TNR: Stuck On Stupid

It's not just in Baghdad they fall for false reporting. It's global, baby.

Before getting to this fresh idiocy, check out Mark Steyn's column on "warm-mongers," which also takes a shot at TNR for its fake Beauchamp reporting. I note TNR doesn't mention that part of the article.

On to the stupidity.

But how big an error was it? Well, 1998 went from being listed as 0.01 degrees warmer than 1934 to being listed as 0.02 degrees cooler. That means 1934 is back to being the "official" hottest U.S. year on record, although it's still a statistical tie.

Nothing's really changed....

The two years were, as he admitted, in a statistical tie back in 2001, and they're still in a tie today.

As I think McIntyre himself pointed out, large arguments occur over changes in temperature of only .1 degree C; indeed, the entire case for global warming is predicated on a mere .6 degree C rise over the last century. When a yearly temperature average is claimed to have "shattered records" by a mere .1 degree C, the warm-mongers trumpet this as quite significant indeed, and a threat to our very existence. So it's all a bit too much for this TNR crank to now begin claiming that teeny-tiny adjustment in a year well before the earth's atmosphere was poisoned by a doubling of the Invisible Killer CO2 is completely meaningless.

I don't remember hearing anything about this "statistical tie" business when 1998 was being trumpeted as the undisputed, unchallenged warmest year in human history. Boy, you guys suuuuuure seemed to keep a lid on the "statistical tie" thing back then, huh? It's only now -- when 1934 becomes the warmest year -- we're hearing about "statistical ties."

(He does quote Hansen himself noting it was a statistical tie, sometime. Once. Obviously the global warming cultists must have missed that, or else I'm sure they would have modified their cant to say "1998 is the warmest year on record, but you should note, in fairness, it's statistically tied with 1934 for that honor.)

And I find it odd that this nitwit is continuing to pimp the claim that seven (whatever) of the last ten years are among the warmest on record.

Really? Let me ask... I'm just guessing here... would it be the case that many of these years are in fact in "statistical ties" with years in the 20s, 30s, and 40s for that honor? Why is it that once again you seem to forget all about "statistical ties" when it suits you?

He also claims no fraud occurred. In what other branch of science are scientists permitted to hide their data and the algorithms and "adjustments" made to the actual data? Hansen hid his, refused to share it with skeptics. This is TNR's idea of peer-reviewed, relentlessly verified science? When a scientist says "Hey, can I have your non-proprietary algorithms, which, by the way, were paid for by the state and therefore belong to taxpayers," that scientist is allowed to say FOAD?

Really?

Another claim is made that global temperature records haven't changed... much. Well, "global temperature records" are something of a myth. Only two areas of the world -- the US and Europe, of course -- bothered to keep extensive, systematic temperature records for the past 100 years, and of those two, we now know that at least one now shows absolutely no upward trend line in temperature at all.

Absolutely none? Well, I'm not quite sure about that. But I don't see a major obvious trendline here:

The global temperature "records" -- constructed partly by interpolation and guesstimation -- still show a marked upward trendline, of course. But it's rather easy to get such a trendline when you're free to, ahem, adjust and guesstimate the data-set you're analyzing.

I'm sorry, TNR. But the fact that one of the two real data-sets (not interpolated, estimated, guessed at based on "temperature proxies") for global temperatures now shows the current era no different than the 1930s-1940s period, which of course ended with the great global cooling that threatened a worldwide ice age.

Perhaps the stupidest moment comes here:

Finally, some bloggers seemed to be confused and think that this error somehow debunks scientific climate projections. But the models used to predict future warming aren't constructed using surface temperature records--they're physical models, not statistical models.

A-ha! I see! The actual data may have changed, but the computer models-- quite independent of such debased things as empirical data -- live on! Well! Thanks for letting me know!

This is even stupider than it sounds, and either deliberately deceptive or exposing the utter ignorance of this poster. When he says the models are "physical," not "statistical," I take that to mean the models are based upon a certain change in the CO2 fraction of the atmosphere causing a certain change in temperature, which in turn causes a certain fraction of ice to melt, which in turn completely destroys the world.

Well, Joker, check this out: The very first assumption in those "physical models" regards how much temperature change will be forced by how much a change in the carbon dioxide fraction of the atmosphere. See if you can grasp this: If the world's best temperature records show no appreciable increase in temperature after carbon dioxide has doubled or tripled, then those "physical models" will, presumably, have to be modified accordingly. They will have to be changed to model (physically!) a world in which temperature is not quite as sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide as previously proven guessed completely out of one's ass.

Of course they won't be modified, but they should be.

Finally, there's this:

Here's a paper laying out the differences between the warm weather of the '30s--which was largely confined to the high latitudes--and the more serious warming of today (see p. 5). Among other things, the Arctic ice wasn't disappearing as rapidly in the 1930s. Which is just to say that Mark Steyn's column on the subject is, as you'd expect, total nonsense.

