Chicago Trib publishes the ultimate denier smackdown page.

[wtmusic]

Whenever someone starts in with sunspots, Al Gore's investments, or "Climategate" - point them here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-0228-climate-science-questions-20100302,0,4670437,full.story

End. Of. Story.

"Questions and answers on climate change

Is there scientific consensus?

The 2007 report from the IPCC, a group of scientists from 113 countries who studied the peer-reviewed research, concluded they are 90 percent confident that global warming is caused by humans. Scientific research does not claim anything with absolute certainty, but this is about as close as it gets."

Other questions:

"But the IPCC report said most of the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. Isn't that false?
Did the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration misplace weather stations and exaggerate warming?
What about the "Climategate" e-mails?
It snowed a lot on the East Coast last month. What does that mean?
Didn't scientists predict in the 1970s that we were experiencing global cooling and heading toward another Ice Age?
What is happening with ice in Antarctica?"

[FSogol]

1. It snowed a lot on the East Coast last month. What does that mean?

:rofl:

How about; "There is a lot of frost in my chest freezer, What does that mean?"

[wtmusic]

4. I know, I know.

But there are a lot of stupid people in this country who can vote. Ignore them at our peril.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. "End. Of. Story." (I wish.)

Honestly, there are a number of good resources out there on a number of sites. (A number on more authoritative sites than the Chicago Tribune. For example, http://www.globalchange.gov/ )

In my experience, "skeptics" aren't swayed by this sort of thing. It's not about "evidence" or "logic;" it's more fundamental than that.

If a "skeptic" firmly believes that humanity is incapable of causing climate change, then, any evidence you may offer to suggest otherwise is false (since it contradicts known "facts.")

[wtmusic]

3. Too complicated.

Yes, Globalchange.gov is more authoritative. Yes, there is way more science and substantiation. And you will never get a denier to click on one link from that website.

The Trib article is much more concise and squashes denier talking points like a hammer to a gnat.

Bonus: if whomever you're talking to happens to be from Chicago, they'll know that the Trib is generally considered a RW rag.

[pscot]

5. Hey. It's the world's greatest newspaper

It says so right on the masthead.

[EC]

6. That's because it's pretty much like Fox

who spouts being the greatest news network...

The Trib is pretty much right-wing and managed to ruin the L.A. Times when they took it over too...

[toolabard]

7. The Tides We Live In

I have used this analogy before. From the molten core of the planet, to the sun itself, we live in the tides of space. Even the earths crust has 'weather'. I don't think it is to big a concept to grasp. If you just observe the planet, you will notice a lot going on. And it isn't a simple matter of having much more technology to examine the global changes. By counting the number of earthquakes, or feet of snow in the east, you know the planet is getting frisky. For instance, since the first quake in Chile, there have been numerous quakes in other parts of the Pacific rim. So why are so many people trying to hide this 6,000 lb. house-ape with the shits, in the closet?
First reason is money and power. The very LAST thing anyone with both needs, is a bunch or bleeding heart liberals pointing their fingers, and blaming the problem on Exxon or the far right. We all know the Dick Cheney goon squad will do anything to stay in power...like start a war in the Mid-East. If they can engineer some plot to get rid of all democrats and assorted pinkos, they would.
Second reason is the group of well-meaning folks that think we would be better off not knowing the truth. I guess they feel we can't handle reality. Umm, what the hell do ya think we are living on, bon-bons and caviar??! Maybe we would like to make a few plans and possibly, ride this wave out.
It is this second group that may have a lot more data that could be useful. Getting them to open up will be hard, but some of them may decide the patient needs to know his fate.

[wtmusic]

9. Let me get this straight...

Cheney created the myth of global warming, to make the left look crazy, so he could stay in power.

Is that what you are saying? :silly:

[amborin]

8. good! especially since today's nytimes says denier educ is spreading to more schools and states

[The Croquist]

10. Skeptic alert

Sorry but I question the arguments. A few examples:

Did the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration misplace weather stations and exaggerate warming?

The bottom line is yes and nobody knows. First of all Watts has shown that about 91% of the USHCN station sites were poorly located or maintained. To explain that away as unimportant is absurd. It shows a lack of quality control that is unacceptable. The fact that early on the USHCN, after finding out about his project, blocked access to the station data for "privacy concerns" is suspicious in light of the gross negligence Watts uncovered in placing and maintaining the sites.

