the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Tamino’s Rant

Posted by Jeff Id on September 13, 2009

temp trend

Alleged temperature trend

Tamino’s making this too easy. His recent angry rant on Lucy Skywalkers presentation of graphs because they aren’t scaled sufficiently to show the very slight warming of some of the stations over the last 50 years. So far Tamino has wisely refused to clearly state support the Kaufman Arctic temperature reconstruction travesty but he won’t allow criticism of it either. Instead he has resorted to bashing of peoples intellect and censorship of response by the accused link here. I’ll help out by putting some quotes up from Lucy so Tamino can see the difference, let’s see if he’s intellectually honest enough to work out the difference.

He accuses Lucy of saying warming didn’t happen in the Arctic. To the point of calling her a liar.

LUCY:First, I am NOT claiming the Arctic has not been warming. No real skeptic claims that.

Tammie: I’ll say it bluntly. We don’t believe you. I’m not the only one.

Of course Tamino refused to let Lucy make her point that the uptick was not of the same timeframe in several temp stations as in the crap proxies used for the Arctic paper preferring to argue the straw man that she claimed temp trends were not rising.

Just for now: John Daly died in 2004 which is the chief reason that records are not right up-to-date of course. But the little bit missing since then still does not explain the latest Hockey Stick’s blade which appears to start from before 1900.

Even the ice cores used didn’t show warming in this paper. It’s only a few highly corrupted proxies which shape the stick. How can Tamino claim he’s the honest one when he refuses to address the key issue in Lucy’s posts.

Lucy replied to Tamino’s criticisms HERE.

Tamino then plots a few individual temp stations from GISS making the claim that there is warming so Lucy’s point is moot. It’s a typical debate defense, mis-characterize your opponents position and shoot it down.

Of interest in her reply is a composite greenland measurement which I think says a bit by itself.

Now these stations are also in the Arctic, with the sparseness of historic data how can we conclude such large uptics for the whole area yet not in greenland.

Still the issue I have with this is not which temperature station data you use or whether the Arctic warmed, IMO it clearly did but the point is everything before temperature records started. It’s comprised of tree rings, ice cores, lake varves etc., and no thermometers, all hand chosen prior to use. Calibrations were rescaled from the temperature trends they were taken from rescaling the actual proxies many times the original authors papers all in an effort to achieve correlation. It’s bullcrap data and equally bad math, with measured temperatures pasted on the end of a random squiggle– nothing more.

Hockey Stick CPS Revisited – Part 1

Historic Hockey Stick – Pt 2 Shock and Recovery


39 Responses to “Tamino’s Rant”

  1. Andrew said

    Some long Arctic records:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222234720005&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040630003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634010980003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=645021960003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634011520003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=638225500007&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

    There are shorter records but these are some of the few long ones that far north. And they are reasonably complete to.

  2. Andrew said

    Jeff-I’m not sure if you are aware but a comment of mine on this post has been in limbo for some time now.

  3. Adam Gallon said

    He’s just a rude little oik!

  4. Mitchel44 said

    Ha ha, I’ve saw a reconstruction he did last year in response to a wacko comment on Real Climate, he used the GISSTEMP adjusted data for the reconstruction, claiming the real data would have been worse.

    I posted him the photo’s of the actual site from Surfacestations and asked him just what “adjustments” GISSTEMP did that would fix the parking lot, building, fence and trees that were contaminating the real data from the site.

    Snipped from open mind of course, as it was obviously a little too open.

    I might trust him to count his fingers and toes, but only if I could verify in person.

  5. PaulM said

    I cannot believe anyone takes this imbecile seriously:

    “This, in spite of the drawback of moving averages that they don’t cover the entire time span unless one fills in missing values before the beginning and after the end. So here’s a wavelet smooth:”

    Does he still not realize that any smoothing, even with wavelets, requires padding beyond the endpoints???

    The misrepresentation of other peoples arguments is a favorite trick of his. Sometimes he gets caught out, as in this case and the infamous Ian Jolliffe incident. (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3601)

  6. lucia said

    Here’s what Lucy wrote:

    What sudden recent warming? What Hockey Stick? I don’t see any.