Is that true? Depends on how one defines "the 30s."

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."

1922. The year after 1921, which, if TNR is keeping up, is now the third warmest year on record according to the best-kept temperature records available.

Correction: I incorrectly stated the adjustment to 1934 was by .3 degrees C. The correct figure is .03 degrees C. Quite a bit less.

Thanks to brad.

The Flexible Definition of "Meaningless: From the NCDC:

Major Highlights

GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR JANUARY HIGHEST ON RECORD,
U.S. TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE FOR MONTH

Global Temperatures
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.53°F (0.85°C) warmer than the 20th century average of 53.6°F (12.0°C) for January based on preliminary data, surpassing the previous record set in 2002 at 1.28°F (0.71°C) above the average.

Note the big headline. January 2007 smashed the old record holder of January 2002 by -- let me get my calculator out -- 0.14 degrees C.

0.14 degrees is enough to warrant a scare headline, whereas .03 degrees C is completely "meaningless"? Certainly .14 is a larger number than .03. But the former grabs a big headline and the latter is utterly without any import whatsoever?

Really? What exactly is the cut-off point here? I just want to know so that in the future you guys are on record. What's meaningful? .05? .07? You tell me; let's get the threshold for significance stated right now.

It seems only upward adjustments or high readings are "meaningful." Downward adjustments or low readings are "meaningless."

Incidentally... Brad Plumer claims this paper proves that the 1930s warm period observed in the US (by temperature records, not proxies or interpolations) was restricted to "higher latitudes."

With all due respect, I've scanned through it, and I'd like Mr. Plumer to point out specifically where such a thing is proven.

I should note the paper doesn't even seem to address what he claims it to address (it discusses high-latitude warmth, but does not seem to claim the 1930s warmth was restricted only to the higher latitudes). What the paper seems to be about is sea-ice thickness in the Arctic since the 1970s.

Again, given that my PDF reader is having trouble with this article, perhaps I just missed this key proffer of evidence. In which case I invite Mr. Plumer to tell me where the article actually establishes what he implies it establishes.

Found It: As I figured, the claim seems largely based on modelsand interpolated estimates of unrecorded temperatures, not actual temperature readings. If Plumer can point out the data set that actually establishes lower-than-60-degree-N global temperatures, I'd be appreciative.

I hardly need to remind everyone that this is what is always claimed by the global warming cultists. When there is strong evidence from those parts of the world keeping good records that in fact the world was warmer in the past, they always claim -- always -- that the parts of the world which were conveniently not keeping very good records were colder, thus offsetting the warmth of the north.

They did the same thing with the Medieval Warm Period, of course, claiming for a long time (a claim I know think they've abandoned) that the very well documented Medieval Warm Period was restricted only to Europe and upper latitudes. (I should note the Medieval Warm Period is not established by temperature readings, but by the historical facts that at that time England was rowing wine-grapes, Greenland could support wheat farming, and European wheat production soared, resulting in depressed prices for wheat and other food.)

They assured us that temperature proxies in the southern hemisphere demonstrated that the warmth was occurring only in Europe, and that the rest of the world was experiencing lower than average temperatures. They've now, it seems, walked back from this previously-"proven" claim, now saying that the earth is warmer than it has been in 400 years, rather than in all of human history. Because what was "proven" before -- while the upper latitudes baked, the rest of the world was freezing! -- is now not quite so proven at all.

How the hell did it manage to be "proven" for ten years, I wonder.

This just seems awfully convenient. The best data-set available (US temperature records) shows no real upward trend in temperature -- at least it shows nothing more than a similar cycle to that which occurred in the thirties and forties -- but they insist that their models and proxies and interpolations and, um, estimated data-sets (which are also known as "not actually data sets at all") demonstrate that such warmth occurred only where it can be conclusively proven to have happened. Where the evidence is decidedly shakier, proxies and the like "prove" it was cold.

Comments

1 Fix your quote box

Posted by: Kaitain at August 14, 2007 12:31 PM (4ep6C)

2

Something funny is going on here.

Posted by: Bosk at August 14, 2007 12:32 PM (+aNmG)

3 Stuck on strikethrough.

Posted by: Don Carne at August 14, 2007 12:36 PM (wSNS7)

4 Obviously.[/s]

Posted by: abw at August 14, 2007 12:37 PM (u9ka3)

5 Ack, so much wrong with the strikethroughs right now...

Posted by: Greg at August 14, 2007 12:37 PM (e/4l3)

6 having trouble reading this post, and i'll try to respond when the formatting's fixed, but i think you mean a teeny-tiny adjustment of 0.03 degrees C, not 0.3 degrees.

