I am what I am. I am very conservative about some issues, and less so about others.
I think people on the left are about as prone to exaggerate as people on the right, but here’s the thing. If the facts are on your side, you don’t have to exaggerate. In this case, the facts are clearly on the side of people who think global warming is a legitimate problem we need to face.
I’m sure alarmists have done so. That’s much less common for real scientists, however. If you want a good overview of why the claims that the PDO (or AMO, or whatever) are driving the climate in the long term, see my review of Roy Spencer’s book.
It’s really hard to take somebody seriously when he calls tens of thousands of climate scientists and their body of research a “cult.” It’s also hard to take a person seriously when he blames oceanic oscillations, which do not create or retain heat, for a long-term warming trend.
SBVOR claims Tsonis’ research shows that AMO is responsible for global warming. Here’s what Tsonis’ co-author, Kyle Swanson had to say on the subject:
“What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf.”
“I’m sure alarmists have done so. That’s much less common for real scientists”?
Just so we’re clear…
Are you claiming that James (Death Trains) Hansen is not a “real scientist”?
As for your arguments against the AMO/PDO and all the other ocean oscillations, I’ll let M.I.T. Climatologist Dr. Richard Lindzen address that (emphasis mine):
“The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.”
You said that “alarmists” had “admitted” exaggerating. When did Hansen admit this?
Lindzen is a “real scientist,” but his recent work has a lot of holes. But just for kicks, let’s ask where Lindzen has tried to model how the AMO has been driving long-term climate change. He hasn’t? Well, let me know when he gives it a whack, and maybe I’ll take it seriously. In the meantime, Roy Spencer has tried to model how the PDO drives the climate, and his work is nonsense. Curve-fitting at its worst.
As for you, I don’t know who you are, but I do know that your web page says some pretty nonsensical things.
I think you have the concept of “exaggeration” a little confused.
Do I think continuing to use coal as a primary energy source will cause a lot of deaths (both directly through pollution and indirectly through warming)? Of course. Even if you discount the warming potential, we already know that air pollution kills a lot of people. So in that sense Hansen was not “exaggerating”.
Do I think his rhetoric was over the top? Yes. But that’s not the same thing as “exaggerating.” It’s more a difference of opinion about how different kinds of phrasing will motivate people to face a difficult problem.
BTW, I clicked on some links to your site, and saw that you were accusing some commenter named “Barry” of being me. He wasn’t.
I have even less confidence in your economics than I do in your science. And in any case, what does the fact that coal pollution is getting lower IN THE USA have to do with my assertion that air pollution from burning coal kills a lot of people. It’s a fact.
I understand that there is risk involved in anything we do, so just because people die in auto accidents doesn’t necessarily mean that we should get rid of autos. Therefore, I wasn’t really voicing an opinion on how much money (if any) we should spend on trying to get rid of coal power. I was merely saying that people die from coal, so it wasn’t an “exaggeration” to call them “death trains”. I could call Toyotas “deathmobiles,” and it wouldn’t be an “exaggeration”, necessarily. I do think it would be rhetorically excessive, however.
Again you don’t seem to have read (or understood) your reference.
“While progress has been made nationally, there are still areas that have local air quality problems caused by one or more pollutants. Ozone and fine particle pollution continue to present air quality concerns throughout much of the U.S., with many monitors measuring concentrations above, or close to, national air quality standards.”
That text was right next to the figure you referenced.
A recent study by three conservative economists using very conservative figures also estimated that the public health and climate impacts from coal combustion which are not reflected in its market price cost in the tens of billions of dollars per year.
1) NOAA has learned to correct for ENSO when attempting to tease out what tiny little bit of warming might have been caused by anthropogenic CO2 (emphasis mine):
“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”
Akasofu has laid down the next step in that process:
“The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and re-move them from the present global warming/cooling trend.”
But, the alarmists will fight that tooth and nail (as we see here). Why? Because it only takes a few moments to see what happens to the USA warming signal when we simply start and stop the date range at similar points in the AMO cycle:
You apparently haven’t read several papers that show climate models predict there will be periods of a decade or more with little or no warming–precisely because of natural variation such as that represented by ENSO. So the fact that you can come here and say, “Look, NOAA says that there was a 10-year period with little or no warming, so that means mainstream climate science is wrong,” tells me that you don’t have a clue what mainstream climate science claims to have shown.