    Tamino seems to have rebutted:

    What sudden recent warming? What Hockey Stick? I don’t see any.

    If I understand Tamino correctly, Lucy couldn’t possibly have meant “…the twentieth century as a whole does NOT show a sharp uptick in temperatures consistent with CO2 rise”. He doesn’t believe she meant this because he doesn’t know where Lucy draws the line between “sharp uptick” and warming.

    Ok…. I’m willing to believe Tamino’s language skills are sufficiently poor to not know the difference between “sharp uptick”, say, “slow steady but relentless increase” or “Huge feet” vs “big feet” vs. “average size feet” or “a very large man” vs “a man”? I’m willing to believe Tamino lives in an adjective context free world and so does not he believe Lucy meant to convey any information at all when she included the a number of words that, for some reason, did not manage to penetrate into his brain cells.

    But does that mean we who know that “sudden” is an adjective and that it modified “recent warming”? Even if we don’t know precisely where she drew the line for “sudden” or “sharp”, why wouldn’t we interpret what she said as meaning recent warming existed but that she the warming didn’t meet her criteria for “sudden” and being of a dramatic “Hockey Stickish” variety?

  7. Ryan O said

    Lucia, ditto.

    Tamino is at his best (or worst, depending on your point of view) when he deliberately misconstrues others’ statements in order to set up a strawman he easily defeat. His loyal cadre of followers seem to not notice or care.

  8. Murray Duffin said

    About a year ago, I checked all of the Arctic reporting stations north of 63 degrees north that had data from at least 1930 to 2005. If memory serves, only 2 stations had higher recent max temperatures than in the 1930s. However, several showed a distinct warming trend in the coldest temperatures. Your Greenland graph has a very clear hockey stick from about 1930 to the end point (2003?). I guess Lucy failed to see it and that may have set Tamino off. :>). Murray

  9. Andrew said

    6-One could make the case that he ignored the modifier “recent” as well. Many parts of the Arctic are at most a little warmer now than about seventy years ago. Greenland as a whole is very much that way.

    BUT it is true that the Arctic as a whole is certainly warmer than it was one hundred years ago. Which makes me say “So?”

  10. timetochooseagain said

    You know, I was going to try and look at all GISS’s Arctic stations and see if I could create a full history, but it’s too hard. If anyone wants to help me I’m working on investigating this issue, let me know, because this may take a while all by myself.

  11. E.M.Smith said

    Well, I would not trust GIStemp as a temperature source in any case. The number of “issues” I’ve found in the code and in the data gathering make it, IMHO, unsuited for much beyond predicting if you ought to carry an umbrella and coat in the car in winter…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/agw-and-gistemp-issues/

  12. E.M.Smith said

    Timetochooseagain said
    September 14, 2009 at 9:46 pm: You know, I was going to try and look at all GISS’s Arctic stations and see if I could create a full history, but it’s too hard. If anyone wants to help me I’m working on investigating this issue, let me know, because this may take a while all by myself.

    I thought they used arctic ice and a derived proxy from that, to derive interpolated arctic temperatures?

    At any rate, the v2.inv file in STEP0 holds all the station descriptive data and can be used to identify the stations north of some latitude cut off.

  13. Andrew said

    12-They use observed temps for “calibration”.

    And using GISS’s station data is just a sanity check. I don’t have the resources to collect the original data nor the expertise to properly “homogenize” it.

  14. ab said

    The Arctic warming early last century had been particularly significant during the winters from 1919 to 1939, which had been subject to concern already in the 1930s as raised by C.E.P.Brooks in 1938 :
    >>>In recent years attention is being directed more and more towards a problem which may possibly prove of great significance in human affairs, the rise of temperatures in the northern hemisphere, and especially in the arctic regions.<<<

    Example of winter temperatures (January & February ) at Spitsbergen from 1914 –to 1930 here:

    And other stations: http://www.arctic-warming.com/f.php
    __or: ANNEX F (left column) at: http://www.arctic-warming.com

  15. timetochooseagain said

    14-See figure 2 C and E-It looks like summer warming was greater than winter warming:

    Click to access 09Chlylek.pdf

  16. timetochooseagain said

    15-Disregard that, the figure scaling mislead me. The winter warming was indeed greater, as they say in the text (although their figures are such that it doesn’t look that way.

