H1N1 and Climate Change

[Pliny]

nothing to see here Pliny...

"total Himalayan glacier mass balance is distinctly negative?"

Waldo. I am not arguing that there is or is not a warming trend. I am arguing that it is not confirmed to be anthropogenic in nature.

The 2007 report that won a Nobel Peace Prize is a scientific paper with glaring outpoints. If it were a high school paper it would be graded a C for those errors (unless the teacher were more interested in the promotion of Environmentalism). This is a Nobel Peace prize winning scientific report. Your blind faith in your Masters is evident in your lack of criticism of the errors in this report considering it's importance to world affairs. I can only shake my head.

How are things at the shop otherwise?

Edited January 22, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

The air in north america and europe is cleaner than it was 50 years ago. The improvements came as governments mandated technologies as they became affordable. Governments that ignore the cost of technologies before mandating them will only hurt the economy.

Good economic advice.

The economy is our existence. International trade allows us our standard of living and is an example of what trade can accomplish for other nations if they can become productive and recognize basic human rights of security of person and property. For third world nations to become stable their governments must not be the ones that threaten the populace more than the criminal element in the nation.

[waldo]

Waldo. I am not arguing that there is or is not a warming trend. I am arguing that it is not confirmed to be anthropogenic in nature.

The 2007 report that won a Nobel Peace Prize is a scientific paper with glaring outpoints. If it were a high school paper it would be graded a C for those errors (unless the teacher were more interested in the promotion of Environmentalism). This is a Nobel Peace prize winning scientific report. Your blind faith in your Masters is evident in your lack of criticism of the errors in this report considering it's importance to world affairs. I can only shake my head.

say what? Another MLW skeptic/denier contradiction (read... flip/flop)... notwithstanding you wouldn't/couldn't substantiate it, why did you posture recently over a legitimate global cooling trend, if you're now accepting there is a long-term global warming trend? As you say, I can only shake my head.

if, as you say, you're arguing that global warming exists... but not confirmed as anthropogenic, I've not seen any evidence of that argument presented - by you! Please make that specific argument, because you've certainly not even attempted to do so. What/which non-anthropogenic influences do you favour in your, to-date, non-stated argument, Pliny?

at least get your venomous bile/hate-on pointed in the right direction, hey Pliny? Perhaps actually acquaint yourself to the details of that 2007 Nobel Peace Prize... which wasn't the report itself, right Pliny? In your self-stated desire to argue against anthropogenic, I gave you an opportunity in the post you've just not replied to. It's very telling that you actually won't step up and challenge the actual stated position of the IPCC on glacier retreat (re. the position as summarized within the Synthesis Report of all working group reports). Instead... you think you can score something over an, effectively, inconsequential statement within a particular working group (WG2) sub-report - one that doesn't, in fact, agree with the statement within one of the other working group (WG1) sub-reports (the one that actually formed the basis for what appeared in the IPCC positional Synthesis Report. Why not focus your energies on what was actually stated within the WG1 sub report... or, of course, the Synthesis Report... or even the Summary for Policymakers Report? Because none of those would support your 'tempest in a teapot' noise - right, Pliny?

here - let's allow you another opportunity to actually focus and point your energies toward actually challenging what you've just ignored... and, of course, to allow you to actually begin to make the argument against AGW. Here Pliny - let's have you ignore this - again?

but most significant Pliny, is the state of world wide glacier retreat, one you feel comfortable with... one you can qualify and attribute to... something... anything?

The IPCC has put out a statement on the melting of the Himalayan glaciers

- Pliny, are you prepared to challenge this quote from that statement?

The Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page 49) stated: “Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.”

This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment

.

various blogs are now linking to

this presentation given recently at the annual AGU conference

- stated as reflecting the current state of the Himalayan glaciers... while also addressing this rather inconsequential WG2 volume comment. Pliny, are you ready to challenge this presentation on the current state of the Himalayan glaciers? Are you prepared to offer cause to qualify the significant retreat of some of the Himalayan glaciers - to challenge the statement that, overall,

"total Himalayan glacier mass balance is distinctly negative?"