Calm down and do a little reading before you start pontificating.
I looked up the NCDC document you cited, and here’s the next paragraph:
“We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural climate fluctuations other than ENSO using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000), which is typical of those used in the recent IPCC report (AR4; Solomon et al. 2007). Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) (Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
In other words, exactly what I said. I amend my recommendation. Maybe you should read the literature YOU CITE before pontificating about it.
SBVOR, ENSO isn’t the only factor that impacts short-term temperatures. There are other oceanic cycles, there’s solar activity, there’s aerosols (a big one), etc. And Akasofu’s paper had virtually zero actual analysis, so claiming he “has laid down the next step in that process” is utterly absurd. All Akasofu did, like Spencer, was a curve fitting exercise. His paper is rubbish.
Do you deliberately (in propagandist fashion) misread everything I write? Or, is your reading comprehension really that poor?
1) The point is ENSO is a NATURAL cycle which honest brokers remove from their trend analysis. That is well accepted. Soon, honest brokers will also remove AMO, PDO and a whole host of other multidecadal ocean oscillations from their trend analysis (leaving CAGW sorts with no snake oil left to sell):
If you don’t want me to “misread” you, then you have to say what you mean. As Dana pointed out, ONE natural cycle was removed. There are other things going on, including OTHER natural cycles. Until all that is “removed”, nothing much has been proven.
As for Phil Jones, he did not say there was no trend over the 15 year period. He said the trend wasn’t statistically significant. With one more year of data, it did reach statistical significance. Do you know what it means to say a trend is “statistically significant”? Because you are trying to use it in a way that doesn’t make sense.
“There are other things going on, including OTHER natural cycles. Until all that is ‘removed’, nothing much has been proven.”
A breakthrough! So, you are admitting that CAGW (or even AGW) has NOT been proven!
Great! Let’s stop all the insane policy initiatives all around the world. Since, by your own account, “nothing much has been proven”, WHY would we even CONSIDER wasting $76 TRILLION on something which has NOT been proven?
Not surprisingly, the $76 trillion claim looks like some fuzzy math too. I don’t see the claimed $1.9 trillion per year anywhere in the referenced report. More importantly, the claim assumes that climate change will have zero cost, and nothing will be gained from transitioning to clean energy technologies. Of course I already disproved this premise by referencing the economic study which conservatively put the costs of air pollution associated with coal combustion in the tens of billions of dollars annually in the USA alone (whereas the $1.9 trillion figure is global).
Looks like Barry was right to trust SBVOR less on economics than on climate science (which is probably less than not at all).
Once again, SBVOR, I encourage you to actually read the documents you cite. Here’s one paragraph:
“Using scenarios that are consistent across sectors, the Survey estimates that incremental green investment of about 3 per cent of world gross product (WGP) (about $1.9 trillion in 2010) would be required to overcome poverty, increase food production to eradicate hunger without degrading land and water resources, and avert the climate change catastrophe. Given the limited time frame for achieving the required technological transformation, the required global level of green investments would need to be reached within the next few years.”
So the $1.9 per year is not just to avert climate change catastrophe. It is also to “overcome poverty, increase food production to eradicate hunger without degrading land and water resources.” That’s a pretty tall order!
“When you can bring yourself to look at global averages, let me know. Until then, stop wasting my time.”
Typical denier cherry picking…
Deny all evidence which does not conform to the dogma and insist upon evidence which is impossible to attain.
If only the current multimillion year Ice Age had covered the ENTIRE PLANET in ice, we might have been able to comply with your fantasy. But, alas, we haven’t seen conditions THAT dire since the days of Snowball Earth:
Which evidence did I deny, SBVOR? I didn’t say a thing against your Antarctica data, or your Greenland data. I just asked for all the data. In case you were wondering, ice cores aren’t the only way to get paleotemperature estimates. Look up William Ruddiman’s nice textbook, Earth’s Climate: Past and Future. It turns out that people have tried to do global paleoclimate reconstructions! So this evidence isn’t “impossible to attain.” You just need to visit a good university library.
