the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Interpretations of Propaganda

Posted by Jeff Id on May 15, 2014

A Gallup poll reported recently the percentage of people who believe in global warming and the impact on their lives.



It’s interesting that the lowest point for the dark green line occurs in early 2010, right after climategate.   People seem smart enough to recognize the basic physics of global warming, and some appear blindly susceptible to the fear mongering when it involves people hurting the environment.  Considering that we have seen no global warming since 1998, it is impressive that 11% more people are afraid of serious effects to their lives than in 1998 when the first poll was recorded.

They must think that the thermometer records are a an evil Koch brother plot or something.   I don’t know, it is impossible to make any sense out of what people think sometimes.

The good news is it only cost approximately a half trillion dollars to change those opinions.  By that estimate, we can pass 50 percent fear-for-life for only another 637 billion and a supermajority of 66% for only 1.36 trillion dollars!

Money well spent I say!






Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments »

What is it with “journalism” these days?

Posted by Jeff Id on May 11, 2014

Fabius Maximus wrote a post about the tea party which disparaged the Air Vent crowd.   Apparently we are tribal and all you guys must belong to the tea party.

Comments frequently remind me of this. I posted a comment the skeptics at Jeff Condon’s The Air Vent about the benefits of properly citing the source of graphics. Amazingly, the folks there disagreed. ““I don’t think references add much credibility.” After all, “climate scientists make plenty of errors on blogs just like the rest of us.” Worth a read of their tribal reactions.”

He literally took the sentence: “I don’t think references add much credibility to correlation sorted paleoclimatology.” to “I don’t think references add much credibility”.   And called it amazing that I disagreed with the need to cite.  It looks like Fabius will be interviewing for MSNBC this week.

This is the same individual who stopped by critiquing my copy-pasted reference to a chart I borrowed from WUWT, made several odd claims on a variety of subjects both politics and science, and several obscure claims about climate scientists — all without references.


It’s somewhat similar to the incidence of fake quotes so often found on conservative’s websites.

This is not often found in the work of climate scientists, who tend to be careful about selecting and citing sources.

Anyway, I left a rough comment for him at his obviously superior “journalism” blog, perhaps he deserves a few friends.


More interestingly, I had fun this weekend at the folks house.   This is my son driving the lawn tractor (blades off of course) for the first time.  We were returning from dumping about our 10th load of leaves.  He was pretty serious about it!





Posted in Uncategorized | 18 Comments »

Hot News for Temperatures

Posted by Jeff Id on May 7, 2014

Anthony Watts made a rather extraordinary announcement on his blog WUWT (AKA the center of the internet).   It has the potential to initiate a necessary change to climate science at its foundation, because if he is correct in his assertion, measured warming trends in the US and ostensibly globally have been overstated.  I see his claims as revolutionary, which is a pretty strong word, because they have the potential to change much of our understanding about global warming science.  To make my case, lets start first with what climate science doesn’t disagree with:

Adjustments to trends:


Click for graph source – Source Data: NOAA USHCN V2.5 data


WARNING –  While climate science created these well-known corrections, these are the same adjustments that Lewandowsky labeled me a conspiracy theorist in a published psychology paper for acknowledging their existence. Be careful in discussing this NOAA generated data as it might get you diagnosed with a personality disorder in a “highly regarded” international psychology journal…… or maybe even a tax audit…


An accurate plot of adjustments from Nick Stokes from comments below:


The Y axis is actually Deg C rather than F

A link to Nick’s post and code to generate the graph is here:



More seriously, these are known adjustments to the thermometers deemed necessary by climate science in order to accurately depict US temperatures.  They are right from the US thermometer data, right from the USHCN website.  The adjustments may be accurate and necessary and after the thermometers are corrected, they are held out by climate science as an excellent representation of actual temperature trends.  Until the last few years, we had no true knowledge as to how accurate the corrected trends are.  Before we go too far though, the corrections often seem quite reasonable, yet there is some conflict with satellite and radiosonde (balloon measurements).   I’ve always been uncertain of their veracity.

On other matters, we also know with certainty that climate models run too hot when compared to these adjusted observations.  That said, some of the deeply ensconced climate alarmist types in the mainstream of the climate field have still failed to admit what is painfully obvious at this point, while other main stream types have moved off message to make corrections to the models.  Basically my own really obvious “certainty” is still being argued with in ridiculous fashion in some die-hard corners of the climate science field.


This graph above is from Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog and it shows the trends of ground temps vs modeled temps.   In fairness, some of the more vocal climate scientists didn’t like this plot because of the start point Dr. Spencer chose, but the argument they made is complete nonsense as the SLOPE of the observations is the key and it is statistically much lower than the slope of the modeled data.  Quite a few papers are published now stating this well-known fact in more statistically complete fashion, so this graph is not by any means a stand alone article to be critiqued out of existence by an inconvenient starting point.  I often say that stats usually just tell you what you can already see in the data and normal people see models running ahead of observations.

I used this version for my argument today because Roy’s plot includes both surface temperatures (HadCRUT4) and satellite lower troposphere temperatures UAH.  It is important because the satellite temperatures are lagging behind the ground thermometer observations (slightly) and the land-based portion of the surface thermometers are the point of Anthony Watts research.   The following statement and graph really caught my attention and are what prompted this post.  If you are reading this blog, it will probably catch yours. In particular, note the following statement and the 3 subtitles in the plot below:

Our findings show that trend is indeed affected, not only by siting, but also by adjustments:




Biasing the record

Why is that a big deal?    Because it is extraordinary to find a statistically differentiable signal difference in a large group of temperature stations.  Now I need to preface that statement with – stations that are not pre-selected for items which would knowingly bias their record.   What Anthony Watts et. al. have done is rank temperature stations by pre-defined criteria, for the singular purpose of comparing data having different levels of human or environmental influence over their record.   Anthony Watts biased the record by separating high and low quality stations!

So lets consider for a moment what this says…. Stations with minimal influence (Class 1 & 2) show a much lower trend than stations with known influences.   The difference is extreme — they show half of the trend of the temperature corrected result.  That claim alone is frankly — huge.

Nick Stokes, a known skeptic abuser and technically adept blogger, wrote what I found to be a very compelling post that showed historic temperatures for the entire globe can be estimated reliably by as few as 60 temperature stations.  Although the post and math were very cool, the result isn’t technically that surprising.   What it shows quite clearly though, is that no matter which 60 stations you choose, you end up with very similar results.

Except apparently when Anthony Watts chooses the stations.

Not possible!

From Nick’s entertaining demonstration, and from the mainstream climate science claims that homogenized corrected temperatures are accurate, it should be nearly impossible to choose less influenced stations by objective criteria and come to a significantly different trend than the homogenized result.   But what Anthony Watts has demonstrated before and restated in a blog about coming work is that he has done exactly that.    Data from the least influenced, and therefore the best possible thermometers, is dramatically lower than the homogenized land temperature trends that nearly everyone in climate science use in their publications.

What is more, in Anthony’s previous work, he and his coauthors demonstrated a significant correlation between station quality and trend.   The better the station sighting, the lower the trend.   This is actually common sense in the weather industry as nearly every human influence to a local environment creates local warming effects.  From adding blacktop, air conditioner outlets, blocking airflow with buildings, concrete runways on and on, progress almost always creates local increases in temperature which influences reading of individual thermometers.  Other changes can shift temperatures cooler or warmer, such as station movement or changing the time of observation.   None of the local warming/cooling effects are controversial from my reading, but all of these sorts of problems are what homogenization of temperature stations is supposed to correct for.