Posted by: brad plumer at August 14, 2007 12:39 PM (2LyD9)

7 TNR and the GW cultists seem to operate under the presumption that if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, it doesn't make a sound.

People weren't studying the climate and its effects on things like glaciers & what-not with nearly the magnifying glass as they do today. Plenty of reasons for that, not the least of which the means to study such just weren't available.

Posted by: krakatoa at August 14, 2007 12:45 PM (n+ZaI)

8 it's interesting that Hansen himself--the man who apparently needs to be "frog-marched out of his office"--doesn't seem to have ever claimed that 1998 was unequivocally the hottest U.S. year ever.

I don't know about the US, but he certainly proclaimed repeatedly that it was the hottest year globally.

Posted by: geoff at August 14, 2007 12:50 PM (gWc+R)

9

doesn't seem to have ever claimed that 1998 was unequivocally the hottest U.S. year ever.

Uh, so?

Does that mean Al Gore has not? Does that mean the US EPA has not?

Pathetic and typical of leftists.

Posted by: Jay at August 14, 2007 12:55 PM (VZ0Yh)

10

I recall reading that during the 70's (when they really started thinking about 'global' issues) science-boys were alarmed to find that from year - to - year temperatures fluctuated wildly. A bit later they managed to start measuring ocean temps too (all previous data was, obviously, land-based temps) and lo! temperatures in the 2/3 of the planet covered by water were compatatively stable.

What does that prove? Well nothing. BUT it shows how a "model" can greatly vary from the "reality" when you don't include important factors.

Where did I recently read (or hear) that "temperatures on Mars have nothing to do with Global Warming" lmao! If the data don't fit, just ignore it! Obviously a rise in the Sun's activity would lead directly to rises in all the planets' temperatures, eh?

Posted by: 5Cats at August 14, 2007 12:56 PM (Knaf0)

11

OOPS, forgot the link.

Vice President Gore announced new data today showing that July 1998 was the hottest month on record, and he announced the first federal research centers dedicated solely to studying children's environmental health hazards.

      "Every month this year has set a new record for average global temperature for that month, and July was the hottest of any month in nearly 120 years," Vice President Gore said. "Scientists say we are warming the planet and, unless we act, we can expect even more extreme weather -- more heat waves, more flooding, more powerful storms, and more drought."

     The new data, from the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, shows that July 1998 set a new record for global temperature, making it the hottest month since reliable records began in 1880.  The average global temperature for July was 61.7 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.26 degrees higher than the long-term average for July, and 0.45 degrees higher than the previous record, set in July 1997.

     Today's announcement continues this year's record-breaking heat trends -- each of the first seven months have set a new global temperature record for that month, following 1997, which was the warmest year on record.  This summer is the warmest on record for Texas, Louisiana and Florida.  In Dallas, temperatures rose above 100 degrees 29 days in a row.

 

Posted by: Jay at August 14, 2007 12:58 PM (VZ0Yh)

12 These morons would still be pitching this crap if there were polar bears wandering the mall in D.C.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 14, 2007 01:00 PM (mImtA)

13 "Warm - Mongers" I like that line, eh?

Posted by: 5Cats at August 14, 2007 01:00 PM (Knaf0)

14 Time for another vacation, TNR.

Posted by: JackStraw at August 14, 2007 01:01 PM (t+mja)

15

Global Climate Change is a substitute religion for post-modern "sophisticates" who don't have time for traditional "ooga-booga" religions.  Too much hocus pocus in Christianity and Judiasm.  They prefer to kick it truly old-school style: pagan earth worship.  So trendy!

There isn't a fact in the world that will shake them from their beliefs.  They're like Fred Phelps in a Prius.  "Gaia Hates Carbon Wasters!"

Posted by: Fred at August 14, 2007 01:04 PM (ivbbD)

16

I'll note that ace bought into the Scandi-based method of reporting global temperature - for the record, the increase was a quarter of a degree Farenheit. 

I've seen this sort of thing happen before.  He's on a slippery slope. Ace started off accepting the metric system, it ends with him showing up at a beach wearing a Speedo.

Posted by: Beauchamp's Basic Human Dignity at August 14, 2007 01:14 PM (Gz4Wf)

17 Ah, this must be more of that hyper-rationality we always here leftists claiming  they 'suffer' from as opposed to us poor emotionally based conservatives.  Why let a little thing like the physical world get in the way of a perfectly useful set of theoretical models?

It's not like observation and reevaluation of a hypothesis are part of the scientific method or anything.  Who needs all that stuff when you have faith and the 'science' is settled?

Posted by: Drew at August 14, 2007 01:16 PM (hlYel)

18 On the physical model bit, I was responding to a post that claimed that climate scientists have been "feeding climate models faulty data." That was a confusion about how the models are built. The IPCC models, etc., for projections aren't "fed" surface temperature data. If there's a big mismatch, obviously that would identify a problem in the model, but as far as I know, that's not the case with the current correction.

