Where do they find these people at?
On Dec. 26, Rolf Westgard made a demonstrably false statement in the St. Cloud Times/SCTimes.com about climate change. He stated, “The earth is overall warm in 2014, perhaps equaling 1998 and the mid-1930s as among the warmest years of the 21st century.”
Aside from the fact that 1998 and the 1930s were in the 20th century, his comments about the 1930s are false. The 1930s were warm in the United States, but they were cool globally.
I am a climate scientist. I was in China at the time of the U.S.-China announcement. I work on global temperature studies. When people make these types of false statements in the press, it is my professional obligation to submit a correction.
Let’s debate solutions on climate change but let’s at least start with facts, not fantasy.
Dr. John Abraham is a climate scientist at the University of St. Thomas.
Yes, let’s start with some facts. Dr. John Abraham has no idea what he is talking about. In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported a large 1930’s warming spike across the Northern Hemisphere.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research reported the same thing
In 1981, NASA’s James Hansen reported the same thing
In 1940, six degrees of Arctic warming was reported.
By 1947, ten degrees of warming were reported in the Arctic, and both poles were melting.
By 1952, the glaciers of Norway and Alaska had lost half their mass.
Now let’s review the statements of “climate scientist” Dr. John Abraham
The 1930s were warm in the United States, but they were cool globally.
I am a climate scientist. I work on global temperature studies.
How is it that a PhD climate scientist who studies global temperature, doesn’t seem to know the most fundamental facts of global temperature? Does Abraham do any actual research? Even the climategate crooks knew about the warmth in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
From: Tom Wigley <[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <[email protected]>It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Surely this is not the same John Abraham who keeps putting his head up above the parapet?
http://sppiblog.org/news/a-preliminary-response-to-john-abraham-the-extremists-join-the-climate-debate-at-last-2.
There’s nothing more persistent than a zealot intent on proving that he’s a fool!
The same inveterate misanphropot (idiot spelled badly)
Yep… And I was in Walmart at the time… Loads of Chinese stuff there… Same level of relevance Abraham presents…
What a total tool…. I doubt he ever leaves his office yet knows everything about Climate… Total bullshit…
“I was in China at the time of the U.S.-China announcement.”
Is that sentence supposed to imply that he was involved in the agreement?
I dare say a lot of people were in China at the time who had nothing to do with the agreement or had any knowledge of the subject.
It also has as much to do with the current U.S.-China agreement as saying:
LOL!
The Chinese temperature record also shows a spike in the thirties and forties. Then there is the problem of marine influence…
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/coastal-temperature-stations.php
Globally, stations located away from marine influence mostly agree with the US temperature record.
“Abraham and a number of colleagues including Michael E. Mann submitted a document to the US Congress which rebutted nine errors in Christopher Monckton’s May 6, 2010, testimony.
In November 2010, Dr. Abraham (and two colleagues, Professor Scott Mandia and Dr. Ray Weymann) launched the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, to provide rapid, high-quality scientific information to the media and government decision makers. The intention of this group is to enable scientists to share their work directly with the general public.”
Odd that Mann did not join in the effort to share work directly with the public.
Of course C. Monckton had a little more to say about it!
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/monckton-warm-abra-qq2.pdf
Much more egg on face for Dr Abraham!
And here’s an interesting (and very relevant) quote: “I have never once in my life seen a fanatic with a sense of humour!” (Amos Oz)
And a special note for American readers: kindly note correct spelling of ‘humour’!
In American English the word is spelled ‘humor’ (likewise ‘honor’, ‘labor’, &c.). I doubt you can persuade Americans to change it.
🙂
What happened to the Climate Rapid Response Team? What responses did they give (rapid or not) to serious questions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8JaL8sY4pE
I guess the same could apply to fire trucks as crazy cab drivers.
So this crazy taxi driver is speeding through the streets running every red light when all of a sudden, I’m knocked out of my seat as he comes to a screeching stop at a green light. I scream at him, your ran every darn red light, why on earth would you slam the breaks at a Green LIGHT!!!
He looks back at me and tells me, “There might be another Taxi Crossing the Intersection…”
John Abraham is the guy who co-authors pee reviewed papers with Nuterelli
Ohhh Mandia ect… Would not even bother. Actually a list of the real diehard idiot “climate Scientists” purposely creating fraud to fit the agenda should be drawn up such as Mandia, Mann, Abraham, Rahmsdorf, Jones., Hansen ect. Im sure the list would be about 30 or so…not more, very easy to identify for future legal action LOL
I can’t figure out how guys like Abraham flourish in the climate debate. He is *not* a climate scientist. This is not to say he does not have broadly relevant qualifications but they are not in any of the climate-related fields: atmospheric or oceanic physics, meteorology or one of the geologic sciences. Because he is broadly qualified, he worked at one stage in the field of refrigeration, then in rheology. In 2007, he published on the fluid dynamics of urine:
Jimmy Tong, Ephraim Sparrow, and John Abraham, Numerical Simulation of the Urine Flow in a Stented Ureter, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, Vol. 129 (2), pp. 187-192, 2007.
You don’t see him going ‘I’m a urologist, I study the flow of urine in catheters’, do you?
Abraham’s climate connections are tenuous, recent, and mainly centred on what he did with Monckton’s presentation. Yet, for some reason, one finds him puffing up his climate credentials at nearly every instance, and especially his work on renewable energy projects. Sorry, but working in renewable energy and visiting China does not make you a climate scientist. Nor does visiting Africa make you a humanitarian, which is another self-portrait one sees him promoting.
Somebody ought to tell him people can see through this and it doesn’t look all that good.
He is a meaty urologist. 😉
Yur innate-ly cynical.
I think I see the problem here.
You folks don’t understand that Dr. John Abraham lives and works in the world of adjusted, homogenized, infilled, and made-up data along with models which create alternate worlds. There was no 1930s warm period! Just look at “Dr.” Mann’s hockey stick for verification.
By the way, I am a huge fan of Dr. John. Great singer. Here is a link to one of his best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP9GX4O2fbg
The following TV movie appears to come from the same training camps of the scripted-reality industry (aka academia),
– http://coolmoviezone.org/discovery-channel-scandals-of-the-ancient-world-egypt-2008/
with brainwash and truth tellers who “assert” that they have “translated” unintelligible signs into unintelligible words, as professor and PhD on universities, if only you pay for their books and films (scroll down for the plot outline).
Abraham showed up as a troll at WUWT for a while. He was really pathetic. I do not know if he finally got banned or if CAGW Propaganda Central withdrew him because he resembled a 5 year old arguing physics with Einstein.
Seems Abraham was right –
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/NOAA_to_2013-129970022537.png
It seems you don’t understand the difference between raw data and fraud.
Unsupported accusations of fraud are so lame. There is no reason to believe that the adjustments made to temperature data are anything other than valid and justified, and in any case the raw data is so similar to the adjusted data that Abraham is clearly right either way.
Comparison of global temperatures from raw and adjusted Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v3 data:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GHCN_RawvAdj.jpg
The GHCN that removed rural, high altitude and high latitude station data? 😆
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58mDaK9bH5o&feature=player_embedded
And what is so scientific about adjusting data to fit a narrative?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/getting-rid-of-the-1940s-blip-2/
Yes icarus62, as gator69 points out actual measured temperatures don’t match the adjusted temperatures on the NOAA graph you cited. NOAA has repeatedly adjusted pre-1970 temperatures downward, and post 1970 temperatures upward. Doesn’t this agenda driven fraud on the part of NOAA bother you?
There is no reason to believe that the very minor adjustments made to the temperature data are anything other than valid and justified.
Right, because nobody is making any money off this, and no governments are acquiring any more power over the masses.
Baaaaa! 😆
ROFLMAO
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/nasasurfacetemp1981-1999-2014.gif?w=640
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/nasa-rewriting-the-past-to-suit-the-needs-of-funding/
So your animation shows that Abraham was right – it’s substantially warmer than in the 1930s.
Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that the adjustments are unjustified?
The animation of published NASA graphs shows that their temperature record has been massively altered and is scientifically meaningless.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6hJaTLIQAElbAM.png
But if the adjustments are valid and warranted then that improves the data, meaning the science is better. Yes?
But if the adjustments are invalid and unwarranted then that ruins the data, meaning the science is screwed. Yes?
What if some completely different set of adjustments are valid? Then it would be climate cooling, or any other result you want.
Empirical data and evidence trumps data adjusted in more recent times without explanation every time. When NOAA will share with us exactly why and how their adjustments to the raw data of of the past and present have been made so those adjustments can be assessed for their validity using the scientific method they are meaningless. Until that happens they are nothing more than another example of ‘argumentum ad verecundiam’ in which the validity of the claim is supposed to be supported by the authority of the source just like the now thoroughly discredited Cook et al. consensus.
Exactly. Let’s face it people, how difficult is it to read a thermometer? Unless you’re completely incompetent, thermometer readings don’t need to be adjusted. The raw, unadjusted readings are most likely the most accurate data.
That is especially true when you consider the government supplied the thermometers and detailed instructions in 1892. The instructions included the construction of a Stevenson Screen as well as how to read the thermometer.
https://archive.org/details/instructionsforv00unitrich
Let’s not forget the lame excuses given by the Australian BOM for making the same adjustments to the Australian temperature record … such excuses that were demonstrably fraudulent.
This is why the tampering with raw data is so important. This year, in total contravention of reality, the global warmist regime simply outright lied about this being the hottest year ever. Blatantly.
They are sticking to these lies like flies on a glue trap. They won’t move. It is snowing in northern Africa, for example. Will be well below zero at my own home this week. The relentless approach of another Maunder Minimum as the sun gets weaker is on the horizon and they know this and so, to keep their gravy train rolling, they have resorted to outright manufacturing graphs and studies that are based 100% on doctored, false or manipulative data.
Disgusting and criminal! Arrest them all.
No need to worry about a new Maunder Minimum. The effect would be negligible against the background of the rapid and ongoing global warming.
I was in -24F weather on Wednesday morning in Fort Collins. Please place your “rapid global warming” in the dark place where it belongs.
It’s a bit chilly where I live too. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a warming trend.
There has been a huge winter cooling trend and increase in snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 17 years.
“There has been a huge winter cooling trend…”
According to whose data?
According to NOAA…
[img]http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Screen_shot_2014-03-14_at_5.52.06_AM.png[/img]
RSS shows NH winter cooling 2.2C/century since 2002
“Winter temperatures throughout the United States are in a 20-year cooling trend, defying alarmist global warming predictions and debunking claims that warmer winters are causing environmental catastrophe.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data, presented by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, reveal this winter’s exceptionally cold winter was merely the continuation of a long-term cooling trend. The trend line for the past 20 years shows more than two degrees Fahrenheit of cooling in U.S. winter temperatures since 1995.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/04/30/twenty-years-of-winter-cooling-defy-global-warming-claims/
So the NOAA data is trustworthy when it’s telling you something you want to hear, but fraudulent otherwise – is that right?
Icarus is getting desperate with his attacks.
In spite of all the fudging, even NOAA data shows a strong cooling trend. I enjoy nothing better than clubbing someone with their own jaw bone.
Now, would you care to admit you have been wrong, or would you care to continue down the path of failure. Time and again we show intent, collusion, and action, all following the path of money and power.And all you can do is parrot models and fudged data.
Baaaaa. 😆
CO2 logarithmic absorption ignoring the new data that squashes the curve even flatter at the higher concentrations.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png
If we managed to kick the CO2 back up to where plants want it, 1000 to 1500 ppm, reading from the chart you are looking at ~5 Wm2.
So where are we in terms of the Milankovitch cycle and solar insolation?
NOAA:
(www1DOT)ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/orbital_variations/berger_insolation/insol91.jun
Holocene peak insolation: 522.5 Wm-2
………………………………………………………..decrease = 46.5 Wm-2
NOW (modern Warm Period) 476 Wm-2
……………………………………………………….. decrease = 13 Wm-2
Depth of the last ice age – around 463 Wm?2
From Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic (2010)
climate(DOT)envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/MillerArctic.pdf
So even if you are talking 9% of Trenbreth’s “incoming solar radiation… absolute forcing,… around 340 W m–2 at the top of the atmosphere” the reduction in solar radiation since the Holocene climate Optimum is 30.6 W m–2 , and is equivalent to the entire CO2 forcing [32-44 W m–2] with mankind’s contribution being 1.5 W/m 2 for the forcing of anthropogenic CO2 [cf., Reid, 1997].
To give you a feel for just how close to glaciation we are you can look at the calculations from a fall 2012 paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? The paper gives the calculated solar insolation values of several glacial inceptions:
Current value – insolation = 479W m?2 (from that paper)
MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m?2,
MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m?2,
MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m?2,
MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m?2,
MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m?2
So an increase in energy by 5 W m?2 gives a value of 484 W m?2 IF mankind can jack the CO2 levels back up to over 1000 ppm.
I am old and have no offspring so I am actually looking forward to watching the next glaciation descend and all the Progressives scramble for explanations while trying to dodge all the pitchforks, tar, feathers and Madame Guillotine. It isn’t so much that I think CO2 could prevent the next glacial inception (Ruddiman’s “Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis”), it’s the entertainment value in watching the progressives either do the wrong thing or, at best, an intellectually impotent thing. (You have to admit the Progressive Trolls do provide entertainment value.)
The Holocene interglacial is now 11,717 years old. That’s two centuries or so beyond half the present precession cycle (or 23,000/2=11,500). (Thank you Grand Solar Maximum) Only one interglacial , MIS-11, since the Mid-Pleistocene Transition has lasted longer than about half a precession cycle.
Any hope that the Holocene would go long was shot down by Lisiecki and Raymo in 2005 in their rebuttal of Loutre and Berger, 2003. No more recent papers has rebutted Lisiecki and Raymo in the decade since then. Not that the MSM would bother telling us that.
HEY, ICKY did you read that? “current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr.” That kills any possibility of a CAGW tipping point for the next 65 kyr. The solar energy just isn’t there and CO2 has already shot its wad in the first 100 ppm.
The fall 2012 paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? agrees with Lisieck and Raymo …
An older paper from 2007 also agrees Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
Given the age of the Holocene and the low level of solar insolation resulting, the witch hunt against CO2 is really rather humorous.
Personally I hope it is more along the lines of the intensity and duration of the Dalton.
Poor Icarus, flew too close and his wings came off and he has crashed and burned.
Icarus is a troll. He used to haunt American Thinker’s climate posts. He’s a broken record whose been posting the same nonsense for years. Icarus’ tactics are simple: he never admits he or the Alarmists; he changes the subject before admitting he and the alarmists are wrong.
My hope is Icarus is quite young so he ends up shivering and hungry in the cold and dark if the ideas he is pushing become policy.
my hope is i meet some of the icarus types in person gail. unfortunately as i age my tolerance for fools and charlatans has has completely disappeared . meeting any of these idiots in person will result in a dose of harsh reality being administered and to hell with the consequences.
we have enough pariahs screwing every last penny out of the ordinary citizen,and the extra load on energy bills these clowns have created is the final straw that broke this camels back. i have elderly relatives that now must be checked upon regularly to make sure they are are using their heating as they really do fear not being able to pay the bills and having their supply cut off.
hopefully the surge in support for the ukip party in the uk will bring an end to this madness shortly,if not i will have no worries in my old age,as hm prisons are required to provide a minimum level of heating. 🙂
Bit Chilly you might want to read what your countryman has to say about ‘renewables’ and how they are good for the UK economy starting HERE.
My tolerance for fools and charlatans has also disappeared completely.
You live a charmed life. I meet these types every day in the People’s Republic of Boulder. I also know from them that your belief in a required minimum level of prison heating is misguided. The activist icarus types speak of special prisons and camps for climate deniers, as well as Nuremberg-style trials for their leaders. Minimum required prison temperatures are never mentioned. You should rethink your retirement options.
The explanatory notes to Hansen’s 1981 graphic.
(The scanned copy does does not have OCR)
“The temperature trends in Fig. 3 are
smoothed with a 5-year running mean to
make the trends readily visible. Part of
the noise in the unsmoothed data results
from unpredictable weather fluctuations,
which affect even 1-year means (42).
We combined these temperature records
with a method designed to extract
mean temperature trends. The globe was
divided by grids with a spacing not larger
than the correlation distance for primary
None of our conclusions depends on the
nature of the smoothing.
Northern latitudes warmed – 0.8C
between the 1880’s and 1940, then
cooled – 0.5C between 1940 and 1970,
m agreement with other analyses (9, 43).
Low latitudes warmed – 0.3°C between
1880 and 1930, with little change thereafter.
Southern latitudes warmed – 0.4°C
in the past century; results agree with a
prior analysis for the late 1950’s to middle
1970’s (44). The global mean temperature
increased – 0.5°C between
1885 and 1940, with slight cooling thereafter.
A remarkable conclusion from Fig. 3 is
that the global temperature is almost as
high today as it was in 1940. The common
misconception that the world is
cooling is based on Northern Hemisphere
experience to 1970.
Another conclusion is that global surface
air temperature rose – 0.4C in the
past century, roughly consistent with
calculated CO2 warming. The time history
of the warming obviously does not
follow the course of the CO2 increase
(Fig. 1), indicating that other factors
must affect global mean temperature.
”
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato in 1999
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Odd that we must update these historic graphs. One would think that historic temperatures would be incapable of changing, that is unless one has read 1984.
The two 19981 and 1999 graphs are congruent for the 30’s
1981
Global anomaly approx. 0.15
Northern Hemisphere anomaly (which would include North America) approx 0.4
1999
Global anomaly approx. 0.2
US approx – 0.7
In both cases US temperatures have a larger anomaly than global temperatures.
As well This sentence from 1981 is telling “A remarkable conclusion from Fig. 3 is
that the global temperature is almost as high today as it was in 1940.”
Roy Spencer shows an anomaly increase from 2.5 since 1981.
Wood for trees shows:
Time series (uah) from 1978.92 to 2014.92
#Selected data from 1981
#Selected data up to 2014
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0150154 per year
1981 -0.23327
2014 0.262239
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/uah/from:1981/to:2014/trend/plot/uah/from:1981/to:2014
“Roy Spencer shows an anomaly increase of + 2.5 since 1981.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Darn typos.
Odd that we must update these historic graphs. One would think that historic temperatures would be incapable of changing, that is unless one has read 1984.
Standard response? I suggest that you read 1984 and the essay that follows it.
It is funny how science uncovers new data.
Standard or even nonstandard hand waving gets you no points with me. Historic facts should be left unchanged. Unless you have an agenda.
In retrospect, you have to admire the sunny world outlook of the old Stalinist butchers. They were driven by visions of a glorious collectivist future. The alarmists’ reasons for manipulating the past are their gory fantasies of an apocalyptic future.
Really, what “new” DATA was uncovered? Were temperatures recorded back then and nobody found the records until later? Please explain and provide the old data just found? Interpretation of data may change but the original data is what it is. All I have seen is that NOAA uses data from from stations effected by heat islands in the present while ignoring the data from stations which are not effected by heat islands. But what is the justification for adjusting the old data temps down?
Data, historic or otherwise, is not written in stone.
Who are you to judge? I will defer to the original observations until just cause shows otherwise.
Got agenda? Hint: Check for an odd mustache in your mirror.
Jack Dale says: “Data, historic or otherwise, is not written in stone.”
Yes it is unless you are not a scientist.
The data IS.
This is the CORRECT WAY to handle data. (gray is error bars)
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/bilder/CO2back1826-1960eorevk.jpg
The REAL CO2 levels in history
“Data, historic or otherwise, is not written in stone.”
Confessions of a datum molester….