Now Anthony’s previous work was roundly critiqued by people for certain shortcomings.   Climate science is highly politicized so many of the critiques were unfounded and even truly wrongfooted attacks based on result rather than true scientific problems but Anthony took them seriously and has apparently come back with an improved version having again similar results which directly address previous issues.  Instead of reducing the differences or limiting the difference between mainstream temperature publications and his result, the corrections have reinforced the previous results.

Future critics of Anthony’s work can make the claim that he has made some error, or somehow his choice of station quality is biased in some unknown way, and they in fact have done those things in the past. However, these stations are classified by outside influence and it is extremely unlikely that an “error” would result in a continuous (or nearly continuous) reduction of trend from class 5 to class 1 stations.   How could an error in the work produce such controlled results?  It doesn’t seem to be a reasonable claim.   To top it all off, Anthony’s result just seems like common sense.  Stations not influenced by buildings or air conditioners, or movements, or time of observation, produce lower trends.

To be clear again, I am not advocating for Anthony’s result, I haven’t read it.  I don’t know it.   What I do know, and what I am saying is that there should be NO significant differences if the station quality was properly corrected for in mainstream ground temperature series.  Either a gross error was made which is very unlikely as critiques have already been flown and addressed, or we have identified a big problem in land based temperature measurement.

The early reaction

Thus far we have only a bit of commentary on the results from the BEST Berkeley data group, and it isn’t at all encouraging.   I am hoping, and expecting, to see a group of more open minds look deeply into this in the future because Anthony Watt’s surface station project is the most thorough look anyone has ever taken at the quality of the temperature data being recorded.   The results are dramatically different from our current understanding of temperature trends and that is what non-political science is about, understanding.

If these truly revolutionary claims are correct, and scientifically in a multi-billion dollar field they are revolutionary claims, the global temperature trends (observations) are likely higher lower than shown in Figure 2 HadCRUT4 above and climate model projections are trending warmer than observations by even more than we already know.  A proper, coldly scientific review is necessary and it will mean a full audit of global temperature stations if we ever hope to make truly predictive climate models.

There is much more to write, I just hope that not just normal scientists, but mainstream global warming science takes a hard look at what this study is claiming in the near future.  The good news for Anthony Watts is that if he is correct, ignoring the result will only delay the inevitable outcome as the cold science of temperature measurement will certainly prove stronger than a multi-billion dollar political movement.





Posted in Uncategorized | 82 Comments »

Climate Today

Posted by Jeff Id on April 21, 2014

Time, time, we can’t get more time.   The climate grinds though on with or without our opinions.   Rather thoughtless of it to ignore what we think, at least in my opinion, but I suppose that is the point, or perhaps that it should be the point.   Still, people feel the need to insert their opinions in the face of climate, even when it is in conflict with climate itself.  It is as though the self-absorbed belief in the reality of their opinions trumps the reality of climate.   Climate change is real… it has always been real.  The earth warms, cools and was even a ball of lava at one time.   If we look far enough into the future, we can even see a time when the Earth becomes a superheated ball of solar plasma.

Still, our vaunted science has made the decision for us that today’s global temperature is perfect for us.   Those who made this decision are climate scientists.  Global citizens who hold themselves out to be experts in many fields, climate science, economics, government policy, energy generation, food production, ocean chemistry, computer programming, statistics, are among the most common.   These powerful individuals have established certain facts of science, which are indisputable, and utilized them to both predict disaster and recommend a future path to salvation for the entire human race.

As both Goliaths and Galileo’s of science, they see themselves as the brightest points of light, the Gaian Illuminati, those who fight against corrupted human forces for the greater environmental good.   Humanity slowly is bending to their will, following the growing outcry step by step.   The soft words of hope against the harsh reality of basic science hypnotizing them into belief that we must change as a species, and we must do it now.  But there is a disease in the movement, a not-so-subtle disease which is corrupting the message to the people, and the science.   The disease is the same disease the Gaian Illuminati seek to eradicate, yet have contracted themselves.

Money and power

And governments are more than happy to provide them both.

It has become a symbiotic relationship, like plants which require animals to create CO2 and animals which require plants to split the CO2 and release the O2, climate scientists cannot survive without government, and government needs climate science to promote its own growth.  It started in a not so subtle way, with research, then committees, then whole governmental divisions who’s whole purpose is to study climate.  First those groups made recommendations for more study, and the formation of additional subgroups.  Eventually, minor rule making was added to address the groups findings.   This pressed into whole rule-making bodies who’s sole existence was to make recommendations for regulations on industry with the premise that it would somehow help climate change.  Simultaneously, these groups continued to make more recommendations for expanded research and funding. Today, the rule making has expanded until centralized global governmental control of energy production is in sight, and we would have to willfully ignore the history to believe that stopping with energy production is a reasonable conclusion.

The corruption of the system has progressed beyond the merely palpable.  It has bent to the point where conflicting opinions are actively suppressed and misrepresentation of observed data has literally become commonplace amongst the most famous but only where it promotes the cause.   The computer climate models which started with the best intentions, have fallen wildly short of expectations, or rather observed warming has fallen well short of the models, yet our vaunted, world-powerful climate scientists have become unwilling to admit even that painfully obvious discrepancy.

Then there are those who have the gall to write against this powerful climate industry.   Because that is what climate science is.  A smog-belching, economy-sucking, rule-making, profit-taking industry.


Opening ceremony of the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen.

The sheer size of the thing should be enough to give pause, yet growth is the continued agenda, and nothing, including reality, will get in the way of this steamroller’s industrial goals.   Imagine the money to fly these people in, to pay the hotels, food, hall rental, the fuel, annual salaries, education, phone bills. Worse, these people make no product.   No net output of value comes from this group of near-universally overpriced individuals.  No output which can be trusted, believed or even parsed by a normal human is generated from the science or government organizations you see in that picture.   That statement is generally true, no matter which argument they are making. It is too corrupted with nonsense and unrelated agendas, and it is therefore very, very expensive, not because of the plane tickets, but because of the rules they demand from their subjects.   Rules as a genuflection to their beliefs, not their science, but a mash of pro-governmental and anti-industrial climate goals.

Because at the root, taxation is their food, nutrients, power, and hope for the future of their industry.  The best colleges, the most influence, the best jobs.  They need your fear to get your taxes, and whether the root-level minions know it, or admit to it, the leaders are certainly very clear on this.


Belief is the core of the cause.   Belief that any observed change of the Earth is not only caused by human activity, but is absolutely a bad thing.   Many of us wonder about the magnitude of change caused by CO2 emission, and many wonder whether the changes will create floods or hurricanes, but there is little help for understanding these or other potential consequences from the field of climate science.  Though there is plenty of scientific ‘opinion’ in the literature, the fluff and exaggeration is literally impossible to parse.