So basically the report in question doesn’t say anything remotely like what SBVOR says, and yet I’m the denier for not grossly misinterpreting the report the way he has (btw I did use control-F, and did see the quote in question, but since it didn’t actually say what SBVOR claimed it said, I commented that I didn’t know where the $73 trillion figure was coming from. Apparently it was coming from SBVOR’s butt, which is one place I didn’t look).
Calling me a denier is classic psychological projection. Arguing with deniers is a waste of time.
I wouldn’t say it’s a total waste of time–it’s just annoying. E.g., I hadn’t seen that NCDC document before, and while I was looking up SBVOR’s quotation to see how he had taken it completely out of context, I found out that the NCDC has some specific guidelines about what would constitute a real break from the model projections. This might be useful when some other contrarian claims that climate models aren’t “falsifiable” because their cherry-picked trend doesn’t impress anyone.
BTW, I think the “falsifiability” criterion is over-used by both scientists and pseudo-scientists, but it’s still a useful concept.
Your rhetoric continues to dazzle. So far, you’ve continually cited sources that contradict your points, dismissed whole swaths of data that you don’t like, and used arguments that don’t actually contradict the mainstream science. Now you resort to name-calling, and you can’t even come up with a better insult than “dweeb”.
I love watching hysteria mongers get their panties in a wad over something like “dweeb” when they casually toss around the term “denier” (equating those who disagree with them to Holocaust “deniers”). SUCH hypocrites!
Oh, by the way…
Dweeb is the PERFECT description for Dana1981:
I don’t typically use the word “denier,” because some people actually DO mean to compare climate change deniers with holocaust deniers. But most people simply mean to say you are “in denial” about something–could be anything.
Anyway, SBVOR, if you think “denier” is really so offensive, why have you been using the term here to describe us? Seems like you sort of lost the moral high ground on that one, if you ever had it.
Especially when it comes to science, I prefer to cite the root source (generally, a peer reviewed paper and/or the associated data, not some “journalist”). But, if I find a story credible, I will cite The New York Times (as I have done in this thread) or any other source (how about you?).
If you want some scholarly, quantitative data on media bias, see these two citations (from a study done at UCLA):
I’m starting to wonder if SBVOR is Monckton in disguise. Although Monckton would have come up with a much better insult than “dweeb.” Otherwise, their behavior (grossly misinformed gish gallops with a generous helping of ad hominems piled on) is pretty darn similar.
I didn’t look at your data in detail, but I do “admit” that as the global average temperature warms up, some places will warm up more than others, and some places might get colder. What’s more, I “admit” that the present temperature trend isn’t way out of the ordinary, yet, even for the entire globe. But the natural forcings should have been pushing the temperature down, or keeping it flat, for the last several decades, and that doesn’t bode well for us if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in exponentially increasing amounts. I also “admit” that in the past the Earth has been hotter than it is now. However, it looks like we are going to cause a few degrees of warming over a geologically very short period of time. That’s the kind of thing that causes mass extinctions.
Why do I admit all these things? Because I get my information from scientific literature, rather than from ultra-right or ultra-left wacko blogs.
BTW, there are problems with proxies, but when they all paint about the same picture, I don’t see how you can dismiss them like that. The data is what it is, and the fact is that standard climate physics can explain it pretty well, while whatever you call what you are talking about can only explain specific cherry-picked data. In case you were wondering, THIS is why, despite the lunatic ravings I keep hearing about standard climate science crumbling to dust, the scientists aren’t in the midst of any mass exodus. Scientists like theories that explain more data, not less.
Finally, quit lying about the $76 trillion. I already quoted your source, which said that figure was about much more than mitigating climate change.
So, if you object to lumping CAGW into the larger $76 TRILLION “Green” agenda, how do you feel about the $45 TRILLION (of money we DO NOT HAVE) estimated to address your phony CAGW nonsense in isolation?
No, I wasn’t talking about Milankovitch cycles or the coming ice age. I was talking about the fact that natural forcings like solar input and volcanic forcing have been flat or would be pushing toward slight cooling for the past 50 years. This is an informative article:
Perhaps your “solar input and volcanic forcing” explains why the only thing the least bit unusual about the current interglacial warming period is that it has — so far — failed to reach temperatures even remotely close to the highest temps of the previous interglacial warming period?
Great! One comment, and now I have to track 42,000 times less money.
Ok, let me tell you how money like that would be spent. At least 1/3 of it would go straight to the university for “overhead”. That’s negotiated with the federal govt. for each university. Some of it would also have been used for equipment and supplies, and some would go to pay for travel to conferences for disseminating results. The majority of it would have been spent to pay students–post-doctoral students are especially expensive, because their salaries are maybe $40k-50k per year, and you have to pay a lot for their benefits, too. Graduate students and undergraduates are much cheaper, but they add up. Finally, there would probably have been a few thousand per year to pay Mike Mann and the other faculty on the grant for working during the summer.
I’m glad you asked about that, because the sort of people who go around accusing academic scientists of falsifying research results so they can get a measly few thousand dollars a year, and incite knuckledragging troglodytes like Ken Cuccinelli to harass these scientists without any evidence of wrongdoing, are about the lowest form of life on the planet. You wouldn’t want to get mixed up with those guys.
“No, that’s explained by the fact that the Earth’s orbit and axis tilt are in about the same situation as in the interglacial about 400,000 years ago, which also didn’t have as big a temperature spike.”
“So, if you object to lumping CAGW into the larger $76 TRILLION ‘Green’ agenda, how do you feel about the $45 TRILLION (of money we DO NOT HAVE) estimated to address your phony CAGW nonsense in isolation?
A lot of people got “stimulus” grants, and $2.4 million would not be very uncommon for a large-ish research center. And where that money went would be decided in the NSF and other agencies, not directly by Obama and his lieutenants.
So no, I don’t think you know much about how the “university research game” goes. You’ve certainly never given me any reason to believe otherwise.
The 400,000 year quasi-periodicity in the orbital forcing is very well known. You can look at a graph of insolation at 65° N latitude at Wikipidia where you can see the 400,000 year cycle. Insolation at 65° N is known to correlate well with the rate of change in glacier volume.
The $45 trillion figure doesn’t sound unreasonable to me. You seem to be assuming that this would be all cost and no benefits, though. If anthropogenic climate change is a real threat (as almost all climate scientists assert) then this would be a bargain. If climate change turns out to be a big nothing, it may or may not still be worth it. The health costs alone for using fossil fuels are quite substantial.
And yet, you want to utterly WASTE $45 TRILLION dollars which WE DO NOT HAVE in the hideously vain assumption that — through the sort of crony capitalist corruption witnessed in the Solyndra atrocity — you can micromanage climate change?
You’re arguing about something different, here. If climate change due to human influence were stopped now, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But if we know about how different factors affect the climate, then it’s clear that continuing to raise the GHG concentrations in the atmosphere will cause some rapid, sustained warming. Large climate changes over geologically short periods cause things like mass extinction events.
1) “If climate change due to human influence were stopped now, it wouldn’t be a big deal.”
A) Newsflash! What EVER the cause, the ENSO adjusted warming HAS STOPPED and even the alarmists at NOAA admit it!
“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”
B) Increasingly, the FALSE assumption that there will be a strongly positive water vapor feedback (the ONLY way ANYBODY can concoct a disaster scenario), has proven to be not merely incorrect but entirely UPSIDE DOWN!
3) And yet…
You want to utterly WASTE $45 TRILLION dollars which WE DO NOT HAVE in the hideously vain assumption that — through the sort of crony capitalist corruption witnessed in the Solyndra atrocity — you can micromanage climate change?
I don’t think there’s much point in continuing this conversation. From my perspective, it seems that you simply don’t understand the physics or the statistics involved, and you don’t really want to. You just want to keep making your apples to oranges comparisons so you can come to the conclusions you want.
And since I don’t appreciate people calling me a liar on my own blog, you can go post somewhere else.
Don’t worry, you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that you have proved what a “Stalinist” I am because I won’t indefinitely put up with crackpots who don’t understand the literature they cite.
Continuing on a path towards a mass extinction event – now that’s certifiably nuts. So is constantly repeating myths like “it’s going to cost $45 trillion dollars” after they’ve been repeatedly debunked.
1) “I don’t think there’s much point in continuing this conversation.”
Thank you for conceding defeat.
2) “I don’t appreciate people calling me a liar on my own blog”
But, you find it acceptable — without ANY merit — to call me a liar?
“quit lying about the $76 trillion”
How do YOU spell HYPOCRISY?
3) “you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that you have proved what a ‘Stalinist’ I am”
Lemme see here…
Near the (current) bottom of this thread, I specifically stated that your behavior did NOT resemble the Stalinist behavior of some of your allies. So, have you lied AGAIN?
Well, if this is goodbye, I’ll say you were more reasonable and more fair than most of your allies (but, still severely misinformed AND misguided). You might yet come to understand the facts of the matter (but, I doubt it). Your problem is that you are more invested on your political goals than you are in the scientific method. But, I knew that as soon as I read your “About” page:
Amazing, isn’t it? There’s no “interpretation” involved in the accusation he was lying about the $79 trillion. It was pointed out to him that all that money wasn’t for mitigating climate change, according to HIS SOURCE, and he kept repeating it. That’s lying. To his credit, at least he changed to saying $45 trillion to mitigate climate change, which is what his source actually said. He just never admitted that his repeated references to the other figure were in error.
Thinking paleoclimate evidence is good enough to put some constraints on climate sensitivity isn’t lying. And since I didn’t say he had called me a “Stalinist,” (I just said that he COULD call me a Stalinist–like he had the guys at RC) that wasn’t lying, either.
The whole conversation with this guy was constantly shifting ground because he wouldn’t confront any of the material we supplied to address some of the issues he presented. He just kept ignoring that and dumping more and more on us.
The $45 trillion claim was essentially a lie by omission, because as I noted, summing up the global costs over 4 decades while ignoring the benefits (i.e. climate change mitigation) just to come up with a big-sounding number is exceptionally dishonest.
It’s the same way Heartland argued that a US cap and trade system would cost average families thousands of dollars per year, whereas every single cost-benefit analysis (CBO, EIA, EPA, Peterson Institute, etc.) found that the net cost would be ~$100 per average family per year (not even accounting for the benefits of mitigating climate change). Those pushing an ideological agenda pretend the money just goes into a black hole, whereas those of us doing serious analyses actually look at where the money really goes in a geniune cost-benefit analysis. And then the biased guys claim it’s everyone else who’s biased.
You sort are STILL playing games with trying do deny the significance of “statistically significant”? REALLY? That’s just desperate (and pathetic). If it isn’t “statistically significant”, it cannot reasonably be said to exist.
2) Show me the ENSO adjusted analysis demonstrating your allegation that: “With one more year of data, it did reach [16 years of] statistical significance.”
I’ll assume you’ve never taken a statistics course and break it down for you.
1. If we say a trend is “statistically significant,” it usually means that the 95% confidence interval (“error bars”) for the calculated slope does not include zero. Thus, we can say that we are 95% sure that the true trend lies within that interval, and we are 95% or more sure that it isn’t zero.
2. When you have noisy time-series data, the 95% confidence interval can be pretty wide if you only look at a short period. The cure is to get some more data. Longer time periods will have tighter error bars on the calculated trend.
3. The “95%” criterion is standard, but arbitrarily chosen. The trend Jones was calculating was significant at the 90% level, but not the 95% level. Therefore, your assertion that “if it’s not ‘statistically significant’, it cannot reasonably be said to exist” is nonsense. In fact, Jones could easily have said that he was more than 90% confident the trend was real (i.e., non-zero).
Honestly, this is not some rhetorical game I’m playing. It’s just basic statistics.