The peer reviewed response by NOAA/National Climatic Data Center explains that the few quality stations supports a warming trend but fails to address the real issue. What Watts found was that 9% of the USHCN stations are currently up to standards. Nobody knows what they were like 5, 10, 25, 50 or 100 years ago. With a failure rate of 91% currently, in their analysis, they assume that all 71 of the quality stations they study have always been quality stations. That is not a valid assumption. Without supporting evidence that the stations were always of good quality the data can not be trusted.

Further, I wonder why it is necessary to adjust the data if the station quality is sufficient.


What about the "Climategate" e-mails?

At issue was some high-latitude tree-ring data that stopped matching observed temperatures in the 1960s. The "trick" refers to a technique that Penn State scientist Michael Mann published in the journal Nature in 1998. Mann plotted more recent temperature data along with earlier tree-ring data. The decline discussed in the e-mail didn't involve "hiding" actual temperatures but rather what Mann and others considered the declining reliability of some tree-ring data, Mann has said.

Assuming that there was nothing nefarious regarding the replacing of the tree-ring data with thermometer data the question still remains "If tree-ring data can't be trusted after 1960 why can it be trusted prior to that?" The idea that tree-ring data was reliable for centuries when there was no thermometer data to confirm it and then suddenly the correlation was lost for the last 50 years seems a bit far fetched to me.

Nowhere in the Tribune article does it address the fact that Phil Jones broke the law in evading FOI requests and that he asked others to do the same.

Jones also shared the same data with others without regard to confidentiality agreements while deny the data to those who disagreed with him.

[Viking12]

11. The Zombies live....

Watts hasn't shown anything except pretty pictures. He couldn't conduct a statistical analysis if his life depended on it and you couldn't evaluate a statistical analysis if you were given directions. (Hint, it's anomalies that matter. Siting? not so much). Adjusted data actually show less warming the raw data.

The USHCN data is posted online and has been for years. He was never "blocked from access." Watts is a liar and you're an idiot for accepting his lies.

"If tree-ring data can't be trusted after 1960 why can it be trusted prior to that?"

This denier nonsense has also been addressed repeatedly -- read the numerous peer-reviewed articles on the "Divergence question".

[The Croquist]

13. The NOAA Meta Database was shut down from 06/30/2007 until 07/06/2007

Here is the letter sent when it was opened back up.

Dear Mr. Watts,

You made several inquiries recently regarding the availability of Cooperative observer names in the MMS system. I have received the clarification I needed in order to respond, and wanted to inform you of the results as well as to provide some background detail.



The names of observers participating the the National Weather Service’s (NWS) Cooperative (Coop) Observation Program have for many years been published state by state in both the Climatological Data (CD) and Hourly Precipitation Data (HPD) publications. Individual Coop observer names have also appeared from time to time on various NWS web sites, often in the context of award presentations. However, as a practice, NCDC has not intentionally made the names public as part of its station metadata systems.

While the Multi-network Metadata System (MMS) has always included security restrictions to prevent guest users from accessing observer details, including name, an oversight permitted observer names to be viewed on the Station Identity form along with managing party identifiers. Based on our accepted practice, NCDC immediately corrected the condition that permitted such visibility, but soon received user comments indicating that people were indeed accessing the names and requesting that the field be restored.

Those inquiries and requests prompted NCDC to revisit their practices for handling Cooperative observer names, and to formally address the issue of privacy as it relates to those names. NCDC began with a review of the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act statutes, a related court decision, NCDC practices and existing documents, systems and sites at NCDC and other sources. With this background, NCDC requested that the Department of Commerce’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) provide a legal opinion on the issue. That opinion follows:

“As you know, personal information can be withheld under FOIA Exemption (b)(6), which permits withholding of personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. A balancing test is employed to apply this exemption. Under this test, the privacy interest held by those identified in the records is weighed against the public interest in the information. In all cases, the public interest in disclosure of information about private individuals under the FOIA is limited to information that sheds light on an agency’s performance of its statutory duties.

For the names of weather observers that have been released, there can be no privacy interest because the information is already public. However, weather observers do have privacy interests in their home addresses. Release of this information could lead to unsolicited mail or even visitation by strangers. There is no public interest in this type of information because it does not shed light on NCDC’s performance of its statutory duties. Accordingly, I would conclude that the addresses of weather observers is withholdable under b(6).”

The OGC’s opinion is also the basis for a more concise NCDC policy regarding observer details, which is now posted on NCDC’s web site.