[Keepitsimple]

say what? Another MLW skeptic/denier contradiction (read... flip/flop)... notwithstanding you wouldn't/couldn't substantiate it, why did you posture recently over a legitimate global cooling trend, if you're now accepting there is a long-term global warming trend? As you say, I can only shake my head.

Waldo....you just never listen....or maybe you just don't understand. No regular "skeptic" denies Climate Change......nor do we deny that the world has been getting warmer since the Little Ice Age - it's gone in cycles of warming and cooling but there has been a steady upward warming trend of 1 degree per century over the past 500 years - that's a fact. We also believe in the mechanics of the GHG theory. We also believe that humans contribute greenhouse gases and as a result, have SOME impact on Climate Change. Our skepticism of the AGW theory is really only limited to quantifying HOW MUCH impact humans (i.e. CO2) have on Climate Change........and you can cut-and-paste all you want - that's the part that is NOT "settled science" - and it's the most important question of all. The closest the IPCC cadre has come is to say "we can't find any other reason for the warming".

[waldo]

Waldo....you just never listen....or maybe you just don't understand. No regular "skeptic" denies Climate Change......nor do we deny that the world has been getting warmer since the Little Ice Age - it's gone in cycles of warming and cooling but there has been a steady upward warming trend of 1 degree per century over the past 500 years - that's a fact. We also believe in the mechanics of the GHG theory. We also believe that humans contribute greenhouse gases and as a result, have SOME impact on Climate Change. Our skepticism of the AGW theory is really only limited to quantifying HOW MUCH impact humans (i.e. CO2) have on Climate Change........and you can cut-and-paste all you want - that's the part that is NOT "settled science" - and it's the most important question of all. The closest the IPCC cadre has come is to say "we can't find any other reason for the warming".

Simple, your latest personalized version of the MLW skeptic/denier contradiction (read... flip/flop) is most refreshing... I also expect we will no longer see you posturing with claims of a global cooling trend - on whatever time-frame you might presume to select! I also expect we will no longer see the posted results of your scurrying about attempting to find anything/everything, regardless of it's lack of credibility or lack of substantiation. Now, if as you say, your future arguments will be centered on the lack of quantification, I look forward to your genuine skeptic statement/positions that presume to speak to exactly that; i.e. the quantification of mankind to global warming climate change.

I posted a link to this Dec,09 AGU presentation by Richard Alley just prior to the Xmas break... - "The Biggest Control Knob - C02 in Earth's Climate History"... an account of all the lines of evidence of the role of CO2 in climate changes - a foundation as to why scientists are so certain that CO2 is the big driver in climate change. I'll assume my post/link got lost over the Xmas break period, given there were no bites on it - go figure! Of course, if you begin to open your skepticism to the influence of CO2... we could then take up your challenge to account for the rapid increase of CO2 in these latter decades (i.e. mankind vs. natural).

[Riverwind]

"The Biggest Control Knob - C02 in Earth's Climate History".

Yep. For the 20 years any explanation for past climate that did not involve CO2 was systematically expunged from the record. Data that did not support the conclusions was dismissed or adjusted. Data that supported the CO2 hypothesis had its significance exaggerated.

Scientists are herd animals. They go where the grants are. Scientists that try to disrupt the gravy train are vilified and attacked. Scientists that cook up bogus analyses which provide 'another line of evidence' are lauded as heroes and have grants showered on them. All it takes is a little 'cognitive dissonance' to turn the grant hungry scientist into a true believer. As Jerry Seinfeld said: its not a lie if you believe it.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Riverwind

[Keepitsimple]

Simple, your latest personalized version of the MLW skeptic/denier contradiction (read... flip/flop) is most refreshing... I also expect we will no longer see you posturing with claims of a global cooling trend - on whatever time-frame you might presume to select!

You still don't quite get it....but you're almost there. As I said, the world has been warming a little bit every century for the past 500 years - since we came out of the Little Ice Age. But that overall warming has been obtained through repetitive patterns of warming and then cooling - usually in cycles of around 25-30 years. We have just recently entered a period of cooling...and it should last for another 20 or so years. That's really nothing earth-shattering as it just follows a pretty predictable pattern. Problem is, the IPCC didn't predict it, nor did the "models". Waldo - since you deny - or refuse to accept that there has been cooling (or a lack of warming) over the last 9 or 10 years, does that mean you do not believe in this cyclic process? Do you believe that that it will get increasingly warm, more or less following a straight line upwards because of AGW? Is that what you believe?

[waldo]

You still don't quite get it....but you're almost there. As I said, the world has been warming a little bit every century for the past 500 years - since we came out of the Little Ice Age. But that overall warming has been obtained through repetitive patterns of warming and then cooling - usually in cycles of around 25-30 years. We have just recently entered a period of cooling...and it should last for another 20 or so years. That's really nothing earth-shattering as it just follows a pretty predictable pattern. Problem is, the IPCC didn't predict it, nor did the "models". Waldo - since you deny - or refuse to accept that there has been cooling (or a lack of warming) over the last 9 or 10 years, does that mean you do not believe in this cyclic process? Do you believe that that it will get increasingly warm, more or less following a straight line upwards because of AGW? Is that what you believe?

Simple, I'll keep linking to this MLW post showing both your schooling over trends and a NASA GISS trend plot that presents a 25 year trend along with two recent 10-year trends..... as the graphic caption states: "the decadel trends are consistent with the 25 year trend and IPCC predictions". At some point you'll need to actually step up and substantiate your global cooling trend claim.

[Riverwind]

HadCRUT cooling since 2001

UAH and RSS are similar but I don't have a recent plot handy. GISS is flat.

"the decadel trends are consistent with the 25 year trend and IPCC predictions".

Claiming that the temperatures are 'consistent with' the models is meaningless claim since virtually every plausible temperature outcome is 'consistent with' the models.

Here is good debunking of the 'consistent with' nonsense.

Man-made global warming is just one of many possible theories of climate. Another is the Business-as-Usual Theory (BUT), which states that whatever happened last year will more or less happen this year, and so on into the future.

The winter were seeing is consistent with the BUT, which like the man-made global warming theory, never says any temperature is impossible. Further, BUT is corroborated more strongly by this winter than is the man-made warming theory. BUTs predictions are closer to what we actually see.

Stop right there, Briggs! Youre making the classical mistake of confusing weather with climate. The global warming models make predictions of climate and not weather. This winter doesnt mean anything!

I am not making that mistake, and it is you who are confused. Weather is climate. More specifically, aggregations of weather are climate. Means, averages, and distributions of daily weather comprise climate. That is, climate is a statistical phenomenon and depends for its existence on defining a reference time frame

Edited January 23, 2010 by Riverwind

[waldo]

HadCRUT cooling since 2001

UAH and RSS are similar but I don't have a recent plot handy. GISS is flat.

do you actually think you won't be called on this - once again (MLW link). How recent back was it you, yourself, offered comment that "17 years should be long enough to establish a representative trend"... which, by the way, isn't even the accepted standard length for representative longer-term trends. But here you are again - back to your 7... 8... 9 year game. What's the point, other than cherry-picking and/or over-emphasizing natural variations within a short time span? Why play that game - are you that desperate?

Claiming that the temperatures are 'consistent with' the models is meaningless claim since virtually every plausible temperature outcome is 'consistent with' the models.

Man-made global warming is just one of many possible theories of climate. Another is the Business-as-Usual Theory (BUT), which states that whatever happened last year will more or less happen this year, and so on into the future.

The winter we’re seeing is consistent with the BUT, which like the man-made global warming theory, never says any temperature is impossible. Further, BUT is corroborated more strongly by this winter than is the man-made warming theory. BUT’s predictions are closer to what we actually see.

and yet... you're the guy who, ad nauseam, denigrated climate models in general, IPCC models in particular. What was your point/concern over climate models... if, as you now state/quote, "virtually every plausible temperature outcome is 'consistent with' the models! Oh my - another Riverwind contradiction... just one in the lengthy list.

note to self: Riverwind favours the BUT, BUT, BUT climate change theory!

on edit: even if you want to play the short game... the boys from NASA will accommodate!

What about the claim that the Earth’s surface has been cooling over the past decade? That issue can be addressed with a far higher degree of confidence, because the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements becomes much smaller when averaged over several years. The 2‐sigma error in the 5‐year running‐mean temperature anomaly shown in Figure 2, is about a factor of two smaller than the annual mean uncertainty, thus 0.02‐0.03°C. Given that the change of 5‐year‐mean global temperature anomaly is about 0.2°C over the past decade, we can conclude that the world has become warmer over the past decade, not cooler. Why are some people so readily convinced of a false conclusion, that the world is really experiencing a cooling trend? That gullibility probably has a lot to do with regional short‐term temperature fluctuations, which are an order of magnitude larger than global average annual anomalies. Yet many lay people do understand the distinction between regional short‐term anomalies and global trends.

they also describe the reason behind differences between their GISS data and CRU's HadCRUT data... speaking of which, irony rains supreme, where we have you - the champion against CRU/Jones and their data... now... presuming to leverage that very data for your misguided intent. Oh my - the irony of it all!

Edited January 23, 2010 by waldo

[waldo]

Yep. For the 20 years any explanation for past climate that did not involve CO2 was systematically expunged from the record. Data that did not support the conclusions was dismissed or adjusted. Data that supported the CO2 hypothesis had its significance exaggerated.

why such a purposely vague and clouded comment - is there a readable translation of the above available... one that includes clear/precise specificity over the described expunged time-frame, actual data dismissed or adjusted and actual data exaggerated?

Scientists are herd animals. They go where the grants are. Scientists that try to disrupt the gravy train are vilified and attacked. Scientists that cook up bogus analyses which provide 'another line of evidence' are lauded as heroes and have grants showered on them. All it takes is a little 'cognitive dissonance' to turn the grant hungry scientist into a true believer. As Jerry Seinfeld said: its not a lie if you believe it.

I presume your statement is intended toward all scientists, regardless of AGW climate change position... you don't say otherwise, so we'll include your favoured pack of skeptic/denier scientists within your target sights. In any case, even if one accepted your nth degree jaded view of scientists, all scientists... even if there was a total skew in funding, one way or the other, is it your position that funding skews the actual science study/research result? Is this simply another facet of your conspiracy meme? Are you suggesting the denier side only needs more funding to actually make it's case against the overwhelming scientific consensus that supports the AGW climate change theory? Perhaps you should sponsor a telethon... maybe throw some bake sales, etc. Oh wait, what about all those charges of funding/influence peddling from the likes of CEI, Cato, Heartland, G.C. Marshal, AEI, API, Exxon-Mobil, etc., etc., etc.. Are they all just needing to fund the denier side a bit more... is that all that's holding back the denier side science breakthrough to disprove AGW... rather prove natural variations (or "other") as the cause of global warming? Really, is that all it would take - more funding?

[Riverwind]

is it your position that funding skews the actual science study/research result?

I have said this before but you seem to have problems understanding it: in climate science there is no reliable data or experimental results that can be used to prove/disprove theories and all scientific claims are built on a huge number of unverifiable assumptions. What this means that the 'consensus' is really nothing more than a popularity contest among scientists. The scientists which produce the most convenient analyses are presumed to be correct and if data disagrees then the data is presumed to be wrong and adjusted accordingly. In a different universe a different group of scientists with a different theory could easily take the same data, adjust it according to their biases over many years and build up 'many lines of evidence' that support that theory.

IOW - climate science is the perfect environment for group think to take hold. When you combine that with a huge pressure on scientists to support certain political agendas you have a toxic environment which makes it impossible to trust any of the science that comes out of it. It could be fixed but people have to start by acknowledging there is a problem.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Riverwind

[maple_leafs182]

I think George Carlin was bang on.

We're so self-important. So arrogant. Everybody's going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save the snails. And the supreme arrogance? Save the planet! Are these people kidding? Save the planet? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves; we haven't learned how to care for one another. We're gonna save the fuckin' planet? . . . And, by the way, there's nothing wrong with the planet in the first place. The planet is fine. The people are fucked! Compared with the people, the planet is doin' great.

We allow wars to go on slaughtering millions

We let millions starve

We let millions die of disease

We force millions to live on the streets

we are f***ed.

and the really stupid thing is it is all in the name of money and greed.

Edited January 23, 2010 by maple_leafs182

[bush_cheney2004]

I think George Carlin was bang on...

George Carlin still took the money.

[waldo]

HadCRUT cooling since 2001

UAH and RSS are similar but I don't have a recent plot handy. GISS is flat.

do you actually think you won't be called on this - once again (MLW link). How recent back was it you, yourself, offered comment that "17 years should be long enough to establish a representative trend"... which, by the way, isn't even the accepted standard length for representative longer-term trends. But here you are again - back to your 7... 8... 9 year game. What's the point, other than cherry-picking and/or over-emphasizing natural variations within a short time span? Why play that game - are you that desperate?

even if you want to play the short game... the boys from NASA will accommodate!

What about the claim that the Earth’s surface has been cooling over the past decade? That issue can be addressed with a far higher degree of confidence, because the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements becomes much smaller when averaged over several years. The 2‐sigma error in the 5‐year running‐mean temperature anomaly shown in Figure 2, is about a factor of two smaller than the annual mean uncertainty, thus 0.02‐0.03°C. Given that the change of 5‐year‐mean global temperature anomaly is about 0.2°C over the past decade, we can conclude that the world has become warmer over the past decade, not cooler. Why are some people so readily convinced of a false conclusion, that the world is really experiencing a cooling trend? That gullibility probably has a lot to do with regional short‐term temperature fluctuations, which are an order of magnitude larger than global average annual anomalies. Yet many lay people do understand the distinction between regional short‐term anomalies and global trends.

they also describe the reason behind differences between their GISS data and CRU's HadCRUT data... speaking of which, irony rains supreme, where we have you - the champion against CRU/Jones and their data... now... presuming to leverage that very data for your misguided intent. Oh my - the irony of it all!

let’s examine your scam… just a bit closer… perhaps we can finally put to rest the antics of the Riverwind/Simple/Pliny crew claiming a legitimate global cooling trend. The fact you actually know the implications of short-term trending only acts to amplify your most personal hypocrisy, your own deviousness and, again, your desperation in continuing to foster this falsehood over global cooling. Your purposeful deception, in choosing your coveted short-term period since 2001, is that it’s one predominated by a fairly robust La Nina cycle… it’s also an insufficient time period to minimize the full effect of the 10-12 year sunspot cycle… but why let any of that get in the way of your agenda! That we’re now moving more directly into an El Nino cycle, one being described only as “moderate”, and beginning to see record monthly temperatures… only acts to heighten your short-term trending game/agenda.

but let’s see what happens when we only add a single year… just a single year… to your short game. I’ve run the various processed temperature data sets, comparing trends beginning at year 2001 (your favoured starting point), to a trend starting at year 2000. Needless to say, we see the most dramatic shift in trending brought about by simply adding a single year to your short game. Again, is your desperation that significant that you would knowingly pass this deception off... your short game... as suggestion of a legitimate global cooling trend?

[Riverwind]

The fact you actually know the implications of short-term trending only acts to amplify your most personal hypocrisy, your own deviousness and, again, your desperation in continuing to foster this falsehood over global cooling.

The cooling is a fact and you know it. The only person being deceptive is you. If you were actually interested in discussing science you would accept the *fact* of cooling but try to explain why you think that the cooling is not significant. However, you are only interested in peddling alarmist propoganda which means you are unable to acknowledge facts and prefer to hurl various insults at people who are not interested in enabling your fantasies.

As for the significance of the cooling: the are mathematical techniques which can be used to determine whether it is signicant and when applied properly those techniques show that the cooling is significant when compare to the claims made by the IPCC.

[wyly]

let’s examine your scam… just a bit closer… perhaps we can finally put to rest the antics of the Riverwind/Simple/Pliny crew claiming a legitimate global cooling trend. The fact you actually know the implications of short-term trending only acts to amplify your most personal hypocrisy, your own deviousness and, again, your desperation in continuing to foster this falsehood over global cooling. Your purposeful deception, in choosing your coveted short-term period since 2001, is that it’s one predominated by a fairly robust La Nina cycle… it’s also an insufficient time period to minimize the full effect of the 10-12 year sunspot cycle… but why let any of that get in the way of your agenda! That we’re now moving more directly into an El Nino cycle, one being described only as “moderate”, and beginning to see record monthly temperatures… only acts to heighten your short-term trending game/agenda.

but let’s see what happens when we only add a single year… just a single year… to your short game. I’ve run the various processed temperature data sets, comparing trends beginning at year 2001 (your favoured starting point), to a trend starting at year 2000. Needless to say, we see the most dramatic shift in trending brought about by simply adding a single year to your short game. Again, is your desperation that significant that you would knowingly pass this deception off... your short game... as suggestion of a legitimate global cooling trend?

at least they stopped using 1998 as their start point ...

with 2008 being the bottom of the solar cycle and the sun headed into the peak of the solar cycle we may see some new records in 2010 or 2011...

Edited January 24, 2010 by wyly

[Riverwind]

with 2008 being the bottom of the solar cycle and the sun headed into the peak of the solar cycle we may see some new records in 2010 or 2011.

The amount of cooling experienced is much larger than what can explained with the solar cycle given current understanding. If warming does resume when the solar cycle starts that will be extremely strong evidence that the climate models underestimate the effect of the sun and, consequently, overestimate the effect of CO2.

[waldo]

let’s examine your scam… just a bit closer… perhaps we can finally put to rest the antics of the Riverwind/Simple/Pliny crew claiming a legitimate global cooling trend. The fact you actually know the implications of short-term trending only acts to amplify your most personal hypocrisy, your own deviousness and, again, your desperation in continuing to foster this falsehood over global cooling. Your purposeful deception, in choosing your coveted short-term period since 2001, is that it’s one predominated by a fairly robust La Nina cycle… it’s also an insufficient time period to minimize the full effect of the 10-12 year sunspot cycle… but why let any of that get in the way of your agenda! That we’re now moving more directly into an El Nino cycle, one being described only as “moderate”, and beginning to see record monthly temperatures… only acts to heighten your short-term trending game/agenda.

but let’s see what happens when we only add a single year… just a single year… to your short game. I’ve run the various processed temperature data sets, comparing trends beginning at year 2001 (your favoured starting point), to a trend starting at year 2000. Needless to say, we see the most dramatic shift in trending brought about by simply adding a single year to your short game. Again, is your desperation that significant that you would knowingly pass this deception off... your short game... as suggestion of a legitimate global cooling trend?

The cooling is a fact and you know it. The only person being deceptive is you. If you were actually interested in discussing science you would accept the *fact* of cooling but try to explain why you think that the cooling is not significant. However, you are only interested in peddling alarmist propoganda which means you are unable to acknowledge facts and prefer to hurl various insults at people who are not interested in enabling your fantasies.

As for the significance of the cooling: the are mathematical techniques which can be used to determine whether it is signicant and when applied properly those techniques show that the cooling is significant when compare to the claims made by the IPCC.

buddy, your short game deception is very clear - in the face of past discussions covering this same topic, you still have the unmitigated gall to attempt it again... you cherry-pick your coveted 2001 starting year and throw up your denier web-site cut&paste trend pics, trumpeting your ta-da, while knowing that you're working with a period that over-emphasizes the existing natural influences during that period (predominate La Nina & solar cycle positioning). Should we really be surprised you'd try it again... discussing science? On what rare occasions have you actually done that? On what rare occasions have you actually linked to a reputable scientific paper?... or right, sorry, your go-to boy McIntyre doesn't asking do any science... any research... he doesn't actually publish any papers - does he? You're in a real quandary with that, aren't you?

[waldo]

The amount of cooling experienced is much larger than what can explained with the solar cycle given current understanding. If warming does resume when the solar cycle starts that will be extremely strong evidence that the climate models underestimate the effect of the sun and, consequently, overestimate the effect of CO2.

legitimate citation? ... from other than denier blog 'scientists'... that factors all the natural variations during the period influenced by your cherry-picked start year. From the same NASA narrative I just linked to... one described as a synopsis of a paper nearing completion:

Why are some people so readily convinced of a false conclusion, that the world is really experiencing a cooling trend? That gullibility probably has a lot to do with regional short‐term temperature fluctuations, which are an order of magnitude larger than global average annual anomalies.

[Riverwind]

you cherry-pick your coveted 2001 starting year

That is when the latest IPCC models started predicting the future. It is the ONLY suitable starting point since it is easy to get a model to "predict" temperatures when you already know what they are.

working with a period that over-emphasizes the existing natural influences during that period (predominate La Nina & solar cycle positioning).

The sun's effect was known to the modellers. If they believed it had such a strong role we would see the effect in the model outputs. The fact is the modellers ignore the sun because they believe it has no effect. It is rediculous to say now that they 'forgot' to take the sun into account. If they did forget they are incompetent if they left it out because they believed it had no effect then they are wrong. Take your pick. Edited January 25, 2010 by Riverwind

[Pliny]

say what? Another MLW skeptic/denier contradiction (read... flip/flop)... notwithstanding you wouldn't/couldn't substantiate it, why did you posture recently over a legitimate global cooling trend, if you're now accepting there is a long-term global warming trend? As you say, I can only shake my head.

if, as you say, you're arguing that global warming exists... but not confirmed as anthropogenic, I've not seen any evidence of that argument presented - by you! Please make that specific argument, because you've certainly not even attempted to do so. What/which non-anthropogenic influences do you favour in your, to-date, non-stated argument, Pliny?

at least get your venomous bile/hate-on pointed in the right direction, hey Pliny? Perhaps actually acquaint yourself to the details of that 2007 Nobel Peace Prize... which wasn't the report itself, right Pliny? In your self-stated desire to argue against anthropogenic, I gave you an opportunity in the post you've just not replied to. It's very telling that you actually won't step up and challenge the actual stated position of the IPCC on glacier retreat (re. the position as summarized within the Synthesis Report of all working group reports). Instead... you think you can score something over an, effectively, inconsequential statement within a particular working group (WG2) sub-report - one that doesn't, in fact, agree with the statement within one of the other working group (WG1) sub-reports (the one that actually formed the basis for what appeared in the IPCC positional Synthesis Report. Why not focus your energies on what was actually stated within the WG1 sub report... or, of course, the Synthesis Report... or even the Summary for Policymakers Report? Because none of those would support your 'tempest in a teapot' noise - right, Pliny?

here - let's allow you another opportunity to actually focus and point your energies toward actually challenging what you've just ignored... and, of course, to allow you to actually begin to make the argument against AGW. Here Pliny - let's have you ignore this - again?

You sound like you understand things but this post indicates what I have suspected - you simply don't and are just making flapping noises with your keyboard, for some reason known only to yourself.

[waldo]

More of the temperature stations (thermometers) that I was asking Riverwing about:

Hey Simple... now that NASA summarily dispatched one of your expert TV weatherman (John Coleman), it's NOAA/NCDC's turn to do the same with another of your expert TV weatherman - Anthony Watts... over his unsubstantiated claims that the "U.S. Surface Temperature Record is unreliable".

Correction

: although Watts' volunteer army has certainly gathered a wealth of data with it's surfacestations.org project initiative... and published (a portion) of that data... he/they have never published any actual analysis of that data - analysis that actually corroborates the grandiose claim of unreliability. Their definitive basis for making that claim comes down to pictures... lots and lots of pictures of stations across the U.S. that collect the U.S. temperature data records. That's it... no actual analysis of their collected data... but a ton of pictures.

So... should we be surprised that NOAA/NCDC would take exception to the unsubstantiated Watts claim - one continually trumpeted throughout the denialsphere, actually analyze the Watts published data... and offer comment/rebuttal. But it gets better, because the Menne et al 2010 paper's analysis was able to identify an overall cool bias within the Watts data... and isolate the cause. That's right - the temperature record actually is biased cooler than it should be. Menne et al offer a courteous thank you/acknowledgment to Watts & surfacestations.org

The role of surfacestations.org is recognized in the paper's acknowledgments in which they "wish to thank Anthony Watts and the many volunteers at surfacestations.org for their considerable efforts in documenting the current site characteristics of USHCN stations." A net cooling bias was perhaps not the result the surfacestations.org volunteers were hoping for but improving the quality of the surface temperature record is surely a result we should all appreciate.

bold emphasis added - mine!

… apparently… Pielke Sr. is upset that his hobbyfront site and spokesperson Watts is coming under scrutiny. Apparently Pielke is raising concerns in that only 40% of the surfacestations data was analyzed by NOAA/NCDC… and that the data hadn’t actually gone through “quality assurance tests”. Oh my! That 40% of the data aspect simply coincides with how much data Watts has actually released/published… and… apparently, that amount of published data, in whatever quality assurance state claimed… was certainly sufficient for Watts to trumpet his (unsubstantiated) unreliability claim. Pielke also is making a rather silly claim over “professional discourtesy”… feeling NOAA/NCDC should have simply waited (years now?) for Watts to finish his surfacestations.org project and formerly publish a related paper on the findings… while continuing to allow the denialsphere (and the U.S./world) to question the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record. Either Watts should have held back on publishing his data (while making unsubstantiated claims)… or he (and Pielke) should accept that interested stakeholders might decide to look at their data/claim and challenge/refute it – go figure!

[Riverwind]

Pielke also is making a rather silly claim over “professional discourtesy”

Watts should have been asked to review the paper since it was his data being used. They also refused Pieke's offer for a co-authorship - something that would have produced a balanced paper.

Currently Watts has two papers submitted to journals. It takes time to publish papers sceptical papers because the climate mafia do whatever they can to suppress them. The fact track given Menne's paper is a typical unprofessional alarmist tactic: publish smoke screen papers that "rebutt" sceptical claims before or shortly after the sceptical papers are published.

[waldo]

in climate science there is no reliable data or experimental results that can be used to prove/disprove theories and all scientific claims are built on a huge number of unverifiable assumptions. What this means that the 'consensus' is really nothing more than a popularity contest among scientists. The scientists which produce the most convenient analyses are presumed to be correct and if data disagrees then the data is presumed to be wrong and adjusted accordingly. In a different universe a different group of scientists with a different theory could easily take the same data, adjust it according to their biases over many years and build up 'many lines of evidence' that support that theory.

IOW - climate science is the perfect environment for group think to take hold. When you combine that with a huge pressure on scientists to support certain political agendas you have a toxic environment which makes it impossible to trust any of the science that comes out of it. It could be fixed but people have to start by acknowledging there is a problem.

translation: the overwhelming scientific consensus that accepts the AGW climate change theory is the result of world-wide scientists, institutions, organizations, etc., all lacking or failing to present any independent thought or creativity, all lacking any desire to test, analyze and evaluate actual science in the interests of improving understandings within science... the Riverwind conspiracy has now extended to include a favoured buzzword bingo label - groupthink!!!