The current decade is the warmest on record

[Doc Savage Fan]

You and I have already exchanged emails about Hansen, so it's pointless to continue that here. We simply disagree.

I've bolded a portion of your post because you - like so many other "skeptics" - make an assertion that there's been "fraudulent manipulation" of data.

I have yet to see an OBJECTIVE, QUALIFIED, NEUTRAL analysis of CRU's actions that states what you're asserting. I've read extensively on the CRU incident, including spending probably twenty hours going through the hacked emails. I have yet to see any evidence of fraudulent data manipulation.

Is the raw data that CRU used available from CRU along with their processed data? No. Does that prove that CRU engaged in fraud? Of course not.

Strangely absent whenever skeptics rant about "missing raw data" is the fact that the raw data is easily accessible from sources outside CRU. For example, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php And, yes, this really is the data that CRU uses.

As I've said to other "skeptical" posters: I hold you to the same burden of proof that you demand of climatologists. Lacking such proof, I insist that you stop posting as factual what amounts to personal conclusions based on exactly 0 objective evidence.

I understand that you BELIEVE that CRU engaged in fraud, just as you BELIEVE that Hansen fraudulently manipulates data. But I've probably read most of what you have (and I'd bet much, much more), yet somehow I don't come to the same conclusions. Why do you suppose that is? Am I missing the proof? Do you really think I'm that stupid? Or could it be that the "proof" simply doesn't exist?

And what is this?
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Never said they did, other research has blown apart GCR as I have shown you before.

That's funny...preliminary results from CERN indicate otherwise.

 

[gsellis]

Never said they did, other research has blown apart GCR as I have shown you before.

Roy Spenser just released a rough run on it and R2 is insignificant on his quickie attempt to test that solar activity as measured by Geomagnetic Ap vs cloud cover. Like CO2 warming, GCR is tested in a close box such as a cloud chamber and cosmic rays passing through lead to cloud formation. Considering that the inverse of solar activity is theorized to lead to greater GCR reaching Terra and then higher cloud formation, please link the debunk ("I have shown you before" - where?). Last I have seen, they were still trying to collect data.

As for the whole theory, what is the explanation for the unpredicted divergence with the model and the last decade? The rule, really, the rule, for any model is that if it fails to predict, it is invalid. And any decision model that is then series segment adjusted is not a model. Having no predictive value means that the original supposition is incorrect and a new theory has to be created. This is one of the knowns, and Dr. Jones discussion on such shows that he also understands this. The telling part is that they then try to figure out how to fix it and the adjustment is what raises part of the huge stink. They fit the data to the model.

And lets try to drop these personal attacks. I have long experience with such retorts and have found that they are the crutch of believers and not those with valid rebuttals. If you resort to such language, you discredit any attempt at argument, valid or otherwise.

 

[Robor]

Oh, this is too easy. We believe you have an agenda and refuse to weight any thing told to you with a critical eye. And your conclusions are unsupportable.

How is that any different than dismissing all evidence because some of it was skewed? My position is I tend to agree with the majority of scientists over the minority of scientists, especially when an error would be on the side of caution.

 

[shira]

And what is this?
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75

In 1998, a paper was published:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/353/1365/65.full.pdf+html

This is the seminal paper that described the "Divergence" problem. In that paper, this diagram appears:

The thin and thick solid lines are the measured and tree-ring-proxy-derived temperatures over a period of 110 years. You'll notice that the two lines track each other very closely until about 1960, at which point they begin to diverge. By 1990, the divergence is very large, with tree-ring-derived temperatures understating actual temperatures by almost 3 degrees celsius.

The expression you cited above is part of an algorithm that adjusts the tree-ring-derived termperatures to remove the observed errors and get them to agree with the actual temperatures. In other words, this was an algorithm that would allow tree-ring proxy-data to continue to be used for climate research.

The paper states:

Long-term alteration in the response of tree growth to climate forcing must, at least to some extent, negate the underlying assumption of uniformitarianism which underlies the use of twentieth century- derived tree growth climate equations for retrodiction of earlier climates.

In other words, tree-rings - which had up until that point been assumed to be a consistently accurate method for determining temperatures in the past - do not in fact uniformly match the actual temperature record.

All of this was open and above board. But as usual, you're inserting your own assumptions and concluding that there's fraud here.

For a more detailed analysis, check this blog:

http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/very-artificial-correction-flap-looks.html

 

[gsellis]

How is that any different than dismissing all evidence because some of it was skewed? My position is I tend to agree with the majority of scientists over the minority of scientists, especially when an error would be on the side of caution.

That is like saying he is guilty because all of the other evidence even though we have video of him in another city at the time of the murder. But since other people could die, give him the chair.

Majorities are not science. No majority agreed with Dr. Barry Marshall either. Everyone knew he and Robin Matthews were wrong. The cause for their finding was 'well founded' in science too and therefore Marshall and Matthews were wrong. I know that the first time I heard about Dr. Marshall's research, it was a freaking eureka.

removed "You are not a stats major, are you." Sorry - not called for and could be taken wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Roy Spenser just released a rough run on it and R2 is insignificant on his quickie attempt to test that solar activity as measured by Geomagnetic Ap vs cloud cover. Like CO2 warming, GCR is tested in a close box such as a cloud chamber and cosmic rays passing through lead to cloud formation. Considering that the inverse of solar activity is theorized to lead to greater GCR reaching Terra and then higher cloud formation, please link the debunk ("I have shown you before" - where?). Last I have seen, they were still trying to collect data.

As for the whole theory, what is the explanation for the unpredicted divergence with the model and the last decade? The rule, really, the rule, for any model is that if it fails to predict, it is invalid. And any decision model that is then series segment adjusted is not a model. Having no predictive value means that the original supposition is incorrect and a new theory has to be created. This is one of the knowns, and Dr. Jones discussion on such shows that he also understands this. The telling part is that they then try to figure out how to fix it and the adjustment is what raises part of the huge stink. They fit the data to the model.

And lets try to drop these personal attacks. I have long experience with such retorts and have found that they are the crutch of believers and not those with valid rebuttals. If you resort to such language, you discredit any attempt at argument, valid or otherwise.

Where on earth did I personally attack you? I noted that you groundlessly and repeatedly distorted my position on global warming and called you out accordingly. I don't take well to being strawmanned, but I limited my comments to your conduct, not you personally.

Cosmic rays have been tested numerous times in recent years and it has been repeatedly found to be unable to account for a significant portion of the warming we have seen. First one to debunk GCR was Terry Sloan (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/2/024001/erl8_2_024001.html). Others have studied the issue and found there may be more subtle forcing mechanisms at work but none have come to the conclusion other than the original author of GCR theory that they have been a major contribution to the recent rise in global temperatures as far as I am aware of.

 

[gsellis]

Where on earth did I personally attack you? I noted that you groundlessly and repeatedly distorted my position on global warming and called you out accordingly. I don't take well to being strawmanned, but I limited my comments to your conduct, not you personally.

Cosmic rays have been tested numerous times in recent years and it has been repeatedly found to be unable to account for a significant portion of the warming we have seen. First one to debunk GCR was Terry Sloan (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/2/024001/erl8_2_024001.html). Others have studied the issue and found there may be more subtle forcing mechanisms at work but none have come to the conclusion other than the original author of GCR theory that they have been a major contribution to the recent rise in global temperatures as far as I am aware of.

Giles Harrison and Brian Brown later showed that Sloan was incorrect. Svensmark's GCR theory appears to be valid. BTW, Svensmark is one of the leading guys who will empathicly state that sunspots do not cause warming (which is obviously true and too simplistic to even bother to argue with those that think they do.)

edit - and you are correct, it really is shira that I needed to point the big stick at, but you have been very dismissive of folks because it is not their field. Sorry for the too broad brush.

By the way, Gavin Schmidt has a PhD in math, not climatology IIRC.

 

[Toastedlightly]

In 1998, a paper was published:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/353/1365/65.full.pdf+html

This is the seminal paper that described the "Divergence" problem. In that paper, this diagram appears:

The thin and thick solid lines are the measured and tree-ring-proxy-derived temperatures over a period of 110 years. You'll notice that the two lines track each other very closely until about 1960, at which point they begin to diverge. By 1990, the divergence is very large, with tree-ring-derived temperatures understating actual temperatures by almost 3 degrees celsius.

The expression you cited above is part of an algorithm that adjusts the tree-ring-derived termperatures to remove the observed errors and get them to agree with the actual temperatures. In other words, this was an algorithm that would allow tree-ring proxy-data to continue to be used for climate research.

The paper states:



In other words, tree-rings - which had up until that point been assumed to be a consistently accurate method for determining temperatures in the past - do not in fact uniformly match the actual temperature record.

All of this was open and above board. But as usual, you're inserting your own assumptions and concluding that there's fraud here.

For a more detailed analysis, check this blog:

http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/very-artificial-correction-flap-looks.html

I haven't looked deeply into this, but wouldn't this also negate using tree ring data when we dont' have accurate temperatures? It seems as if the cause of the divergence isn't well understood.

 

[shira]

I haven't looked deeply into this, but wouldn't this also negate using tree ring data when we dont' have accurate temperatures? It seems as if the cause of the divergence isn't well understood.

Well, the purpose of this correction was so that tree ring proxy data could continue to be used. But, obviously it has to be used with care.

What's so absurd is that the ACC-skeptics continue to insist that taking the Divergence problem into account is somehow "fraudulently manipulating" temperature data.