Based on the revised policy, Coop observer names will be displayed in the MMS station metadata system, but address, phone numbers and any other details will not. Should requests be made for paper copies of previously submitted paper station history forms, all observer details except for name must be manually obliterated from each form copy prior to delivery, with the requester responsible for the cost of that manual work.

Access to the station managing party field in the MMS Identity tab’s form view should be restored within one business day. In the long term, that information will probably be removed to a separate tab, but will continue to be available.

I hope this adequately addresses your concerns regarding NCDC’s Coop observer name policy and availability of that information.

Sincerely,

Jeff Arnfield
–
Jeff Arnfield
Station Metadata Project Manager

[Viking12]

15. ZOMG!!!1 The site was off line over the 4th of July weekend -- it's a conspiracy I tells ya.

And they were protecting the privacy of weather observers that are all part of the conspiracy !11!111!111 ZOMG this is HUGH!!!!1

[The Croquist]

21. It wasn't offline it was removed from service

You said about Watts He was never "blocked from access." Watts is a liar and you're an idiot for accepting his lies.

You were wrong. I posted an e-mail from the Station Metadata Project Manager acknowledging that they blocked access to the data.

It was taken down for 8 days. That is an awfully long weekend. You now say that they were protecting the privacy of weather observers. I said that they used that as a reason. My exact quote was "privacy concerns"

Exactly why am I an idiot for knowing what I am talking about?

Perhaps you should read the discussion about Cyber bullying

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x233891

[Viking12]

22. The names of the observers are not 'data'.

Watts is a liar and you're a fool for falling for his schtick. Why don't you get an education and come back when you understand the issues.

The irony is sooooo rich. You're citing cyber-terrorists like the Watts crew at the same time you cry about cyber-bullying.

[wtmusic]

12. Don't be sorry, question everything.

But cherry-picking points which are irrelevant, insignificant, or have already been debunked is an easy target.

re: NOAA stations:

"A new peer-reviewed study by scientists at the National Climatic Data Center, the federal office that tracks climate trends, agrees that problems with the locations of many weather stations are real.

But the temperature records from the poorly located stations cited by Watts actually have a slightly cool bias, not a warm one, according to the review, scheduled to be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.

'Fortunately, the sites with good exposure, though small in number, are reasonably well distributed across the country,' the researchers concluded, adding that the 'good' or better stations cited by Watts show warming over time similar to NOAA's overall data.

There also are multiple other surface and satellite measurements of global temperatures, all of which show a warming trend."

re: "Climategate":

By 1960, there were over 100 years of instrumental temperature record which showed a strong correlation between temperature and tree-ring width in all latitudes. After 1960 the correlation didn't hold for a subset of the examined data - that from some northern latitude samples. Tree ring growth is evidence, with limitations like all evidence, and Mann's paper makes that abundantly clear.

And you missed this part: "Then there is a December editorial from Nature, a respected British scientific journal: 'Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.'"

There are thousands of respected scientists who are in agreement on this issue, and it's incomprehensible that skeptics feel qualified to consider these tiny pieces of the puzzle an indictment of the theory in general. With well-funded propaganda bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, it's not so incomprehensible that this nonsense has made an impression on public opinion. After the OJ Simpson trial, I'm convinced that the only thing more certain than AGW is the gullibility and ignorance of the public on scientific issues.

[The Croquist]

14. I read the peer review

As I said they ignored any concern about quality of the station siting prior the Watts' audit. In my opinion that is not a reasonable assumption. The fact that it was peer reviewed does not address this issue.

I also know that there was about 100 years of temperature data to use to determine a correlation between tree-rings and temperature but that data was used to create a correlation. Now we have a divergence for the last 50 or so years. Any correlation that was thought to exist should be revisited rather then ignored. Many years ago I remember that there was supposedly a correlation between stock prices and woman's hem lengths. Sadly it did not stand up to the test of time.

The IPCC decided that Briffa's tree-ring data was good enough to include in their report. When they looked at it and saw the divergence they could have questioned its accuracy. Instead they dummied it up.

PS: Thanks for being polite.

[wtmusic]

16. Let's assume the worst

That both Watts and Mann are tools of a green-energy mutual fund and are cynically manipulating and publishing data to make money. Assume we can throw all of their conclusions out the window.

Do you really believe that that alone is sufficient cause to cast doubt on the entire body of tree-ring and ice-core data?

btw there was indeed briefly a correlation between stock prices and hem lengths in the 60s. What there was not was causation:

"A major goal of scientific experiments and statistical methods is to approximate as best as possible the counterfactual state of the world.<12> For example, one could run an experiment on identical twins who were known to consistently get the same grades on their tests. One twin is sent to study for six hours while the other is sent to the amusement park. If their test scores suddenly diverged by a large degree, this would be strong evidence that studying (or going to the amusement park) had a causal effect on test scores. In this case, correlation between studying and test scores would almost certainly imply causation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Tree-ring width has in multiple experimental studies been found to vary with temperature - science has established a causal dependence between the two which is rock-solid. So until we can vary stock prices by altering hemlines ( and using scientific method) your analogy is a bit of a straw man.

[The Croquist]

17. Lets assume that Mann is a tool of a green-energy mutual fund and Watts is a Corporate toady

Neither has any impact on the accuracy of tree-ring analysis. I don't think there is no relationship between tree-rings and temperatures. What I question is how closely they track each other. The problem is that we have no accurate long term temperature records to compare them to.

I've looked ar the GISS thermometer data. They go back to 1880 but their global coverage was very sparse. 6 months ago they had two temperature sources for Africa and none for either South America or Antarctica. Last month they added sites in South America, Africa and other places but the coverage is still a joke. Interestingly enough, with the addition of these sites the January 1880 temperature anomaly went from +0.49 C. to -0.02 C. degrees. That is a change of just over half a degree C. How accurate could these numbers be if the temperature can bounce like that? These are temperatures measured by thermometers. If they can can change the temperature by that much, how can they claim that the dependence between the two is "rock solid"?

Ice core data could be even worse but I don't know. Exactly when did they start measuring Antarctic temperatures? The earliest I am aware of was February 1944.

PS: You got me on the "correlation" verses "causation".

[wtmusic]

18. The average anomaly could easily change by .5°C or more

- not every region will show the same anomaly for any given year. All that matters is the average over a long, long period of time (the 2009-2010 average snowfall for the continental US would spike considerably by just adding in the Eastern seaboard).

Any temperature record prior to 1850 is, in the absence of an instrumental record, established by proxy. This is accomplished by averaging data from widely separated locales using principal components analysis. Data sources include:

Dendroclimatology (tree rings)
Ice cores
The isotopic composition of snow, corals, and stalactites
Records of the time of crop harvests
Treeline in various locations
Other historical records

Data evaluated from all of these sources by many, many, many peer-reviewed publications are generating the same conclusion. Either that, or there is a massive conspiracy underway with little motive.

[The Croquist]

25. I am comparing the January 2010 estimate of January 1880

to the February 2010 estimate of January 1880. GISS changed their estimate significantly. I'm not talking about different regions. I'm talking about the entire land mass of the world nor am I talking about prior to 1850. Frankly I don't trust any global temperature estimates prior to 1979.

[wtmusic]

28. Fine

and I'm saying that by adding in South America and Africa it's very possible to sway the average global temperature one way or the other by .5°C.

You seem to be fixated on individual events, individual anomalies, individual researchers. In any effort of the scale it would be extremely unusual to not have any irregularities or inconsistencies in data. The trend is very clear, but you must be able to see the forest from the trees.

Do you have experience in statistics or scientific research?

[The Croquist]

30. I am fixated on the quality of the data

and I don't like what I see. Here is an example:

All these numbers are pertaining to changes in the January 1880 data:

First a background. GISS assigns a value to each 2 degree longitude by 2 degree latitude grid on the globe. There are a total of 16,200 of them. I am looking at only the land data but because geography doesn't match the grids some of the grids will overlap oceans. If fact, since disproportionately the stations are near or on the coast it is quite common. I use the 250 km smoothing option (the most conservative one) which means that any grid within 250 km will be assigned a value. This is why a single station on the island of Sao Tome off the African coast provided data for 12 grids totaling 296,570 sq km most of which is actually the Atlantic ocean.

Since the earth is only 29.1% land lets assume that there are 4,714 land grids. A year ago they had data for 913 grids. Today they have data for 1,118 grids. Fair enough. Lets look at the changes:

Grids Count Avg. Temp Change
Grids added: 294 -1.7387
Grids dropped: 89 +1.0078
Grids raised: 362 +0.2786
Grids lowered: 387 -0.2778
Grids unchanged: 75 N/A

As you can see they dropped 89 grids with an average anomaly of about plus 1 degree and added 294 grids with an average anomaly of about -1.7 degrees. That strikes me as fishy. What are the odds that the grids that support global warming out number the grids that don't by 3 to 1? I'll tell you what else I think is fishy. They added 38 grids where the temperate anomaly was 5 degrees below average and dropped none. They dropped 8 grids where the temperate anomaly was 5 degrees above average and added none. Any temperature anomaly of 5 degrees or more should by questioned. 174 of the 913 2009 data grids have an anomaly of over 5 degrees. 202 of the 1,118 2010 data grids have an anomaly of over 5 degrees.

The individual grids are not the same area due to differences in latitude. I could factor that in but I hope you see my point. If you really want, I can do it.

I have very limited statistical experience and none in professional scientific research but many years experience in data processing (mostly in design and testing) and data quality control. The GISS data stinks to high heaven and this "modification" looks very creative to me.

[wtmusic]

32. What are the odds?

Take a single year's worth of 130-year-old global data, add a reevaluation which significantly changes the findings, add a dose of cynicism, assign a motive which doesn't exist, and it might look fishy.

Here's why the motive doesn't exist: Mann (and Briffa, Esper, Lowery et al) are not even suggesting that the data up to 1880 shows evidence of global warming. It's the data since 1880, it's corroborated by numerous sources, and it runs contrary to a millenium long cooling trend. The conclusion is inescapable that not only does AGW exist, but it's rapidly outpacing estimates from 10 years ago.



http://zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Global%20Temperature.asp

Researchers are not so eager to 'fit in' with scientific consensus they would modify conclusions based on irrelevant century-old data, and risk criticism under peer review.

Do you have a link to your data?

[The Croquist]

33. Here is why it is significant

By lowering the temperature in January 1880 (one month, not one year) it inflates the increase since 1880 and increases the case for global warming.

No I don't have a link for all of the data. I downloaded the 2009 data from GISS last year and the 2010 data this year. The 2010 data is available here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_250km_Anom01_1880_1880_1951_1980/GHCN_GISS_250km_Anom01_1880_1880_1951_1980.txt

The only place I know of where the 2009 data exists is on my computer. If you provide me with a e-mail address I will send you a file with the raw data and an excel sheet with comparisons but they are too big to post here.

Nobody knows that there was "a millenium long cooling trend". Nobody knows what the temperatures were from 1000 AD until 1979 AD when the first satellite data began coming in.

[Viking12]

19. ZOMG1!11 GISS Global Anomaly for January 1880 is -0.41

It's dropping as we type!

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

[The Croquist]

20. Interesting. They also show -0.02

Sorry but I don't know how to post an image.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=01&year1=1880&year2=1880&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg


On my computer I also have images showing; 0.50, 0.50, 0.49, 0.49, 0.49 & -0.02 for 08/22/2009, 10/27/2009, 11/16/2009, 12/24/2009, 01/30/2010 & 02/18/2010.

[Viking12]

23. Do you know the difference between LTI and LOTI?

You really shouldn't cherry-pick:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=01&year1=1880&year2=1880&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

[The Croquist]

26. I didn't until now but apparently LOTI includes Hadley Reynolds

sea data and 1,200 km smoothing and mine excludes sea data and only 250km smoothing. I stick with my choice.

If we didn't know what the temperature was on land in Africa in 1880 what makes you think we knew what it was like in the middle of the Pacific ocean in 1880? The very idea that you can accurately predict the temperature of a place when the nearest thermometer is 1,200 km away is farcical yet GISS claims to be within a tenth of a degree. A case in point.

The example I show has temperature data on the island of Sao Tome off the African coast with a single thermometer. Based on that single site GISS assigned 296,570 sq km to it. 296,570 sq km is roughly the size of Nevada. That is using the 250 km smoothing. I'll let you figure out the 1,200 sq km smoothing. Do you really think that you can tell me what the average temperature of Nevada is, within a tenth of a degree, from a single thermometer in Las Vegas? If so please tell me what casino you are planning on taking it from and if they are taking bets on your prediction.

[Viking12]

29. So you didn't know what the Land-Ocean Temperature Index is...

...You don't know how temperatures were collected in the oceans...You don't know why 1200km smoothing is a better choice....but you presume to be qualified to critique the temperature record?

Here's some reading for you:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html

Sounds like someone has a bad case of Dunning-Kruger:
http://www.quantpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/unskilled-unaware.pdf

[The Croquist]

31. Why don't you explain to this idiot

why a thermometer in Los Angelas, CA is a better measurement of temperature for El Paso, TX then one in LA?

[jpak]

24. Stupid alert

:rofl:

[The Croquist]

27. You didn't have to post a stupid alert

As soon as we saw that you were posting we already knew it.

Asinine smilies not required.