As for ice in the past, you can check with the NSIDC, but the current Arctic ice extent appears to be well below what was happening in the 1930s and 1920s. Dredging up newspaper reports from the past may not make that entirely clear.

As for what's significant and what's not--this shouldn't be hard. As Hansen mentioned in 2001, the uncertainty in comparing the two years was about 0.1 degrees. If the difference between the two temperatures was less than that, it's a statistical tie. So, sure, if someone was saying, "1998 was definitely a hotter year in the United States than 1934" a few weeks ago, that wouldn't have been terribly accurate.

Posted by: brad plumer at August 14, 2007 01:19 PM (2LyD9)

19

Hell, if statistical ties are meaningful, I'll point out that the 2000 Presidential Election ended in a statistical tie.

Dear The Left -

More people really voted for George Bush than voted for Al Gore. 

Prove me wrong.

.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 14, 2007 01:22 PM (Gz4Wf)

20 Is it me or does Mark Steyn look an awful lot like Ben Afleck in that OCRegister pic?

Posted by: EC at August 14, 2007 01:23 PM (mAhn3)

21 EC, please do not insult Mark Steyn.

Posted by: Tushar D at August 14, 2007 01:34 PM (IlgNp)

22 Ace, re: wanting to see the differences between the 1930s and 1990s, a while back NASA's Gavin Schmidt made two graphs, using GISS data, showing the global temperature anomalies:

http://www.realclimate.org/GISS_1930-1940_anom.gif

http://www.realclimate.org/GISS_1990-2000_anom.gif

Posted by: brad plumer at August 14, 2007 01:37 PM (2LyD9)

23 (global temperature anomalies wrt 1951-1980)

Posted by: brad plumer at August 14, 2007 01:38 PM (2LyD9)

24

Brad,

The two anomaly graphs show a bigger anomaly for the 1990-2000 time period compared to the 1930-40 period. I see most anomalies in the Indian Ocean/South-East Asia/Australia area. Are good records available for this region for the 1930-40 period?

Posted by: Tushar D at August 14, 2007 01:42 PM (IlgNp)

25 >>>The IPCC models, etc., for projections aren't "fed" surface temperature data. If there's a big mismatch, obviously that would identify a problem in the model, but as far as I know, that's not the case with the current correction.

Upon what, praytell, are the IPCC's estimates of temperature sensitivity to changes in CO2 levels based, I wonder?

Other models?

Not being entirely snarky-- I'd really like to know.  If the IPCC doesn't base its CO2/temperature correlation on real world measures, I think that's pretty big news right there.

Posted by: ace at August 14, 2007 01:45 PM (1UCRY)

26

Tushar,

I can't help it.  I saw that pic and Ben's name immediately came to mind.  Maybe I should've said how much Ben Afleck looks a lot like Mark Steyn. 

Posted by: EC at August 14, 2007 01:48 PM (mAhn3)

27 I won't be surprised if the IPCC models use 'CO2 causes global warming' as an assumption, rather than an inference.

Posted by: Tushar D at August 14, 2007 01:53 PM (IlgNp)

28

Are good records available for this region for the 1930-40 period?

If by "good records," Tushar, you mean surface temp readings casually taken with a barnyard thermometer by a machinist's mate during smoke-break time from the deck of a merchant marine vessel , then yeah - sure.

 

Posted by: Rocketeer at August 14, 2007 01:53 PM (GFaLW)

29 Hey Rocketeer, do you live in the North East? People were discussing the 15 Sept Acepalooza, and someone was asking about you.

Posted by: Tushar D at August 14, 2007 01:58 PM (IlgNp)

30 ace -- We might be talking past each other a bit. The climate models are developed based on radiation physics and the like, adding in what's known about clouds, surfaces, oceans, etc., and what they do. The scientists do match the models to observations (and not just the surface temperature records) so that the physics can be improved.

So that's what I mean by a physical model. A statistical model, by contrast, might, for instance, try to find a relationship between the forcings we know about (CO2, solar, aerosols, etc.) and the station data and then try to make forecasts for the future based on predicted changes in forcings. In that case, an error like the one McIntyre found would almost certainly play havoc with the climate models. So the difference is important.

Anyway, if an actual climate scientist wants to step in and correct/tweak this, I'll gladly cede the floor, although that's my understanding.

Posted by: brad plumer at August 14, 2007 02:00 PM (2LyD9)

31 I wondered what FOAD was, so tried the right click to answers.com which gave me ... Faces Of Angels Destroyed Feed Our Adorable Dolphins Fetal Origins of Adult Disease but then I figured it out LOL a smart guy working on modeling told me small changes in input can flip the results from warming to cooling ... so maybe this is about what kind of flipper Hansen is ... does he wear his global climate change earring in his left ear or his right ear?

Posted by: bill at August 14, 2007 02:00 PM (uZhTp)

32 "(a claim I know think they've abandoned)"

i knowthink the Beauchamp cancer has metastasized

Posted by: mrobvious at August 14, 2007 02:04 PM (8Y/fG)

33 Stop the presses:  a real woody

Posted by: toby928 at August 14, 2007 02:05 PM (evdj2)

34

Toby,

I am curious what Google search led to that.

Posted by: Tushar D at August 14, 2007 02:10 PM (IlgNp)

35

Yeah, I'm in the NE...I was blissfully ignorant of everything for the last two weeks, though - much needed vacation in a remote area with no cell phone service, spotty TV reception, and absolutely no internet connection.  Can't recommend a break like that highly enough.

A 15 Sept Acepalooza?  Where do I find out more?

Posted by: Rocketeer at August 14, 2007 02:10 PM (GFaLW)

36 Tush, my brother, the rocket scientist, sent it to me.

Posted by: Toby928 at August 14, 2007 02:12 PM (evdj2)

37 Brad, how are the physical models compared to the actual data if not "statistically"? Changes in the NASA data don't change the results of the physical models, sure, but why won't they change the results of the model-to-data comparisons? And why is that change inherently less important than if they were using a statistical model?

Posted by: TomW at August 14, 2007 02:15 PM (GOFVL)

38

At least some progress is being made in debunking this latest leftist religion.  For example, Newsweek's idiotic August 13, 2007 Edition, which focused on how the Climate "Deniers" were a well-funded machine, and which includes a quiz for readers that has little to nothing to do with global warming and which has a time-line that includes several false statements (about the year formerly known as "hottest" - 1998 and this Hanson fellow) as well as trivial anecdotes about animal/bird habitat changes which don't quite rise to the level of "data", at least had a picture of the . . . wait for it . . . SUN!!!!! on its cover.  Could be the first recorded recognition in global warming religion that the frigging SUN might actually have something to do with the temperature of the Earth!  Imagine that.  THE SUN!!!

Posted by: Sharkman at August 14, 2007 02:18 PM (gzbD0)

39

Rocketeer,

Here and Here.

Posted by: Tushar D at August 14, 2007 02:21 PM (IlgNp)

40 Oh, BTW, it was Bart who remembered you.

Posted by: Tushar D at August 14, 2007 02:22 PM (IlgNp)

41 it ends with him showing up at a beach wearing a Speedo.

Photographic evidence here.

Posted by: CUS at August 14, 2007 02:33 PM (bbXZq)

42

Oh, BTW, it was Bart who remembered you.

Why is it never the pretty girls?

Or, alternatively, why is it only the ugly ones?

Posted by: Rocketeer at August 14, 2007 02:38 PM (GFaLW)

43 The scientists do match the models to observations (and not just the surface temperature records) so that the physics can be improved.

I don't think it's necessarily "improved physics" that results - more often it's "tweaking of correlations to match the data." For example, we don't have a good understanding of cloud cover and its effect on the energy balance, so we use correlations rather than a true physical model. From Wikipedia:
Parametrizations are used to include the effects of various processes. All modern AGCMs include parameterizations for: convectionland surface processes, albedo and hydrologycloud coverAdjusting the parameters of correlations to match observations is a time-honored means of coping with processes too complex or expensive to model. But many, many people have been led astray in application of a model that has been "tuned" to a particular data set to long-term projections.

Posted by: geoff at August 14, 2007 03:05 PM (re3EP)

44 Let's try that again with some formatting.

I don't think it's necessarily "improved physics" that results - more often it's "tweaking of correlations to match the data." For example, we don't have a good understanding of cloud cover and its effect on the energy balance, so we use correlations rather than a true physical model. From Wikipedia:

Parametrizations are used to include the effects of various processes. All modern AGCMs include parameterizations for:
o convection
o land surface processes, albedo and hydrology
o cloud cover

Adjusting the parameters of correlations to match observations is a time-honored means of coping with processes too complex or expensive to model. But many, many people have been led astray in application of a model that has been "tuned" to a particular data set to long-term projections.

Posted by: geoff at August 14, 2007 03:08 PM (re3EP)

45 If today's warming is even more serious than the 1930s, where are all the dust clouds and Okies and shit?

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at August 14, 2007 03:17 PM (/C3Pw)

46 pffft.

When someone can give me an accurate 5 day forecast, then I might start paying attention to people trying to forecast 20 years into the future.

Probably not though.

Posted by: JackStraw at August 14, 2007 03:17 PM (t+mja)

47

On the physical model bit, I was responding to a post that claimed that climate scientists have been "feeding climate models faulty data." That was a confusion about how the models are built. The IPCC models, etc., for projections aren't "fed" surface temperature data.

Oh

Yes

They

Most

Certainly

Are

Posted by: Jay at August 14, 2007 03:21 PM (VZ0Yh)

48

So, sure, if someone was saying, "1998 was definitely a hotter year in the United States than 1934" a few weeks ago, that wouldn't have been terribly accurate.

You mean like Al Gore?

I love how you leftist clowns have found a singular statement to hold on to pretending it is representative of your silly movement.

Posted by: Jay at August 14, 2007 03:22 PM (VZ0Yh)

49 Freeman Dyson puts in a timely two cents:

""The fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated," writes Dyson in his new book Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe, published on Wednesday. He pours scorn on "the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models".

"I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests," writes Dyson."

Posted by: geoff at August 14, 2007 03:36 PM (re3EP)

50

Freeman Dyson puts in a timely two cents:

Isn't he that Brit that's constantly trying to sell me a $500 vacuum cleaner?

Posted by: Rocketeer at August 14, 2007 04:12 PM (GFaLW)

51

From the post:

 "If the world's best temperature records show no appreciable increase in temperature after carbon dioxide has doubled or tripled, then those "physical models" will, presumably, have to be modified accordingly"

The actual increase is much less:

graphs like this one can be very decieving: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

The big concern is about the the climate reaction to future levels of CO2 plus feedbacks that may or may not be correct, See this about feedback issue:

http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875

more from Roy Spencer today on Roger A. Pielke Sr.'s blog:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/08/14/positive-feedback-have-we-been-fooling-ourselves-by-roy-spencer/

Roger A, Pielke Sr. is not a skeptic as such but is highly critical of the IPCC.

Posted by: NoviceCChound at August 14, 2007 04:14 PM (1i6JS)

52

Why is it never the pretty girls?

Well, to be fair I think he remembered you lived in the area and might be interested in going.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at August 14, 2007 04:18 PM (pzen5)

53

Money quote from the second link in my post of 4:14 PM

"To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Spencer said. "The big question that no one can answer right now is whether this enhanced cooling mechanism applies to global warming."

Posted by: NoviceCChound at August 14, 2007 04:37 PM (1i6JS)

54

Well, to be fair I think he remembered you lived in the area and might be interested in going.

I know - I was just trying to bust on him, good-natured like.  Remarkably hard to do effectively in typed text, sometimes...especially if you're me.  I've got no beef with Bart, and it was nice of him to remember I'm up here.

Posted by: Rocketeer at August 14, 2007 05:38 PM (GFaLW)

55 This graph is similar in at least one way to the graphs published about the stock market.  The y-axis scale is misleading.  The scale is based on the changes, not on the actual reading or values.  The stock market is at about 13,000 right now.  Changes of plus or minus 200 points, for example, can be made to look really significant when the y-axis is misused.  Stock market fluctuations don't look so great when the scale is from 10000 to 15000.  The actual temperature should be graphed, not the temperature changes.  But, we can't do that because that graph would cost AlGore a lot of money.

Posted by: eman at August 14, 2007 09:55 PM (F/DIG)

56 Plumer is wrong to idolize "climate scientists."  There are no climate scientists, strictly speaking.  There are atmospheric scientists, geologists, oceanographers, astrophysicists, dendroclimatologists, computer programmers who make climate models, etc etc but no one is an expert on the full spectrum of climate.

That's what makes climatology such a cluster-fuque at this time.  It's like all the blind men feeling different parts of the elephant and describing what an elephant is like.  Of course they only know the small part of the whole that they can feel.  They are ignorant of the rest, but arrogantly claim to understand the totality.

Have you checked out Freeman Dyson's latest heresies on global warming?  He makes the modelers look like little babies playing in the sand.

Posted by: Chris Plumber at August 15, 2007 05:47 AM (abKQ6)

57

Paul:

This Okie is baking in the Oklahoma August oven.  Speaking of the dust bowl, apparently this year our wheat crop got hammered due to excessive rain and flooding.  Some farmers will have to import seed for the 2008 crop.

Brad Plumer:

Thanks for your calm and reasoned comments.  It was a pleasure to read a (mostly) polite and on-point back-and-forth discussion.

 

 

Posted by: Jack Okie at August 15, 2007 10:18 AM (NpAsb)

58

In Dallas, temperatures rose above 100 degrees 29 days in a row.

Heck, in 1980, we had 105 days over 100 degrees.  This year we have had one of the coolest springs on record with no 100 degree days in July which really unusual.  Now in August we've had a few but that should end soon when the tropical storm in the gulf moves inland.

Conclusions:  Weatherwise every year is different with no real trends, and.global warming is not hot air but pure b.s.