  17. Layman Lurker said

    Jeff, Tamino has posted an interesting article on the GISS half year cycle which you began to explore last year: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/seasons/#more-2042

    Jeff’s post: https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/an-orbital-heating-signal-from-solar-input/

  18. Jeff Id said

    Thanks Lurk, I’ll check it out. Those posts were my favorites from Tamino, although I liked his stuff on autocorrelation as well.

  19. Boris said

    “But does that mean we who know that “sudden” is an adjective and that it modified “recent warming”? Even if we don’t know precisely where she drew the line for “sudden” or “sharp”, why wouldn’t we interpret what she said as meaning recent warming existed but that she the warming didn’t meet her criteria for “sudden” and being of a dramatic “Hockey Stickish” variety?”

    This is classic Lucia word-lawyering.

    “what sudden recent warming?” is a response to someone who said there was recent sudden warming. In any case, if she had pointed to the entirety of arctic data and then explained that she didn’t feel it was “sudden,” I could buy your explanation. But she points to cherry-picked data and doesn’t bother to argue what you claim she argues.

    Moreover if she is looking for an entire hockey stick, then why is she examining only the blade?

  20. Andrew said

    19. Have you ever played hockey with a bladeless stick? Doesn’t work!

  21. MikeN said

    I think sites like this and ClimateAudit are having an impact, and it is making certain people anxious. Just yesterday, Gregg Easterbrook, who in the past has written approvingly of restrictions like reducing horsepower and increasing mileage, wrote the following:
    Professional doomsayer Al Gore endlessly declares that the last two decades have been “the warmest on record” — he doesn’t add that the “record” of reliable temperature data begins in the late 19th century, just when prolonged solar minima were ending and Earth entered a period of recovery from cool centuries. (Meaning temperatures likely would have risen in the 20th century whether man existed or not; I believe greenhouse gases should be regulated, it’s just that it would be nice if Gore were honest about the evidence.) Lack of current sunspot activity may help explain why, though all computer models predict increasing artificial global warming, the last couple of years have been slightly cool. (Slightly cool years do not disprove global warming.)

  22. #12. I collated the station information into a tab-separated file http://www.climateaudit.org/data/giss/giss.info.dat here. The northern stations can be pulled out easily by something like: temp= giss.info$lat>60

  23. Jeff Id said

    #22, Thanks Steve, that should be fun.

  24. lucia said

    Boris–

    “what sudden recent warming?” is a response to someone who said there was recent sudden warming.

    Which would suggest that she was discussing recent sudden warming and that the discussion was about recent sudden warming. So, Tamino’s editing out “sudden” clearly changes the meaning of her words.

    If your point is you disagree with her, fine. If your argument is cherry picked data– make that argument. To the extent that she was did these things, you would have a gripe and you should make an argument.

    But clearly, Lucy meant to convey something about “sudden” warming and a “hockey stickish” type behavior. We know this because she said so. Tamino presenting a rebuttal of a different argument is a poor strategy because everyone can see he edited her argument into a strawman.

  25. Boris said

    Lucia,

    1. The difference between a “recent warming” and a “sudden recent warming” is lost on me.

    2. How did Tamino edit her words? He uses the phrase “sudden recent warming” twice in his post.

    3. Lucy doesn’t complain in comments that Tamino has created a strawman argument. Instead she backtracks into a different argument entirely.

  26. Jeff Id said

    #25, I thought that Lucy had room to explain her position further from her post.

    We don’t know what Lucy really said at OPEN MIND because tamino snips all the strong arguments. I’ve been snipped there more than you can imagine. Nice worded points that don’t quite fit with his version of reality.

    Tamino likes Mythbusters Adam: I reject your reality and substitute my own!!

    I’m surprised Lucia lasted as long as she did.

  27. lucia said

    Boris–
    I don’t know why the difference between a “sudden” and “no adjective” anything would be lost on you.

    Tamino wrote a blog post rebutting “recent warming”. When Lucy responded that she was discussing the more sudden variety Tamino explained he didn’t believe her. Evidently, like you, he doesn’t seem to grasp the notion that when people include adjectives in a phrase, the adjective are meant to actually communicate something.