But the RIGHT way of looking at it is: There was an old "model" that derived temperatures from tree-ring widths. When the old model was found to be flawed, adjustments to the model were made to improve the accuracy of the derived temperatures. But the ACC-skeptics don't like that, and they are essentially saying: "You're not allowed to improve your models. You must continue to use old, bad models."

It's absurd, but that's really what's going on.

 

[werepossum]

Well, the purpose of this correction was so that tree ring proxy data could continue to be used. But, obviously it has to be used with care.

What's so absurd is that the ACC-skeptics continue to insist that taking the Divergence problem into account is somehow "fraudulently manipulating" temperature data.

But the RIGHT way of looking at it is: There was an old "model" that derived temperatures from tree-ring widths. When the old model was found to be flawed, adjustments to the model were made to improve the accuracy of the derived temperatures. But the ACC-skeptics don't like that, and they are essentially saying: "You're not allowed to improve your models. You must continue to use old, bad models."

It's absurd, but that's really what's going on.

But they didn't improve their model, they simply used the "trick" of substituting actual direct measured temperature data for the range in which the measured proxy data did not track. In essence they are saying tree ring data proves they are right and then not using those data over a third of the verifiable range to make their model produce the correct results. How in the world anyone with even a high school science background thinks this is acceptable escapes me. <insert obligatory insult as to my lack of intelligence/training/education here>

 

[Munky]

Well, the purpose of this correction was so that tree ring proxy data could continue to be used. But, obviously it has to be used with care.

What's so absurd is that the ACC-skeptics continue to insist that taking the Divergence problem into account is somehow "fraudulently manipulating" temperature data.

But the RIGHT way of looking at it is: There was an old "model" that derived temperatures from tree-ring widths. When the old model was found to be flawed, adjustments to the model were made to improve the accuracy of the derived temperatures. But the ACC-skeptics don't like that, and they are essentially saying: "You're not allowed to improve your models. You must continue to use old, bad models."

It's absurd, but that's really what's going on.

So, in other words, we modify the observed data with arbitrary values to give the results we want... real brilliant science right there.

 

[crownjules]

But the RIGHT way of looking at it is: There was an old "model" that derived temperatures from tree-ring widths. When the old model was found to be flawed, adjustments to the model were made to improve the accuracy of the derived temperatures. But the ACC-skeptics don't like that, and they are essentially saying: "You're not allowed to improve your models. You must continue to use old, bad models."

The "adjustments" are nothing more than curve fitting the data. It does not improve the model because the model itself is still not properly accounting for the divergence. It's just a random bunch of numbers that make it look nice and kosher with what we previously believed. It will take an understanding of what has caused the divergence and an accurate depiction of that within the model to truly make it an improvement.

 

[fskimospy]

Giles Harrison and Brian Brown later showed that Sloan was incorrect. Svensmark's GCR theory appears to be valid. BTW, Svensmark is one of the leading guys who will empathicly state that sunspots do not cause warming (which is obviously true and too simplistic to even bother to argue with those that think they do.)

edit - and you are correct, it really is shira that I needed to point the big stick at, but you have been very dismissive of folks because it is not their field. Sorry for the too broad brush.

By the way, Gavin Schmidt has a PhD in math, not climatology IIRC.

They really didn't show Sloan to be incorrect, they just modified Sloan's findings. In fact Harrison largely endorsed Sloan's findings saying that they had a weak effect on cloud cover and that Sloan identified pretty much the upper limit of GCR's effect (at about 2% of cloud cover). The fact remains that outside of a small time frame there are huge problems with drawing any significant correlation between GCRs and warming.

I have been dismissive of posters on here and random unaccredited bloggers because they haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about and yet attempt to pontificate on global warming like they do. Citing studies and peer reviewed work is the correct way to attempt to state an opinion on a subject where you don't have any knowledge, but instead we get people who are trying to argue the particulars of a subject that they have zero comprehension of. All it really is is people spouting off crap to justify their ideology.

In short you can be informed and have a reasoned debate or you can be uninformed and spout bullshit. I've long since grown tired of the uninformed people who do nothing on here but spout bullshit.

 

[Toastedlightly]

Well, the purpose of this correction was so that tree ring proxy data could continue to be used. But, obviously it has to be used with care.

What's so absurd is that the ACC-skeptics continue to insist that taking the Divergence problem into account is somehow "fraudulently manipulating" temperature data.

But the RIGHT way of looking at it is: There was an old "model" that derived temperatures from tree-ring widths. When the old model was found to be flawed, adjustments to the model were made to improve the accuracy of the derived temperatures. But the ACC-skeptics don't like that, and they are essentially saying: "You're not allowed to improve your models. You must continue to use old, bad models."

