PDO during the era? That would only be a surprise to someone who is tied up in the concept of anthropogenic factors being the main drivers of the climate. The e-mail shows that everything is being shaped to confirm a pre-existing hypothesis; that's not an experiment that adheres to the scientific method. Why shouldn't we be shocked about this?

It doesn't show that everything is being shaped to cofirm a pre-existing hypothesis. It may be simply suggesting.. "Hey Phil - check for any errors in the 1940s because that data seems kind of quirky to me."

Well if no errors are found... then the data wouldn't change.

It's not toeing the line of the scientific method.. but that is not really surprising. It's only if they actually do end up manipulating the data without justification that problems occur. Looking for problems is not the same thing as intentionally manipulating it to fit expectations.

[nzucker]

It doesn't show that everything is being shaped to cofirm a pre-existing hypothesis. It may be simply suggesting.. "Hey Phil - check for any errors in the 1940s because that data seems kind of quirky to me."

Well if no errors are found... then the data wouldn't change.

"So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip."

Sounds like they are trying to reduce rises in temperature purposefully to make the current warming seem more extreme. Saying the "land blip" has to be explained admits that there is a concern that global warming won't be perceived as nearly as extreme if the public realizes temperatures were nearly as warm, and had a similar spike, in the 1940s. This seems like a corrupt way of handling the data to me.

[skierinvermont]

What you both don't seem to understand is that in order to alter the 1940s data.. Phil Jones would have had to publish an article to the whole world explaining why suddenly in 2009 he decided to lower the temperature in the 1940s. In other words, he can look for errors in the 1940s but if he doesn't find any, well then the data stays the same.

[BethesdaWX]

It doesn't show that everything is being shaped to cofirm a pre-existing hypothesis. It may be simply suggesting.. "Hey Phil - check for any errors in the 1940s because that data seems kind of quirky to me."

Well if no errors are found... then the data wouldn't change.

It's not toeing the line of the scientific method.. but that is not really surprising. It's only if they actually do end up manipulating the data without justification that problems occur. Looking for problems is not the same thing as intentionally manipulating it to fit expectations.

You're unbelievable.... he's speaking to adjust the data to get a clear warming trend.....

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,

but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol

effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced

ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling

in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols

No wonder erros have been so huge in the AGW community.

[BethesdaWX]

What you both don't seem to understand is that in order to alter the 1940s data.. Phil Jones would have had to publish an article to the whole world explaining why suddenly in 2009 he decided to lower the temperature in the 1940s. In other words, he can look for errors in the 1940s but if he doesn't find any, well then the data stays the same.

It didn't stay the same. What you don't seem to understand is... climate science.

You Talk the Talk, but you can't walk the walk. You speak as if you're correct and superios, but you're not.

[skierinvermont]

"So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip."

Sounds like they are trying to reduce rises in temperature purposefully to make the current warming seem more extreme. Saying the "land blip" has to be explained admits that there is a concern that global warming won't be perceived as nearly as extreme if the public realizes temperatures were nearly as warm, and had a similar spike, in the 1940s. This seems like a corrupt way of handling the data to me.

He's simply commenting on how he thinks global temperatures fit his expectations and/or how they will be perceived by the public. He is (probably) not overtly advocating changing the data without justification.

[skierinvermont]

It didn't stay the same

The email was writtein in September 2009.. the Hadley center has reduced temperatures in the 1940s since then? More bethesda fail!

[BethesdaWX]

He's simply commenting on how he thinks global temperatures fit his expectations and/or how they will be perceived by the public. He is (probably) not overtly advocating changing the data without justification.

Wrong, its Bad Science. If this is not surprising to you, then I don't know what to tell you.

You act like your opinions are correct, and you're correct & superior..... but you're not.

[skierinvermont]

Wrong, its Bad Science. If this is not surprising to you, then I don't know what to tell you.

You act like your opinions are correct, and you're correct & superior..... but you're not.

Coming from you, this is a compliment.

[BethesdaWX]

Coming from you, this is a compliment.

Thankyou for proving my point. You're a big help.

[nzucker]

You're unbelievable.... he's speaking to adjust the data to get a clear warming trend.....

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,

but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol

effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced

ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling

in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols

No wonder erros have been so huge in the AGW community.

The whole point is: why is there an attempt to remove a blip that shows prior warming?

Why is there a considerable attempt to remove signs of prior warming such as the rise in global temperatures/SSTs during the 1940s and Medieval Warm Period?

[iceicebyebye]

RSS comes in at +.312 for Nov

Arctic +1.24

[nzucker]

RSS comes in at +.312 for Nov

Arctic +1.24

Not much chance to beat 1998 on the satellites. We needed UAH and RSS to average around .4C for November/December and considering both were under that for November and are cooler now, it'll be pretty much impossible.

[tacoman25]

Not much chance to beat 1998 on the satellites. We needed UAH and RSS to average around .4C for November/December and considering both were under that for November and are cooler now, it'll be pretty much impossible.

As many of us suspected a long time ago...GISS/NOAA will be the only source with a record warm year. All others will be significantly lower...but GISS will grab the headlines at the end of the year.

[iceicebyebye]

As many of us suspected a long time ago...GISS/NOAA will be the only source with a record warm year. All others will be significantly lower...but GISS will grab the headlines at the end of the year.

i wouldn't expect the GISS headline grab to be all that significant outside the weather and climate blogosphere. the msm attention span is very brief, and they will quickly move on to other things, unless the conus goes torch in JF.

so if other sources finish amongst the top warmest years, then you still feel that's "significantly lower"?

[tacoman25]

i wouldn't expect the GISS headline grab to be all that significant outside the weather and climate blogosphere. the msm attention span is very brief, and they will quickly move on to other things, unless the conus goes torch in JF.

so if other sources finish amongst the top warmest years, then you still feel that's "significantly lower"?

Well, depends on your definition of "signficant". Considering that GISS has increasingly diverged from the other temp sources over the past 10 years, that may or may not be signficant to you. And considering that a warming trend eventually requires more "warmest years on record", it may also be significant.

Sure, it's only the difference between #1 and #2 or #3...but in terms of trends and perception, it definitely means something.

[BethesdaWX]

Well, depends on your definition of "signficant". Considering that GISS has increasingly diverged from the other temp sources over the past 10 years, that may or may not be signficant to you. And considering that a warming trend eventually requires more "warmest years on record", it may also be significant.

Sure, it's only the difference between #1 and #2 or #3...but in terms of trends and perception, it definitely means something.

I guess the more important question is why the GISS is diverging into the warm error, not if it says warmest year.... because this is not the warmest year ever.