    Just because Lucy did not use the term “strawman” does not mean Tamino did not create on. Lucy emphasized that she actually meant which is not that there was no warming– which she never claimed — but that the is no sharp change etc.

    I recognize that you think it’s “lawyerly” to suggest that people like Lucy might have meant what they actually said or that they used words according to their normal dictionary definitions

    I agree it would probably be unlawyerly to suggest that what they really meant was something that requires us to edit out the adjectives and phrases they actually wrote or to insist that they must be using non-dictionary definitions of word.

    But if so, I should think “lawyerly” is a better course than unlawyerly, which, evidently you prefer.

  28. timetochooseagain said

    Boris’s goal is not discussion, it’s denigration. Are you surprised? I’m not.

  29. #23. A couple of years ago, I scraped GISS data and placed organized data sets online at CA http://www.climateaudit.org/data/giss . Each dset object is a list of length 7384 (the number of stations in giss.info). Using the list of sites from giss.info$lat>60, the dset1 and dset2 versions can be almost instantaneously collated from the dset object.

  30. ab said

    Re 15 & 16 with regard to: 14
    The magnitude matters, and the location. Chylek et al Fig. 2c, indicates an increase of D/J/F temperature of app. 3° from 1920 to 1940. A corresponding check for Spitsbergen results in more than double the rate (see 14).
    FOR annual see: http://www.arctic-warming.com/annexes/G/Spitsbergen.jpg
    FOR D/J/F (1912-1923) see: http://www.arctic-warming.com/
    During the winters only the western coast of Spitsbergen is sea ice free, and the Arctic atmosphere can receive more heat than everywhere else in the region which was felt immediately after winter 1919. On the November 02, 1922, The Washington Post published the following story: “Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish, and Icebergs Melt”. The corresponding report in the Monthly Weather Review of November 1922 said that the ice conditions in the Northern North Atlantic were exceptional; in fact, so little ice has never before been noted. Few years later a Norwegian scientists published the Spitsbergen data with the remark: “Probably the greatest yet known temperature rise on earth (Birkeland, 1930).
    One can fully agree with Chylek et al that : >>Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost.<<<, but the sudden warming at the end of the 1910s that lasted for 20 years is a key factor in this respect.

  31. Boris said

    “I don’t know why the difference between a “sudden” and “no adjective” anything would be lost on you.”

    We are talking climatic trends, so recent and sudden aren’t as different as you imply. Maybe if Lucy actually made an argument instead of a snarky, dishonest post…ha, just kidding.

    “Tamino wrote a blog post rebutting “recent warming”. When Lucy responded that she was discussing the more sudden variety Tamino explained he didn’t believe her.”

    This is simply wrong. Tamino wrote about “sudden recent warming.” You keep claiming that Tamino changed Lucy’s argument, but you are wrong. Tamino always quoted her correctly, and as far as I can tell she never made any argument about “sudden” temp rises. She did say “This is about official Science’s claims that the Arctic has warmed over the twentieth century in a way never seen before…” That’s what she says it’s about–nothing about “sudden.” And again if it’s about comparisons to pre-twentieth century temperature rises, why is she only looking at twentieth century records?

    “I recognize that you think it’s “lawyerly” to suggest that people like Lucy might have meant what they actually said…”

    YOU are the one putting words into her mouth and rewriting her argument. You are also claiming Tamino did something he never did.

    “requires us to edit out the adjectives”

    Again with this. Why don’t you check Tamino’s posts. He quotes her accurately, so your whole argument is nonsense piled on top of nonsense. Lawyers do usually pay closer attention to the evidence.

  32. PaulM said

    Boris, your jokes get funnier. Recall how this nonsense started. Lucy wrote

    “What sudden recent warming? What Hockey Stick?”

    Tamino wrote

    “Anthony Watts has yet another post attempting to support the totally false claim that the arctic isn’t warming. “

  33. lucia said

    Boris–
    Oh? Is that what Tamino showed? Excuse me, but what he showed was there is a lot of variability in Arctic temperatures. Go look at the unsmoothed data from grid 0. You’ll see the current average over all stations in grid 0 is below the previous high. Moreover, you’ll also find there were very, very few stations back in the 30s. So, while we know the temperature are highly variabile, it is difficult to make an empirical case that the current observed recent temperatures are high relative to values in the early thermometer record.