I sometimes wonder just how do they know our current global temperature is perfect?  I have seen no study which reasonably demonstrates that our current climate is truly ideal.   It seems extraordinarily unlikely to me that we were born into a perfect climate which could never change for the better in either direction.  Still, from ice ages we know with certainty, that colder is very, VERY bad for people in general.  If 6 degrees colder is so bad, how can it be so certain that only two degrees warmer is going to result in destruction.    As a general concept, it seems extremely unlikely that we have achieved the perfect balance of temperature, and an extraordinary claim such as that, should require extraordinary proof.   Yet we have none but opinion of experts to guide us in this matter.   Not science, just opinion.  And that opinion flies in the face of common sense observation of colder vs warmer climates right here on our planet.

The change is too fast they say – belief not science.

The change is crossing thresholds they claim – belief not science.

We must use green energy – belief not science

We must avoid fossil fuels – belief not science

Climate models match observation – belief not science

I will stop there because the examples are truly endless and the evidence that belief trumps all in the climate industry stares us in the face.   From anti-nuclear rhetoric to authoritarian government promotion, all the symptoms of the disease of tobacco industry style industrial corruption are exhibited.   Politics and nonsense have trumped common sense and reality.  Science has taken a necessary back seat to results, and those who wish to be most successful in the field provide the most sensationalist claims.

All for the cause.

It was a proud day when I told mom that a group of psychologists on another continent had intentionally misrepresented my opinions in order to discredit me.   It is just another very clear symptom of a greater disease that such activities are considered reasonable and allowed through a review process.

Where will it end

In short, I don’t know, but I do have a tiny piece of understanding which I learned from industry that I like to tell people in paraphrase.   Businesses in general are very tough things to break.     They can be bent, twisted and redirected, but will fight very hard when survival is the requirement.   Climategate, as big and obvious as it was, barely touched the climate industry.   Not because it wasn’t horribly embarrassing, and not because it didn’t expose corruption, but rather because it did not affect funding of the scientists involved.     Even the specific individuals involved, continued on their previous paths as though nothing had happened.  The media capitulated to pressure from the climate industry and failed to report the real issues.  But most importantly, the willing governments continued and even expanded the money flow.

Yet observations continue to defy prediction and lag ever farther behind models, some in the field are making corrections for the problem while simultaneously denying the problem even exists.  The very existence of the problem represents a condition that is impossible to rectify in the context of science yet again makes perfect sense in politics.

Perhaps it is for wiser minds than myself to visualize the future of this industry, but in general it looks pretty bleak and unstoppable to me.

Addendum – because it happened

I made the mistake of turning on Bill Maher (for the first time in my life) while writing this and just learned from a man on the panel that we need 6 garbage cans in our houses to save the planet.   He literally said 6 and the audience loudly applauded.   None of them apparently know about the industrial sorting of garbage in developed countries with only one garbage can

But they do know what they believe.





Posted in Uncategorized | 57 Comments »

Clarification of Understanding

Posted by Jeff Id on April 11, 2014

From WUWT and Frontiers of Psychology – a further clarification of the retraction.    I made it clear in my complaint that it didn’t seem ethical to identify and attack people in a scientific journal – after reading their code of ethics documents – and it seems others did the same.   Besides the basic ethics rationalization for retraction, I note that Frontiers left this in the middle of the paper below:

because climate change is a very serious threat for human civilization.

So they have identified themselves as sympathetic believers in a field now more akin to religion than science.   It was clearly done to let everyone know they are still on the send-us-checks and don’t-boycott-us team.  As to the rest of the content, I’m less impressed now with their reaction than I was previously.   The journal clearly doesn’t recognize just how dysfunctional they have become when the reason for retraction of a hack and slash blogpost disguised as a paper, is because names were used and nothing to do with its otherwise unscientific nature.

Anyway – here it is in full:

Rights of Human Subjects in Scientific Papers

The retracted Recursive Fury paper has created quite a blogger and twitter storm. A sensational storm indeed, with hints to conspiracy theories, claims of legal threats and perceived contradictions. It has been fury – one of the strongest human emotions – that has (perhaps understandably at first sight) guided the discussion around this retraction. Not surprisingly though, the truth is not as sensational and much simpler.

The studied subjects were explicitly identified in the paper without their consent. It is well acknowledged and accepted that in order to protect a subject’s rights and avoid a potentially defamatory outcome, one must obtain the subject’s consent if they can be identified in a scientific paper. The mistake was detected after publication, and the authors and Frontiers worked hard together for several months to try to find a solution. In the end, those efforts were not successful. The identity of the subjects could not be protected and the paper had to be retracted. Frontiers then worked closely with the authors on a mutually agreed and measured retraction statement to avoid the retraction itself being misused. From the storm this has created, it would seem we did not succeed.

For Frontiers, publishing the identities of human subjects without consent cannot be justified in a scientific paper. Some have argued that the subjects and their statements were in the public domain and hence it was acceptable to identify them in a scientific paper, but accepting this will set a dangerous precedent. With so much information of each of us in the public domain, think of a situation where scientists use, for example, machine learning to cluster your public statements and attribute to you personality characteristics, and then name you on the cluster and publish it as a scientific fact in a reputable journal. While the subjects and their statements were public, they did not give their consent to a public psychological diagnosis in a scientific study. Science cannot be abused to specifically label and point out individuals in the public domain.

It is most unfortunate that this particular incident was around climate change, because climate change is a very serious threat for human civilization. But the importance of the subject matter does not justify abandoning our principles.

Frontiers’ core mission is to improve peer review. One principle that we follow is that scientific publishing should sit in the hands of scientists. Frontiers implements this principle by supporting scientists to operate the peer-review process from the beginning to the end. Frontiers remains faithful to this mission, despite the risks that comes with it. We will stay the course because we fundamentally believe that authors should bear the full responsibility of submitting papers with the highest standards and that scientists should bear the full responsibility of deciding what science is published. After publication, the community is engaged and a post-publication review naturally follows. Post-publication review is facilitated by the Frontiers’ commenting and social networking platforms. This process may reveal fundamental errors or issues that go against principles of scholarly publishing. Like all other journals, Frontiers seriously investigates any well-founded complaints or allegations, and retraction only happens in cases of absolute necessity and only after extensive analysis. For the paper in question, the issue was clear, the analysis was exhaustive, all efforts were made to work with the authors to find a solution and we even worked on the retraction statement with the authors. But there was no moral dilemma from the start – we do not support scientific publications where human subjects can be identified without their consent.
Henry Markram
Editor-in-Chief, Frontiers

Posted in Uncategorized | 36 Comments »

Adults in the room?

Posted by Jeff Id on April 6, 2014

Several blogs are already carrying the comment by the journal Frontiers of Science, which appears to be in response to Lewandowsky et ilk’s even-wilder-than-the-paper claims of having their rights suppressed.

(Lausanne, Switzerland) – There has been a series of media reports concerning the recent retraction of the paper Recursive Fury:Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation, originally published on 18 March 2013 in Frontiers in Psychology. Until now, our policy has been to handle this matter with discretion out of consideration for all those concerned. But given the extent of the media coverage – largely based on misunderstanding – Frontiers would now like to better clarify the context behind the retraction.

As we published in our retraction statement, a small number of complaints were received during the weeks following publication. Some of those complaints were well argued and cogent and, as a responsible publisher, our policy is to take such issues seriously. Frontiers conducted a careful and objective investigation of these complaints. Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats. The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.