It's absurd, but that's really what's going on.

The problem is they are changing the tree-ring proxy data without (from what I have read) understanding WHY it changed. They are merely making it fit with what they believe by artificial manipulation of the data. You may define this as a model, but it needs a basis in reality before I will personally accept it.

Without this proper understanding, how is the tree-ring data accurate in the past (where it is extensively used before accurate temperature tracking was started) guaranteed (at least beyond a reasonable doubt) to be accurate?

In all honesty, why don't they just release whatever information must be released for the Freedom of Information act or whatever rubbish that is. Allow the people who actually wish to analyze the data actually analyze it for themselves. By creating this group of people who "know more than you" and then hide their practices, they aren't helping the acceptance of their results.

 

[gsellis]

They really didn't show Sloan to be incorrect, they just modified Sloan's findings. In fact Harrison largely endorsed Sloan's findings saying that they had a weak effect on cloud cover and that Sloan identified pretty much the upper limit of GCR's effect (at about 2% of cloud cover). The fact remains that outside of a small time frame there are huge problems with drawing any significant correlation between GCRs and warming.

A strong correlation on a 3% delta is significant though. 3% is a lot of meters that are not getting their watts.

got to finish making dinner and need to cut stones...

 

[gsellis]

Well, the purpose of this correction was so that tree ring proxy data could continue to be used. But, obviously it has to be used with care.

This is the heart of the issue. It cannot predict all of it. That means it is highly likely that it is a false correlation. It is a 1 or a 0. You don't get to just use the parts that fit your theory. That is how it works. Welcome to modelling 101.

 

[exar333]

More cooked numbers to be sure.

 

[piasabird]

So how many decades they have on record 5, 10, 15?

This is like a detergent commercial for washing your clothes. Every brand claims it has the best detergent ever. Are you really this naive? Maybe you should go buy a car from a used car salesmen? Do you believe every lie someone tells you?

How come these Bozo's cant predict the next big earthquake? All they need is a working model???

 

[bfdd]

So how many decades they have on record 5, 10, 15?

This is like a detergent commercial for washing your clothes. Every brand claims it has the best detergent ever. Are you really this naive? Maybe you should go buy a car from a used car salesmen? Do you believe every lie someone tells you?

How come these Bozo's cant predict the next big earthquake? All they need is a working model???

They can't forecast a whole weeks worth of weather what makes them think they can forecast the entire worlds climate for the next 10+ years?

 

[Toastedlightly]

The three posters above me make it hard to have a legit debate as you will respond to them and not to me. Le sigh.

 

[bfdd]

The three posters above me make it hard to have a legit debate as you will respond to them and not to me. Le sigh.

Because others have said what you said and they just say you don't understand and are a denier. My post was more in light of the dooms day predictions that are coming because of this.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The tree rings, guys? It's Global Dimming, when you cut sunlight by 25&#37; due to particulate polution across the northern industrial countries, you get smaller tree rings.

 

[nCred]

The tree rings, guys? It's Global Dimming, when you cut sunlight by 25&#37; due to particulate polution across the northern industrial countries, you get smaller tree rings.

If pollution cut sunlight by 25 % we would in an ice age right now. There is actually less dimming in the old industrial countries now than in th 70's because of air quality regulations.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

In 1998, a paper was published:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/353/1365/65.full.pdf+html

This is the seminal paper that described the "Divergence" problem. In that paper, this diagram appears:

The thin and thick solid lines are the measured and tree-ring-proxy-derived temperatures over a period of 110 years. You'll notice that the two lines track each other very closely until about 1960, at which point they begin to diverge. By 1990, the divergence is very large, with tree-ring-derived temperatures understating actual temperatures by almost 3 degrees celsius.

The expression you cited above is part of an algorithm that adjusts the tree-ring-derived termperatures to remove the observed errors and get them to agree with the actual temperatures. In other words, this was an algorithm that would allow tree-ring proxy-data to continue to be used for climate research.

The paper states:



In other words, tree-rings - which had up until that point been assumed to be a consistently accurate method for determining temperatures in the past - do not in fact uniformly match the actual temperature record.

All of this was open and above board. But as usual, you're inserting your own assumptions and concluding that there's fraud here.

For a more detailed analysis, check this blog:

http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/very-artificial-correction-flap-looks.html

On what basis do you 'know' that the data adjustments in the 'fudge factor' array reflect Briffa's post-1960 divergence problem? Or are you just making an assumption? If this is the case as you assert, then why is data prior to 1960 being 'adjusted' all the way back to 1924?

Also, why don't the adjustment factors more accurately follow Briffa's divergence curve? The divergence in 1984 was about 50&#37; of the 1994 divergence...yet 2.6 divergence adjustments (x.75) were used for all data from 1969 to 1994. Please explain. Thanks.