Now you shift the goalposts and ask for ENSO-adjusted trends to prove an assertion I made about the HadCRUT data. Huh? Jones wasn’t talking about an “ENSO-adjusted” trend. He was just talking about the raw trend. (I know, because I reproduced his trend calculations.) Can there be any more conclusive demonstration of the fact that you are trying to compare apples and oranges?
Would you care to actually point out where you (wrongly) think tamino’s analysis is wrong, or are you just going to engage in ad hominem attacks to continue denying reality? As I said, I confirmed that tamino’s analysis is 100% correct, so I would love to hear why you think basic statistics is “propaganda” and “laughable.”
Tamino tortured the extremes of the data every which way until he (most laughably of all) created a neoHockeyStick even MORE laughable than the original Hockey Stick (which even Muller himself demolished).
Just as a little weather related icing on the cake…
Watching you two clowns trying to sell this snake oil in the middle of a nearly unprecedented October northeastern snow storm is even more (darkly) amusing.
Yes, yes, I know…
Global Warming caused the October snow. Or, was Global Weirding to blame? It’s dizzying just trying to keep up with all your snake oil rebranding efforts.
First of all, Curry didn’t produce anything except for a bunch of rather insulting quotes towards her colleagues. The graph in question was probably created by David Whitehouse at GWPF, or possibly David Rose at The Daily Mail (though I rather doubt Rose is capable of producing a graph).
Secondly, thanks for explaining why you wrongly think tamino’s analysis is wrong. In short, you disapprove of removing data points with more than 10 times the uncertainty as all other surrounding data points. Though what “hockey stick” you’re blabbering about I have no idea, unless you’re talking about the graph of BEST’s uncertainty. Regardless, it’s really appalling how little you understand about the subjects you rant about.
“Tamino tortured the extremes of the data every which way until he (most laughably of all) created a neoHockeyStick even MORE laughable than the original Hockey Stick “. If you think error bars and calculating uncertainty are “torturing” the data, then I have to agree you either don’t know what you’re talking about or are just playing games…
By: Utahn on October 30, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Judith Curry said:
”In David Rose’s article, the direct quotes attributed to me are correct.”
“There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped… To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate”
“This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting… Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2”
“Of course this isn’t the end of skepticism… To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, ‘Oh my God’.”
According to David Rose:
“[Even Muller] admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years”
As for the credibility of the games Tamino plays with the numbers, David Rose offered the following:
“Prof Ross McKittrick, a climate statistics expert from Guelph University in Ontario, added: ‘You don’t look for statistically significant evidence of a standstill. You look for statistically significant evidence of change.’”
Judith Curry is Muller’s co-author on all four BEST papers. She also chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology.
If you find Tamino’s analysis more credible than hers AND Muller’s — well, that says a lot about your credibility (or lack thereof).
Now you’re just appealing to authority. I don’t really care what Curry or Muller say, frankly. The nice thing about BEST is that it’s very transparent, and anyone can look at the data for themselves. April and May 2010 were based on 47 stations in Antarctica. March 2010, for comparison, was based on over 14,000 stations worldwide. Thus the analysis in the article you cite is wrong, period (and thus so are your post and your comments here).
I will agree that the surface warming trend has likely slowed over the past ~decade, because so many short-term effects have been in the cooling direction, as I discussed in a new post:
However, your claim of no warming over the past decade is indisputably 100% factually wrong according to the very data you cite. You would do well to admit this fact instead of denying it an engaging in personal attacks on those who try to get you to face up to reality, followed up with an appeal to authority rather than simply looking at the data for yourself.
Now, you can piss and moan all day long and offer unsubstantiated allegations about data which you find to be “inconvenient”.
Or, you can try to make hay over a linear OLS trend of an immeasurable 0.03C/decade.
But, both Muller AND Curry agree that there has been no warming over the last decade.
And, in this case, I find Muller and Curry more credible than Dana and Tamino. If you want to falsely characterize that as an “appeal to authority”, knock yourself out. But, my assessment is based upon FAR more than any mere “appeal to authority”.
Will you take me up on my offer? Will you at least admit there is evident warming for the last 10 years? I’ll admit no evident warming for the last 9.5 years if I can quote you about the 10 years…
By: Utahn on October 31, 2011 at 8:07 am
Utahn – since SBVOR’s denial makes him incapable of listening, I’ll just explain this to you.
The BEST data technically ends in May 2010. Except as I noted earlier, for April and May 2010, they only include 47 stations, all in the Antarctic. Their own measured uncertainties for those 2 months are 2.8 to 2.9°C. The data is simply grossly incomplete and unreliable for those two months. I have no idea why they published them – they shouldn’t have.
Thus the BEST data really ends in March 2010. The trend from January 2001 to March 2010 is 0.14°C per decade. If you include the grossly incomplete data points, it drags the trend down to 0.03°C per decade, but that’s because the April 2010 data point is an erroneous outlier (apparently that was a cold month in Antarctica).
So it’s not at all true that BEST shows no warming over 9.5 years, unless you include data points which are known to be wrong. This is really basic data analysis which anyone who’s not in complete and utter denial would agree with.
Thanks Dana, I agree with Tamino’s and your analysis of the data.
What I am waiting for SBVOR to acknowledge is that even with the flawed April and May included, a full 10 years back of data show warming. I actually think he should post a retraction on his blog, since looking at 10 years does show warming (even if with the flawed 2 months included, 9.5 years does not).
Of course, as has been noted many times, 10 years is too short to be making claims about, but at least if SBVOR makes a claim I would encourage him to be exact and accurate!
So how about it SBVOR, would you like to acknowledge your error and accept that 10 years of BEST data, warts and all, shows warming?
By: Utahn on October 31, 2011 at 10:30 am
Utahn (October 31, 2011at 8:07 am),
Ultimately, I have far more confidence in UAH satellite data (for which we have data through 2011.75). Need I remind you of the 30% warming bias in the IPCC data demonstrated by peer reviewed science?
Using UAH data, the most recent decade shows a warming trend of 0.04C/decade (0.4C/century):
Nice job avoiding the question and trying to shift the goalposts. So I’ll ask again, will you admit you were wrong about the BEST trend for the decade prior to end of data? I’ll give you 9.5 no trend, because I’m generous, but will you not admit your error?
By: Utahn on October 31, 2011 at 12:40 pm
I have started spamming SBVOR’s comments. At the moment, I don’t feel like entertaining crackpot conspiracy theorists who don’t understand statistical arguments.
This is so stupid, SBVOR. Let’s suppose Dana’s company does get some government contracts. Dana is not a climatologist. So the more he promotes pumping money into climate science and mitigation, the less money there is to pay people to do the stuff he does.
But wait! Maybe the climatologists are PAYING Dana to cover their tracks! Maybe there IS NO DANA!!!
1) Dana will not answer the question. Why? It’s simple enough: Got any government contracts?
2) Are you telling me that there are no politicians in California’s state capital and elsewhere just looking for any excuse they can find to grease the palms of their so-called “Green” crony capitalist pals? Does Solyndra come to mind?
Are you telling me these politicians would have NO INTEREST in purchasing any “expert” opinion which could help them sell that snake oil?
Well, I didn’t actually call you stupid. I said your conspiracy theory is stupid.
E.g., if the state government wanted to purchase an “expert opinion,” why would they pick someone who isn’t an acknowledged expert in climate science? Oh, I know, I know. The contrarians do it all the time–e.g., Monckton. But that’s because they don’t have much to choose from.
Can you confirm that this “environmental consulting firm” (where Dana is, presumably, a mere worker bee) does not offer anybody in government any “expert” opinion on climate change (or the alleged environmental implications of climate change)?
Well that was interesting…I like how SBVOR started with “I’m testing to see if you moderate all comments”. When they start like that, its a good bet they haven’t found many “moderators” as patient as you, Barry. I think it’s good to leave it all there for rational readers to decide…
“Stalinist type behavior” – that’s an interesting thing to say. I guess when you come at it from a certain ideological viewpoint, the “bore-hole” is kind of like the Gulag. Your post doesn’t get deleted (killed), it just gets removed from the rest of society, toiling on in oblivion. I never would have thought of that, but my viewpoint is obviously not yours…