 

 

Posted by: czekmark at August 15, 2007 06:11 PM (brULe)

59

Was is 105?  I remember that being a godawful summer, but I thought it was like 30-something.

Maybe I'm thinking of just consecutive 100+ days.

It was friggin hot, I remember that.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at August 15, 2007 06:25 PM (pzen5)

60

Dave in Texas, Wikipedia says high temperatures exceeded 100°F for 69 days between June 23 and September 6 which is almost all the days in that period but I seem to remember the heat continuing through September.  Anyway as you said it was a godawful summer.

Conversely, the winter of 1981-82 was one of the coldest and snowiest.  If I got my years right, it snowed periodically the entire month of February and I think that White Rock lake iced over..

 

 

 

Posted by: czekmark at August 15, 2007 06:56 PM (brULe)

61 "Certainly .14 is a larger number than .03. But the former grabs a big headline and the latter is utterly without any import whatsoever?"

I'm no climatologist, like Ace, but isn't one of those numbers 466% of the other?  That may help explain the difference in import.

Posted by: david at August 15, 2007 08:59 PM (DHJuY)

62

david, there is error in any scientific measurement.  That error is usually expressed as a plus and/or minus tolerance.  The significance of the measurements depends on the tolerance value.  For instance if the tolerance on the temperature measurements is 0.15 degrees than neither the 0.03 and 0.14 variances are significant. 

This little scientific fact is sometimes conveniently omitted.

 

 

Posted by: czekmark at August 15, 2007 09:15 PM (brULe)

63 "I don't remember hearing anything about this "statistical tie" business when 1998 was being trumpeted as the undisputed, unchallenged warmest year in human history."

This is because you are confusing U.S. temps with world temps. 1998 was the hottest year and still is by a wide margin.

"See if you can grasp this: If the world's best temperature records show no appreciable increase in temperature after carbon dioxide has doubled or tripled, then those "physical models" will, presumably, have to be modified accordingly."

Regional variation is a perfectly good explanation for the US has not warmed as much as the rest of the world. Saying the US has the best temp measuring network, and therefore can be used to extrapolate "true" global trends is faulty reasoning. Moreover, the reasoning is falsified by satellite data, sea level rise (which includes thermal expansion of the oceans), glacier mass balance, sea surface temperatures, arctic sea ice extent, borehole measurements, and the shifting patterns of migratory species.

Posted by: Boris at August 16, 2007 09:13 AM (diZGy)

64 vZJKMj

Posted by: TxUBRJgDbLYHdTGE at October 08, 2008 06:07 AM (NOuFg)

65 yi90XU

Posted by: vNxLBPHGAoRVTcRg at October 08, 2008 01:01 PM (NOuFg)

66 ¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹¥»¥Õ¥ì¥¢¥À¥ë¥È¥¨¥íSEXÉ÷¯¥ª¥Ê¥Ë¡¼½Ð²ñ¤¤¥¨¥í¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹¥»¥Õ¥ì¥¨¥Ã¥Á½Ð²ñ¤¤½Ð²ñ¤¤¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹ÁÇ¿Í¥¨¥Ã¥ÁµðÆý½Ï½÷½Ï½÷SEX½Ï½÷

Posted by: ²È½Ð¾¯½÷ at January 30, 2009 07:47 AM (hXNNS)

67 货架 货架 托盘 托盘 google排名

Posted by: google排名 at August 19, 2009 08:45 PM (4P9QF)

68 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

Posted by: hair straighteners at October 25, 2009 12:54 AM (MtGwJ)

69 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

Posted by: discount ugg boots at November 01, 2009 08:43 AM (wMYD4)

70 buy air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force one
UGG Boots
UGG Australia
UGG Shoes
UGG Sale
Cheap UGG
mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt saleform usa

Posted by: airforceoneshop at November 09, 2009 07:34 AM (pEyMs)

71 buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

Posted by: ugg boots at November 14, 2009 10:45 AM (s7MB5)

72 Fake Watches | Replica Cartier | Replica Cartier | Replica watches | Replica Breitling Watches | Fake Rado Watches | Swiss Watch Replica | Bvlgari Watch Replica | Breitling Watches Replica | Alain Silberstein Watch | Replica TAG Heuer Watches | Oris Watch | Audemars Piguet Fake | Philip Stein Fake Watches | Fake Corum

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 04:05 AM (xpuiO)

73 Replica Watches | Replica watches | soccer jersey wholesale | Replica Cartier | replica soccer jersey | Omega Watches Replica | Fake Panerai Watches | Bvlgari Watch Replica | Replica Christian Dior | Tag Heuer Fake | Piaget Watch | Replica Piaget Watch | Ulysse Nardin Fake Watches | Swiss Rolex Replica | Glashutte Fake

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 10:16 AM (xpuiO)

74 Replica Omega | Replica Watches | Fake Watches | Replica Omega | Replica Cartier | Cheap Breitling Watches | Cheap Montblanc Watches | Versace Fake Watch | Calvin Klein Replica Watches | A.lange Sohne Wristwatch | Vacheron Constantin Fake Watch | replica wristwatch | Replica Porsche | Cheap Concord Watches | Other Watches Replica

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 06:09 AM (C/zDM)

75 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

Posted by: mbtshoesbuy at November 25, 2009 08:10 AM (8NtpF)

76 Replica Cartier | Replica Watches | soccer jersey supplier | Fake Watches | Replica Watches | Replica watches | Fake Watches | replica soccer jersey | watches brand | replica watch | replica watches | replica watch | watches brand | replica watches | best replica watches | replica wristwatch | best replica watches | watches brand | best replica watches | replica watches | replica wristwatch | replica wristwatch | watches brand | replica wristwatch | replica wristwatch | replica wristwatch | best replica watches | watches brand | watches brand | replica wristwatch | watches brand | replica watches | best replica watches | replica wristwatch | replica wristwatch | replica watch | watches brand | replica watch

Posted by: replica watches at December 04, 2009 11:04 AM (bsW/x)

77 I will have a hard time buying ugg classic cardy at normal brick and mortar store for now on knowing that I can browse the largest selection I have ever seen and purchase confidently. Thanks for being a great company.Although your ugg boots cardy website is entered by users, the site has a lot of accurate and useful information on it.your net shop is kept to a minimum and favours websites connected to the ugg cardy boots Web Design Library in appearance and subject.
The popular blue ugg is renowned for its comfort. But some doctors worry that the popular black ugg could cause serious foot pain in the long run.So some podiatrists across the country are telling ugg classic cardy lovers to watch their steps. In fact,there is nothing wrong!
The crochet boots online retailer also knows bargain-hungry shoppers are scouring the Web for discounts, and its UGG Classic Crochet rivals are more than happy to provide them. So it is putting coupon codes on ugg classic crochet that customers can use to save money on its site.

Posted by: makol UGG at December 05, 2009 02:56 PM (cmMdO)

78 Fake Watches | Fake Watches | Replica TAG Heuer | Patek Philippe Replica | Replica Cartier | Baume & Mercier Replica | Oris Fake Watches | Replica Bedat & CO | Omega Replica Watch | Breitling Watches | Christian Dior Watch | Breguet Fake | A Lange & Sohne Watch Replica | Corum Replica Watches | Vacheron Constantin Replica Watches | Fake Ulysse Nardin | Concord Fake | Replica Panerai Watches | Franck Muller Fake | Oris Replica | Chopard Fake Watches | Replica Tissot | Parmigiani Replica | Fake Zenith | Concord Replica Watch | Replica Zenith | Fake Zenith

Posted by: replica watches at December 18, 2009 10:12 PM (1dySH)

79 Parmigiani Fake Watches | Watches Jaeger LeCoultre Fashion | Replica Oris Watches | Watches Roger Dubuis Fashion | Aigner Replica Watches | Louis Vuitton Replica Watches | Christian Dior Replica Watches | Bell & Ross Fake Watches | Replica Oris Watches | Concord Replica Watches | Watches Corum Fashion | Watches Omega Fashion | Replica Juicy Couture Watches | Franck Muller Fake Watches | Replica Patek Philippe Watches | Piaget Replica Watches | Rado Fake Watches | Jacques Lemans Fake Watches | Watches Vacheron Constantin Fashion | Replica Omega Watches

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 21, 2009 11:31 AM (1dySH)

80 Luxury Chanel handbags | Luxury Emporio Armani handbags | Luxury Breitling handbags | Chopard Replica bags | Replica Roger Dubuis Handbags | Replica Concord Handbags | Raymond Weil Fake Handbags | Blancpain Fake Handbags | Luxury Jaeger Lecoultre handbags | Replica Roger Dubuis Handbags | Ebel Replica bags | Luxury Gucci Belt handbags | Luxury Boxs handbags | Luxury Parmigiani handbags | Replica Fashion Bell & Ross handbags | Replica Fashion Movado handbags | Corum Fake Handbags | Replica Fashion Bell & Ross handbags | Replica Roger Dubuis Handbags | Replica Bulova Handbags | Replica Omega Handbags | Replica Breitling Handbags | Chopard Fake Handbags | Replica Concord Handbags | Longines Fake Handbags

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 27, 2009 10:41 PM (1dySH)

81 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.

Posted by: replica watches at February 06, 2010 08:51 AM (TUJDt)

Name: *

Email: *

URL:

Comments:

Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0384 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0073 seconds, 90 records returned.
Page size 98 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.