As a result of its investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics. Frontiers informed the authors of the conclusions of our investigation and worked with the authors in good faith, providing them with the opportunity of submitting a new paper for peer review that would address the issues identified and that could be published simultaneously with the retraction notice.

The authors agreed and subsequently proposed a new paper that was substantially similar to the original paper and, crucially, did not deal adequately with the issues raised by Frontiers.

We remind the community that the retracted paper does not claim to be about climate science, but about psychology. The actions taken by Frontiers sought to ensure the right balance of respect for the rights of all.

One of Frontiers’ founding principles is that of authors’ rights. We take this opportunity to reassure our editors, authors and supporters that Frontiers will continue to publish – and stand by – valid research. But we also must uphold the rights and privacy of the subjects included in a study or paper.

Frontiers is happy to speak to anyone who wishes to have an objective and informed conversation about this. In such a case, please contact the Editorial Office at

This statement is in stark contrast to some other Lewandowsky’s claims (rants) which are now known to be complete fabrications:

The strategies employed in those attacks follow a common playbook, regardless of which scientific proposition is being denied and regardless of who the targeted scientists are: There is cyber-bullying and public abuse by “trolling” (which recent research has linked to sadism); there is harassment by vexatious freedom-of-information (FOI) requests; there are the complaints to academic institutions; legal threats; and perhaps most troubling, there is the intimidation of journal editors and publishers who are acting on manuscripts that are considered inconvenient.

Lewandowsky seems posses a singular ability to ignore evidence which does not support his worldview.  I’m no psycho-ologist but it seems clear that his simplified reality is a shelter for him, where he can exist as a white-hat good guy and throw rocks at those who don’t fit his model.

It seems to me that Lewandowsky is dangerously deep in his own imaginations of conspiracy.  How far will a man go who has written several articles to the point with no visible evidence to back his claims up.  In his recent rant, he made the even more ridiculous point that nobody has made a “scholarly” critique of his articles.  The same articles Lewandowsky, and his journal,  recently and consistently have refused to give others any access to the data he alleges created the paper.

UWA Vice Chancellor Johnson Refuses Data Again Again

They even called Steve McIntyre unbalanced in their refusal.  Even one with Lewandowsky’s limitations must recognize that he cannot be addressed in science, if he refuses access to his secret data.  Data which allegedly was used to conclude that many of my favorite scientists, engineers and climate professionals are conspiracy theorists. 

I mean really, this scientist is claiming that his paper is un-critiqued, while simultaneously refusing data to the people who would critique it.

I have to be careful here, or he will assume that I am saying he illegitimately adjusted the data to produce a trend and publish another whacko paper referencing me, in the last continent which will have him.   I wouldn’t put it past him one bit to tweak the data himself illegitimately, but his methodology is so skewed that the data doesn’t require tweaking to achieve his result.   It only needs a few crazy answers created by “internet people” –having fun.  Take it from a blogger, internet people are crazy!!  :D

Not as crazy as Lewandowsky though.

Still, Anthony Watts had the right title for his article: Journal takes Lewandowsky and his supporters to task on ‘threats’ over retracted ‘Recursive Fury’ paper.

It seems to me that the Journal, seeing the continuing ridiculous comments by Lewandowsky and many of his internet advocates, was compelled by the extreme inaccuracy and childish behavior of the authors, to set the record straight. I unreservedly applaud them for taking that step, it restores a modicum of their own credibility in my eyes, yet I am still left with questions:

How did that kind of blatant character attack paper get published in a “scientific” journal in the first place? 

Does the journal recognize this as an obvious symptom of internal problems?

Will the journal take the necessary self-examination steps required to correct the problem for the long term?









Posted in Uncategorized | 47 Comments »

The Truth Will Out

Posted by Jeff Id on March 28, 2014

Richard Tol

“It is pretty damn obvious that there are positive impacts of climate change, even though we are not always allowed to talk about them,” he said. ”

Article here: Simple reality just the way normal people like it



Posted in Uncategorized | 30 Comments »

Good news for stocks folks – The End of the World is Moved Back —- again!

Posted by Jeff Id on March 22, 2014

It’s unfortunate that I don’t have time for blogging cause I’m sure there is some easy math to play with in this article by Michael Mann.   The article is essentailly “climate porn” for believers who are still praying for the end of the world.  In it, even he admits that temperatures aren’t rising, although he stays away from recognizing that climate model gods have failed him.   The intent of the article seems to be to move the bar of absolute global doom – apparently because the last bar was missed.


Who could have guessed that in pre-apocalyptic earth, end of the worlders would have created such lucrative and easy jobs for themselves.

The title of the article was originally – False Hope.   The text of the article leads us to the understanding that we have false hope that the world WON’T end, that hope being given to us by the fact that the world ISN’T warming as the hundred-plus billion dollar climate sandwich board industry predicted.    None of those problems have reached the level where “Scientific American” is concerned about their own credibility, as they have prostrated themselves before that particular climate god so many times in the past that the practice of publishing climate based nonsense from the right people is reflexive at this point.

The new signpost of doom is planted by Mann, firmly in the soil at 2036 with this improved title.

Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036

Interestingly, Mann was able to write climate sensitivity levels far lower than I would have expected without himself being called a “denier”.  There are plenty of contoversial statements in the article starting with this one which I challenge anyone to provide proof of:

Most scientists concur that two degrees C of warming above the temperature during preindustrial time would harm all sectors of civilization—food, water, health, land, national security, energy and economic prosperity.

I believe most actual “scientists” would say the opposite.  Rather two C would be beneficial from food, water, health, land, etc perspectives.  This national security nonsense is for the purpose of collecting money from that government channel and exists for no other reason.  However, I don’t have proof of more scientists claiming 2C is good for humans than Mann’s fabricated claim that MOST scientists believe it will be bad.  At least in my case I admit it.

The Two C by 2036 claim is most interesting because that is only 22 years away and we have only warmed about 0.8C since 1950 i.e. THE global warming years.  Despite the pause, which he admits actually exists in this article, Mann is predicting a MASSIVE increase in global warming trend over the next 22 years of 0.6C/decade!  Of course he does it by using a 3C climate sensitivity that other climate scientists have found to be over 2X what observations show.  I think that even 3C puts him more toward the lower middle range of the now known to be defective climate models.

To my wonder, I found that for an ECS of three degrees C, our planet would cross the dangerous warming threshold of two degrees C in 2036, only 22 years from now. When I considered the lower ECS value of 2.5 degrees C, the world would cross the threshold in 2046, just 10 years later [see graph on pages 78 and 79].

The article is far more entertaining than I have written here but that is all I have time for at the moment.   Feel free to copy your favorite bits below.

Posted in Uncategorized | 48 Comments »

Strike Out

Posted by Jeff Id on March 20, 2014

Bishop Hill blog has posted a fun thread on our favorite climate scientist wannabe, Dr. Stephen Lewandowsky.  Apparently the moon landing followup psycho-paper was removed from publication entirely.   A rare and embarrassing event to be sure.  Especially for such strong pro-science individuals as Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science™ (SkS) fame.

We are told from the BH article that the post vanished from their blog shortly after publication.   Probably due to the fact that the blatant lack of objectivity didn’t quite reach the bar for a typical SkS post.  The whole mess is stuck in the Google cash for us to read here.

My favorite quote in the deleted article is this:

Lewandowsky, known for his creative publication titles, came up with another doosey for the follow-up paper:

I’m glad Lew is known for his titles, cause it ain’t his sciency skills that are going to put food on the table.

Dana writes:

Frontiers Bails Out

However, nobody likes being called a conspiracy theorist, and thus climate contrarians really didn’t appreciate Recursive Fury.  Very soon after its publication, the journal Frontiers was receiving letters from contrarians threatening libel lawsuits.  In late March 2013, the journal decided to “provisionally remove the link to the article while these issues are investigated.”  The paper was in limbo for nearly a full year until Frontiers finally caved to these threats.

In its investigation, the journal found no academic or ethical problems with Recursive Fury.  However, the fear of being sued by contrarians for libel remained.  The University of Western Australia (UWA: Lewandowsky’s university when Recursive Fury was published – he later moved to the University of Bristol) also investigated the matter and found no academic, ethical, or legal problems with the paper.  In fact, UWA is so confident in the validity of the paper that they’re hosting it on their own servers.

After nearly a year of discussions between the journal, the paper authors, and lawyers on both sides, Frontiers made it clear that they were unwilling to take the risk of publishing the paper and being open to potential frivolous lawsuits.  Both sides have finally agreed to retract Recursive Fury.

It’s unfortunate that the Frontiers editors were unwilling to stand behind a study that they admitted was sound from an academic and ethical standpoint, especially since UWA concluded the paper would withstand a legal assault.  Nobody wants to get caught up in a lawsuit, but by caving in here, Frontiers has undoubtedly emboldened climate contrarians to use this tactic again in the future to suppress inconvenient research.  Academics also can’t be confident that the Frontiers staff will stand behind them if they publish research in the journal and are subjected to similar frivolous attacks.  Frontiers may very well be worse off having lost the confidence of the academic community than if they had called the bluffs of the contrarians threatening frivolous lawsuits.

Hopefully editors of other climate-related journals will learn from this debacle and refuse to let climate contrarians bully them into suppressing valid but inconvenient research.

So it was those evil well-funded skeptics who beat up on the poor government funded science team who brazenly accused a bunch of people of saying and believing things they didn’t, using blatantly fraudulent statistics and making complete asses of themselves, all in an attempt to “discredit” those who recognize that OERVATOINS ARE NOT WARMING AS MUCH AS CLIMATE MODELS!

Not even close.

In the non-government world where people need to produce something functional to make a living, we have a word for non-productive people like Lewandowsky and Dana.


And then we fire them.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments »

Proxy Hammer

Posted by Jeff Id on March 16, 2014

This idea has been in my head for some time.   I think RomanM deserves the credit for the concept, I have simply applied it to tree latewood density data.   The idea is to use the actual “thermal hammer” least squares functions to provide a minimized sum of squares of errors fit to tree data.   For readers who don’t recall the method, I have several posts on it:

Since it is unlikely that many will read those links, the idea behind them was to take care of the anomaly calculation and the offset of temperature station data in different altitudes and regions with a single step least-squares calculation. So when looking for a global average, a colder mountain  based station can be combined with a valley station in a highly optimized manner.

Well, some years ago, Roman left a comment about applying the methods to proxy data.   I found the comment interesting enough that it hasn’t disappeared from my thoughts over all of that time.  One of the main concerns in dendroclimatology is finding the most optimal method for combining series of tree data such that long term signals are not repressed.


Temperature is rising from 0-1 C over 100 years.

You have two thermometer trees (trees supposedly responding to temperature linearly with their growth) and they measure such that the first tree grows from year 0-55 and the second tree from year 45-100 so each tree has an overalap period from years 45-55.

Results of different methods:

First, the actual temperature which occurred and the two perfect trees which recorded it.   Between years 45 and 55 the black line is covered by the red line.  temp that occurred

Now the typical assumption is that each nearby tree may respond a little differently to temperature due to factors such as soil condition or local competition.  This makes the calibration of each tree a separate calculation.  In my previous post, I used a mean of the tree ring size and got a very flat looking reconstruction with no substantial deviations from an average growth rate.  The calculations subtracted the mean of each tree and scaled them by standard deviation before averaging.   Subtracting the mean is a standard practice in the field of dendrochronology prior to a variety of ad-hoc methods to restore the long term variance.   If we don’t work to restore long-term variance, the following two plots show what happens.

First there are two overlapping thermometer trees with means subtracted.

temp that was recordedThis is what the mean looks like after centering:

temp from simple reconstruction of meansOf note is that while the series is now centered, the original temperature experienced by these thermometers was 0 to 1 degrees, and this curve is from -0.27 to 0.27.  We can see that the long term variance (signal) is suppressed by the method.

Using the least-squares offset calculation functions introduced in the thermal hammer method, we can take the two offset treemometer series and calculate the ideal offset for each series.   The result is shown in the next graph:

temp from least squares reconstruction

The data is from -.5 to 0.5 or exactly 1 and has no steps in the center where the data from the two series overlaps.   The great bit about this multi-variate  least squares approach, is that you can literally ‘stuff’ as many series as you want into it and find the minimum least squares error for every single one.


Growth curve:

The meat of the post in this case is very long and takes some explanation.   I’m going to brush by a few concepts without a lot of explanation, those with familiarity in dendro issues won’t have trouble with this but others may.

First, I piled the polar.mxd latewood density data into a matrix by tree age and calculated a growth curve by mean of the year.   This curve has annual level noise which is clearly not related to the age of the tree (growth curve). I calculated the curve different ways but personally it is an ad-hoc correction for something we know exists so my favorite correction is the simple way of just low-pass filtering the signal.  Spline or other fits make little difference.   For this data, we did demonstrate previously that there is a signal in the growth curve that should to be corrected for, still some may not like the correction I used as it can cause unwanted effects, so I performed the following calculations both with and without age-based corrections.


I provide software below so readers can check whether my methods are what I claim.

Trees (123 core samples) are arranged into a timeseries of 400 x 123 with each tree starting at year zero

Age curve is calculated by averaging the tree density value for each year

Filtered age curve is subtracted from each tree in no growth signal matrix – ngsalltrees

Trees are compiled into larger matrix with start year being actual year in which tree grew.  Other values are NA.

No offset simple reconstructions were done by taking row means.

Least squares reconstructions were then done to minimize least squares error overlapping data for entire matrix.


First,  we have the simple mean reconstructions without and with growth curve corrections.   Note the flatness of the long term signal.

no growth correction simple mean reconstruction

The next graph includes the age based growth curve correction.

filtered mean growth curve correction recon

Then we start to get to the important part of this post.  The first least-squares reconstruction from tree data that I have seen anywhere.   To be clear, this is the same data which produced the previous two graphs.

least squares offset reconstruction no growth correction

This next plot has the growth signal removed from each tree, is offset by least squares.least squares offset reconstruction filtered growth correctionConclusions:

I think there is plenty to discuss about the shape of this curve and whether it has anything to do with temperature at all.   From our previous posts, we know there is a good quality high frequency match to regional temperature data.  I will need to take some time to see if trends match better.  While I am still highly skeptical that this is a representation of long term temperature, this method is far more objective than the ad-hoc iterative approach used in the Briffa 2013 “no-signal” dendrocrhonolgy paper.

While I’ve noticed the propensity for people to look at these graphs and assume they are temperature, I must warn that the limitations of this method for recreating long term trends are significant.  Each series knits with residual error to the other series so that as we go further from the calibration period in time a “walk” in the series occurs.  Since calibration is in recent years when thermometers exist, growth curve accuracy is lost in history.   I think some sensitivity analysis of the method to added noise and different growth curve strategies is in order.  If other changes don’t generate significant differences though, and I don’t think they will, the last curve is simply the data and either we accept that it is temperature only or something else.

Each method used in proxy history seems to have its own disadvantages, no-signal dendrochronlogy of Briffa 2013 represses the effect by removing the average signal in as the growth data and employing an average.    While the no-signal method will regularly produce a less dramatic looking chronology, it cannot capture long term variance from tree growth in significantly different altitude or soil conditions.

Although this is the first time I have ever seen this method used in proxy based reconstructions, I cannot take credit for it as RomanM of Climate Audit fame came up with the foundational concept.

I will post the code later tonight!

psx.inv = function(mat,tol = NULL)
    if (NCOL(mat)==1) return( mat /sum(mat^2))
    msvd = svd(mat)
    dind = msvd$d
    if (is.null(tol))
        tol = max(NROW(mat),NCOL(mat))*max(dind)*.Machine$double.eps
    dind[dind="">0] = 1/dind[dind>0]
    inv = msvd$v %*% diag(dind, length(dind)) %*% t(msvd$u)
### subfunction to do offsets
calcx.offset = function(tdat,wts)
    ## new version
    nr = length(wts)
    delt.mat = !
    delt.vec = rowSums(delt.mat)
    row.miss= (delt.vec ==0)
    delt2 = delt.mat/(delt.vec+row.miss)
    co.mat = diag(colSums(delt.mat)) - (t(delt.mat)%*% delt2)
    co.vec = colSums(delt.mat*tdat,na.rm=T) - colSums(rowSums(delt.mat*tdat,na.rm=T)*delt2)
    co.mat[nr,] = wts

#### load external functions filtering used
source("")  #Steve McIntyre

### Gausssian filter
	filter.combine.pad(x,truncated.gauss.weights(51) )[,2]#31

### load briffa data
loc="c:/agw/briffa 2013/data/raw/polar/polar.mxd"

year = as.numeric(substr(dat[,1],9,12))


### align trees by age rather than year
for (i in 1:length(treeid))
	mask= treename==treeid[i]
	for(j in 1:length(yr))

mask= alltrees== -9999 | alltrees== -9990


### center and normalize all trees by standard deviation
alltrees=t(t(alltrees)-colMeans(alltrees,na.rm=TRUE)) #center
alltrees=t(t(alltrees)/sd(alltrees,na.rm=TRUE)) #normalize to sdev

## calculate growth curve
## this curve is an age based mean value of each tree's growth
## The curve is low-pass filtered to remove high frequency non-age related noise

plot(growthcurve,main="Growth Signal from Briffa 2013 Polar MXD Data",xlab="Age (years)",ylab="Unitless",ylim=c(-1,1))

##no growth signal version of alltrees

## create year based matrix from no growth trees start year is 870
tsdat= ts(matrix(nrow=1800, ncol=length(treeid)),start=870)
ngtsdat=ts(matrix(nrow=1800, ncol=length(treeid)),start=870)

for(i in 1:dim(ngsalltrees)[2])


# no growth calculations
plot(ngaveragereconstruction,main="Simple Mean Reconstruction\nFiltered Growth Curve Correction",xlab="Year",ylab="Unitless Growth")

plot(averagereconstruction,main="Simple Mean Reconstruction\nNo Growth Curve Correction",xlab="Year",ylab="Unitless Growth")


# Least squares offset reconstruction
a=calcx.offset(tsdat,rep(1,dim(alltrees)[2]))  #.1711838
plot(lsreconstruction,main="Least Squares Offset Reconstruction\nNo Growth Curve Correction",xlab="Year",ylab="Unitless Growth")

# Least squares offset reconstruction
a=calcx.offset(ngtsdat,rep(1,dim(alltrees)[2]))  #.1711838
plot(nglsreconstruction,main="Least Squares Offset Reconstruction\nFiltered Growth Curve Correction",xlab="Year",ylab="Unitless Growth")

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments »

Climate Sensitivity

Posted by Jeff Id on March 6, 2014

I want to urge everyone interested in climate change science to take their time to read this paper by Nic Lewis and Marcel Crok.  Nic was a blog-famous coauthor of the O’Donnell Antarctic correction to Steig 09.  His role in that article was in review of the mathematics and software developed to do the corrected reconstruction.   From that time, his publications, and some email conversations since, I happen to know that Nic is probably the most underrated scientist/mathematician working in the climate field.  He has time and patience beyond most and his work is vetted at a level we currently don’t see in climate science anywhere, in any article, skeptics or otherwise.

Oversensitive – Final

A Sensitive Matter – Final

Now Nic follows data, so the fact that he is probably considered by Real Climate types to be a skeptic is only the fault of the data.   If the data isn’t going your way, you can be sure that Nic will go that way as well.

Judith Curry has a post here

Anthony Watts has a post here

If you are a climate scientist reading these articles, open your mind and look deeply.  Ask questions of the authors.  Find the flaw.

Posted in Uncategorized | 55 Comments »

If the Square Peg Doesn’t Fit – Get a Hammer!

Posted by Jeff Id on February 28, 2014

It seems like I just got done writing a post which incorporated the point that Real Climate leaves much to be mocked, and low-and-behold Gavin Schmidt deals us a whopper.  A fantastic new paper was written as a comment for Nature called “Reconciling Warming Trends”, which proports to explain the lack of observed warming which directly contradicts the bulk of the climate models.   The first thing the media should take note of is that these scientists have finally noticed what us evil skeptics have been telling you for several years –the predicted level of warming didn’t happen!   It is warming, but not enough to be a problem, and that IS a big problem for the multi-billion dollar climate industry.

As recently as February 2013, Real Climate had their heads in the sand on models with this quote:


The conclusion is the same as in each of the past few years; the models are on the low side of some changes, and on the high side of others, but despite short-term ups and downs, global warming continues much as predicted.
In the meantime, more than this one paper was being published that claimed the opposite.  And recently Roy Spencer made a cute plot for which the only rebuttal I’ve heard is that he chose an inconvenient starting year.   Not that it changes the result much:
So for the media who don’t read things like ‘papers’ or data, the blue and green dotted lines have lower slopes than the climate models, therefore the models predicted more warming than was observed.   Just like the Koch funded unfunded skeptics told you.
But this new paper by Gavin A. Schmidt, Drew T. Shindell and Kostas Tsigaridis (Schmidt 14) is a true gem.   The crew looked at several observed factors in climate since their last runs and found different values for the years 1990 – 2012. They looked at human aerosols, solar irradiance changes, volcanic aerosols and a “very slightly” modified level  of greenhouse gas forcing.
ScreenHunter_02 Feb. 28 19.48
The resulting change in model forcing brought the models in line with observation — almost.  Well they still are higher than any actual observation but adjusting moisture feedback (a large and uncertain factor) is not a sanctified IPCC consideration.
ScreenHunter_03 Feb. 28 19.49Of course they only show the years since 1990 which is hilarious considering that they are addressing a massive failure of the centennial-scale models to predict even a decade into the future.   Note that despite the efforts to “find” an explanation, moisture feedback, the greatest unknown in climate modeling, was not even mentioned.
Still, there is one tiny elephant in the Real Climate corner.   A claim as specious as the claim Michael Mann makes of being exonerated from wrongdoing by the fake Muir Russel climategate report, yet very often made by the Real Climate crowd.

Climate Models are Not Tuned to Observation

For the heck of it, I searched Real Climate for phrases like – ‘not tuned’.

From RC Frequently asked questions:  Are climate models just a fit to the trend in the global temperature data?

No. Much of the confusion concerning this point comes from a misunderstanding stemming from the point above. Model development actually does not use the trend data in tuning (see below).

Gavin comment response: [Response: If you read our papers (and my comments) we are completely up front about what we tune to – the climatology (average annual values), the seasonal cycle, the diurnal cycle and the energy in patterns like the standing wave fields etc. We do not tune to the trends or the sensitivity. – gavin]

Gavin comment response: I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, models are not tuned to match long-term time-series data of any sort. – gavin]

Gavin comment response: [Response: The AR4 runs were done in 2004, using observed concentration data that went up to 2000 (or 2002/3 for a couple of groups). None of them were tuned to the HadCRUT3 temperature data and no model simulations were rejected because they didn’t fit. – gavin]

Comment and Gavin response:

It seems clear that each model is tuned to match past temperature trends through individual adjustments to external forcings, feedbacks and internal variability. Then the results from these tuned model are re-presented (via Figure 2 above) as giving strong evidence that nearly all observed warming is anthropogenic as predicted. How could it be anything else ?

[Response: You premise is not true, and so your conclusions do not follow. Despite endless repetition of these claims, models are *not* tuned on the trends over the 20th Century. They just aren’t. And in this calculation it wouldn’t even be relevant in any case, because the fingerprinting is done without reference to the scale of the response – just the pattern. That the scaling is close to 1 for the models is actually an independent validation of the model sensitivity. – gavin]

What is clear to most of us “skeptics”, and should be very clear to any semi-technical type, is that in modeling, with hundreds of tweakable parameters, if the output doesn’t match the observations, you go back and tweak the input until it does.  Gavin’s insistence that models aren’t tuned, is simply his own bias forgetting those hundreds of times when he put CO2 forcing in upside down or with a ridiculous weighting by accident or by test and the result didn’t look at all like he expected, so he adjusted things.   He and many others rightfully find it easy to justify the adjustments post hoc - e.g. the paper they just published.  It’s not wrong to adjust the model, they should match the data, but they universally, definitely and regularly are adjusted until the output matches some observation.
In this case, the models were so far out of whack, they quietly admitted that the skeptics were right, and adjusted their favorite inputs only.  Other inputs were quite thoroughly left out.  What is more is that most of the inputs had little effect but by ‘re-analysis’ they made massive corrections to volcanic forcings, only in the recent time-window to correct recent trends.
Oddly enough, I think this sentence from their paper’s conclusion represents my own thoughts best:
Nevertheless, attributing climate trends over relatively short periods, such as 10 to 15 years, will always be problematic, and it is inherently unsatisfying to find model–data agreement only with the benefit of hindsight.
For my own conclusion, I am highly skeptical that they got any model-data agreement if the process is hindcast.   I’m also completely unimpressed with the kind of numeric mashing used to claim that models are still somehow ‘on the right track’ but this next sentence in their conclusion is completely unjustified/unsupported/unimagined by any aspect of this paper:
We see no indication, however, that transient climate response is systematically overestimated in the CMIP5 climate models as has been speculated8, or that decadal variability across the ensemble of models is systematically underestimated, although at least some individual models probably fall short in this respect.
There is no analysis in the article of expected short term variance which could possibly explain the models failure.   It simply doesn’t exist.  This primary aspect of Gavin’s conclusion is much more like a prayer to Gaia than an article of sicence.
As is often the case the Real Climate train-wreck provided us some solid entertainment.   I wonder how many more decades will pass before they will figure out that the modeled climate feedback sensitivity looks a little high?

Posted in Uncategorized | 40 Comments »

Confirmation of Phi’s Reconstruction

Posted by Jeff Id on February 26, 2014

In December last year, reader Phi brought the Briffa MXD data from his 2013 paper to my attention.   He showed the following graph of MXD data vs 3 different temperature series.   Needless to say, it shows an impressive correlation between trees and temperature:


While Phi made the claim that the trees bear out UAH lower troposphere data over ground temps, I don’t see a single instance of a better fit of tree data to one temp series over another as particularly solid. This is particularly true considering that there are known divergent datasets.  Still, it seemed reasonable that Phi had picked out an excellent dataset from the literature to look at.   I took my time and downloaded UAH and RSS satellite data, the tree data from Briffa 2013 and found gridded data from CRUTEM4 using the google world map application from this RealClimate™ post.   I actually went over to that blog to see if there was anything humorous to tease them about and found a very workable application – so shame on me!  Of course, shame on them for having so much to mock but that is for another post.

It took a bit of fiddling with the calibration and filtering but I was able to reproduce a reasonably similar result to Phi.  All temperatures presented below are from summer (June to August) averages of the 67.5N 67.5E gridcell closest to the tree data.

CALIBRATED yamal cru vs mxd 1880-2010 5yr filter

What I find amazing is how good a fit this data actually is to historic temps in the recorded period.   First, recall that I made this red series above by simply aligning and averaging the data.  I did this simple process with the understanding that some of the variance we see in these MXD series is from a statistically significant age related signal, so this series average is not as good a representation of annual tree MXD as it could be.   Still, the age correction won’t make much difference and even the oldest portion of the data doesn’t diverge terribly from the black observed temperature curve.  One of the main contentions I have with treemometers, besides massive non-linearity, is that the high frequency components and low frequency components aren’t necessarily governed by the same relationship and that those relationships with environmental conditions will change over time.   e.g. how does the same tree respond to temperatures in low water vs high water conditions?

Anyway, I looked at lower frequency response in the following plot:

CALIBRATED yamal cru vs mxd 1880-2010 25yr filterThe data from this set is truly fantastic compared to some we have looked at but you can see a large divergence of temperature above tree latewood density in recent years and a similar problem in 1880-1990.   We could shift the graph up and down to try for a better fit but it seems pretty obvious that the trees are reacting to other environmental conditions than temperature as years go by.   The visual correlation is still amazing though.

While it may be tempting for climate scientists to take this kind of data and paste temperature onto it, calling it a development or something, they may not find the whole reconstruction that exciting.  The rest of the data is fairly interesting to those of us skeptical of the general exaggerations pervading the science of global warming doom.  Below is the full MXD reconstruction with temperatures to 2006 overlaid. CALIBRATED yamal cru vs mxd 1880-2010 25yr filter3

Like this years RedWings, it seems to be a hockey stick without a blade.  I’m still amazed at the quality of the fit to CRUTEM though and have decided to continue this study and take the next step of correcting by the average growth curve and perhaps the pith offset as well.

For completeness, and so the alarmist climate community doesn’t have a heart attack, if we extend CRUTTEM and UAH past the end of the reconstruction to 2012, the graph looks like this:

CALIBRATED yamal cru vs mxd 1880-2010 25yr filter2

As always, I intend to make the code available.   Unless someone is interested, I will clean it up and post it with my future calibrated reconstruction post.

Posted in Uncategorized | 75 Comments »

Another Opinion Post

Posted by Jeff Id on February 23, 2014

I heard a radio host in Kalamazoo, comment on a letter written in by a listener on emotion and opinions.  The idea was that emotions and opinions cannot be wrong and at least the emotion can’t-be-wrong claim is  a common thread in human culture and one of my apparenlty numerous pet-peeves.   First, emotions are chemical and electrical reactions to lifes inputs.  We have little control over them but we can control them.   For example it is quite possible to be angry about something we shouldn’t be.   Say there is an individual who vociferously describes an opinion on a scientific matter that goes against basic scientific observation, sometimes that makes me angry.   Is that anger right or is it wrong?   One could step back and observe that the individual making the false claim is not at fault for lacking the mental faculties to parse the nature of the issues and change the emotion.   Either way, anger, really doesn’t make sense in those sorts of cases, yet I do get grumpy about incorrect statements.  It seems like the emotion ‘anger’ is wrong in this situation, although it is a mild example.

What if someone gets so emotional about some non-threatening issue, they murder or commit extreme violence?   I think those situations are extreme examples of ‘wrong’ emotion.  Or what if someone is diagnosed with some form of psychosis and emotions are seemingly coming at random. I would say from examples like that are clear examples of emotion being ‘wrong’.   Yet somewhere along the way, the hubris of mankind has resulted in a popular culture defininition for our emotions as something that cannot be wrong.  Somehow, unless we are full-on psychotic, our emotions are infallable.  When put that way, I get angry at those who spout such obvious untruths regarding emotion..  :D

Joking asiade, this radio host was hollering amen’s and thank-yous after reading a letter which in paraphrase claimed that not only emotion, but opinion cannot be wrong.  In my “opinion” the host and the writer are both wrong, so someone in our group of opinion holders must by definition be wrong.  To me this whole concept of any form of belief-based infallability is another symptom of our mentally self-pleasuring progressive culture.  The excited host presented the issue so strongly that it left me thinking that infallability of opinion is the next frontier for the only slightly less ignorant concept that emotion cannot be wrong.  I hope our progressive cancer isn’t going in that direction, it literally seems impossible to deny reality to the level we already do in society so I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised.

Posted in Uncategorized | 22 Comments »

The Problem with Ocean Heat Uptake

Posted by Jeff Id on February 12, 2014

A recent article on the global warming hiatus  garnered a bit of attention in blogland and the substantially less technical mainstream media. It was published in Nature Climate Change: Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus.   Of course the media ate up the work as though it were a perfect explanation for the utter failure of climate models and inaccurately assume that it means business as usual for them.

The abstract is reproduced below:

Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001. A variety of mechanisms have been proposed to account for this slowdown in surface warming. A key component of the global hiatus that has been identified is cool eastern Pacific sea surface temperature, but it is unclear how the ocean has remained relatively cool there in spite of ongoing increases in radiative forcing. Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake. The extra uptake has come about through increased subduction in the Pacific shallow overturning cells, enhancing heat convergence in the equatorial thermocline. At the same time, the accelerated trade winds have increased equatorial upwelling in the central and eastern Pacific, lowering sea surface temperature there, which drives further cooling in other regions. The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global average surface air temperature of 0.1–0.2 °C, which can account for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001. This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.

There are several issues with the work that I find interesting.

An “unprecedented” trade wind in the past two decades leaves a skeptical mind questioning how this was determined and documented.   We are all too familiar with flatly false examples in climate science of claims stating “unprecedented” ala Michael Mann’s hockey stick.  The moment the word is used with weather, I am already on edge.  But it leads me to wonder just what the cause of this unprecedented wind is.   Could this wind be driven in whole or in part by warmer than average air?  An  unexpected negative feedback?

Of course a wind mixing the ocean would create cooler air.  There is massive of heat capacity in the ocean which has been discussed at this blog and at many others.  If the ocean is mixed, the cold water is exposed and more heat transfer ensues.  I’m much more concerned about cold air from a mixed ocean than I am about any form of warming.  Bob Tisdale did a WUWT post on the matter pf ocean temp in models vs observations a couple of years ago.  He showed that in particular the East Pacific was falling way behind model projections.


Bob Tisdale – East Pacific Surface Temp Models vs Observation

As people are just now becoming aware, almost one hundred percent of the government funded climate models have a global mean surface temperature trend (not jsut ocean) which is higher than observation.  This is very bad news for models but according to this graph below the trend in the East Pacific is a whopping 6X less than the IPCC A1B model (likely from AR4).  The situation is so bad that scientists who have staked their careers on massive warming are digging deep for explanations for the problems.

What is interesting about this paper to me is what it means if the scientist are actually right.  What sort of implications does it have if a wind came by and knocked global temps down by 0.1 – 0.2 degrees Celsius. This graph below tells the temperature side of the story but immediate temperature change isn’t the only implication.


Dr. Roy Spencer Models VS Observations

Since subtracting from the spaghetti plot of models is difficult, if I visually add 0.1 C to either the red or blue observation line, that would mean that about 80% of the climate models were running too hot.  If I add 0.2, the maximum correction from the paper, HadCRUT4 still falls short of the mean so this paper does not explain the differences between models and observations alone.  From the half dozen other articles and blog posts, even at 1.5C, many of them would still be outside of the CI’s of the over-hot climate models.

Dr. Spencer, not so tongue in cheek for climate science, writes in the graph above that observations must be wrong.  This ocean heat paper actually doesn’t explain the entire model problem but unless you are looking at the data, you would think that it explained everything.

Another implication is that the heat from the air has been trapped in an ocean heatsink resulting in a water temperature rise of probably tenths of a thousandth of a degree.   Basically nothing.   Basic thermodynamics tells us that the temperature change isn’t sufficient for the rate of energy transfer from the now microscopically warmer ocean back to the air to measurably increase.   As far as our Gaian prognosticating scientists are concerned, the heat is functionally lost to their modeled plans.  The observations cannot simply jump back into alignment with models, although the trend could possibly resume as the next hilarious quote shows:

This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.

Ok so lets translate the whole mess so that it is understandable.

 – The scientists didn’t predict the trade wind and so don’t know the cause.

  – Basic common sense will tell us that this wind or a similar wind event very likely happened before and the “unprecedented” claim is likely unrealistic.

 – They modeled the wind mixing the ocean and managed to say that the heat went into the water with the same kinds of swag’s that led to missing the apparently huge pacific “wind” factor.

 – They then claim that perhaps in a decade when the winds stop, the original predictions of warming rate will come true.

The Guardian and many other unbiased sources of knowledge for the thinking public, reported the paper as though it was certain knowledge.  It even contained the typical refrain of all signs pointing to accelerating warming which is a flatly fraudulent statement considering that they are simultaneously composing an article explaining why warming isn’t happening.   No questioning of logic, no notice of the inconsistency with their own or other articles they are publishing about the amazing quality of government science.  And it is all placed right next to the articles bashing “skeptics” like me and you who just happen to be able to read a graph.

Eventually the data will decide the argument but it is very very strange that the data is so heavily on our side and we’re the ones who are marginalized by those who hold themselves out as the intellectuals of our time.

Posted in Uncategorized | 131 Comments »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 154 other followers