    I’ve read Tamino’s posts.

  34. lucia said

    Boris–

    He quotes her accurately, so your whole argument is nonsense piled on top of nonsense. Lawyers do usually pay closer attention to the evidence.

    To this specifically: He trims the quote to leave out the second and third sentences and then proceeds to write a post that ignores the adjective “sudden”. Later, when in her reply she emphasizes the bits he trimmed out of the quite and the word “sudden”. Her later post makes it quite clear that the word “sudden” and the parts Tamino trimmed out of the quote were intended to convey her meaning.

  35. timetochooseagain said

    33-Indeed, there are like 8 stations in the Arctic that go back to about 1880 in the GISS database!

  36. Boris said

    “To this specifically: He trims the quote to leave out the second and third sentences and then proceeds to write a post that ignores the adjective “sudden”. Later, when in her reply she emphasizes the bits he trimmed out of the quite and the word “sudden”. Her later post makes it quite clear that the word “sudden” and the parts Tamino trimmed out of the quote were intended to convey her meaning.”

    She changed her argument in her reply. I have no idea why you keep defending these people. Obviously you have a grudge against Tamino, and maybe that’s somewhat valid, but your argument here is nonsensical.

  37. lucia said

    Boris– What are you talking about? Tamino criticized a claim she never made. Period.

  38. lucia said

    Look Boris–
    If you read Lucy’s first post, it’s obvious that she
    a) She knows and admits there has been recent warming and
    b) She is discussing it in context of historical warming and historical variability.

    For example, in her first post she writes

    The highly variable temperatures and amounts of sea ice in both polar regions is well-known to locals, but cherrypicked extremes have become a media weapon to scare ignorant folk with. Greenlanders today are aware of recent warming; but history, archaeology, and the Norse sagas show that Greenland was warmer than today in the Middle Ages, when crops and trees were grown there.

    The phrase “Greenlander today are aware of recent warming”, is a direct admission of recent warming. She also alludes to the recent hockey stick issue — placing her post in context of long historical trends and Kauffman’s claims, and uses the words “sudden recent warming”. So, she is clearly discussing existing known recent warming to previous warming.

    Cearly, she is not arguing “no warming”. But Tamino is specifically accusing her of making that argument.

    Anthony Watts has yet another post attempting to support the totally false claim that the arctic isn’t warming.

    His rebuttal shows that, indeed, as Lucy said in her initial post– “Greenlander today are aware of recent warming” (as would others living near the artic or checking out arctic data. But, clearly Lucy did not deny what she actually said existed!

    The notion that Lucy changed her argument is bunk. Tamino’s evidence that she changed her argument is …well nothing more than his accusation she did so. For example, he says:

    Only now do you talk about

    … the twentieth century as a whole does NOT show a sharp uptick in temperatures consistent with CO2 rise.

    But, in realiality she did discuss this notion in her original post. Note these words in the paragraph already quoted “but history, archaeology, and the Norse sagas show that Greenland was warmer than today in the Middle Ages, when crops and trees were grown there.”.

    It would be fine for Tamino, you, or anyone present a rebuttal to what Lucy actually said. Tamino could scoff at her use of anectdotal evidence; he can even call it a canard if he wishes. But, for some mystifying reason, he prefers to rebutt a claim she did not make.

    Rebutting strawmen is a very, very bad habit. You repeating Tamino’s unsupportable claims or those in his comments sections failing to examing them critically does not make his clearly false claims true.

    The reason Tamino has a reputation for rebutting strawmen is he often elects to rebutt strawmen.

  39. Sorry folk for not joining in the fun here earlier. I was so engrossed in matters arising – hopefully another piece in the pipeline – that, well, I’m sure you’ve been there, it was all I was doing, eating, sleeping, etc, and I just went into auto pilot. Thanks everyone for defending me.

    Now I see why Tamino said “I don’t believe you” – because he needed a straw man. I thought it was funny but sad too, think what real maths could do to help us, Tammie a professor and all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: