Dear Steve, the satellite record measures a different quantity than the weather-station-based global mean temperature, so there is no good reason to think that their graphs and trends should agree. In other words, the disagreement between these two different types of datasets doesn’t imply that there is a mistake in either of them.
Aside from this flawed argument, you haven’t offered *any* other argument that would imply that the adjusted graphs are wrong and the graphs preferred by you are right. It’s just your emotions and prejudices and the rational content is zero.
I hope it is OK if I think that you are just one of millions of people – on both sides – with equally irrational and biased attitudes to all these questions, so these three paragraphs represent all the time I will dedicate to your blog post.
So Lubos is fine with GISS repeatedly adjusting the data outside of their own error bars, massively increasing warming in a way which conveniently matches their theory, and making it unrecognizable compared to previous versions of the temperature record – and says I am irrational for questioning it.
The adjustments above are outside of the error bars. The data and methodology is crap.
Forty years ago, NCAR showed no net global warming from 1900 to 1970. In the GISS temperature record, essentially all of the post-1940 cooling has disappeared.
In 1961, the global cooling consensus was unanimous – but Gavin knows better than the scientists who worked at the time.
Lubos is correct about one thing. Surface temperatures measure UHI. Satellites measure the temperature of the atmosphere. If you are examining the greenhouse effect, you want to measure the temperature of the atmosphere – not the asphalt.
If you are examining the greenhouse effect, you want to measure the temperature of the atmosphere – not the asphalt.
And if you want the temperature in my county, don’t go looking in the city.
Fortunately, satellites are far from the asphalt and those who correct the data as they see fit.
“..you haven’t offered *any* other argument that would imply that the adjusted graphs are wrong and the graphs preferred by you are right”
The ol’ “argument from ignorance” alarmist tactic, or just outright lie. There’s been plenty of evidence here, if he wished to look.
The keepers of the temperature data sets have to dislike the satellite records as they are harder to manipulate: and the scam needs the data to be fudged.
Lubos winter in Europe also will be long.
Steve: did you ever say the adjusted graphs were wrong. I thought you were saying something to the effect that – how can we know what is right given all those adjusments. Secondly you point out a problem with i filling which no one addresses. the critics need to give some logical answers to the problems you expose.
“did you ever say the adjusted graphs were wrong”
I don’t recall him ever saying they’re “wrong”, however they’re *absolutely* questionable, given they’re around 50% fabricated data, include many stations with poor siting, questionable UHI adjustment and other questionable “adjustments”.
Alarmists and others alike consider the surface record to be “robust”. Compared to other datasets such as satellites and balloons, the surface record is better suited for garden fertilizer.
That should read: “..they’re now around 50% fabricated data..”
Given the problems and the nature of the manipulations, why the reluctance to call the adjusted data sets wrong?
Fat consensus a scam too
http://time.com/3702058/dietary-guidelines-fat-wrong/
My Mom could not eat fat because of an injured pancreas. Her cholesterol skyrocketed as a result. She also has the fatty sheaths around the nerves start to disintegrate and therefore had to add some fat back to her diet.
Finland is the second country that has managed to stop the obesity epidemic. Sweden was the first. Why? Sweden was a frontrunner on low-carb-high-fat -diet. Finland followed few years later.
The experts still keep telling us that LCHF diet is going to kill us all, even though we feel healthy, our cholesterol levels are great and those with type-2 diabetes have managed to get off their medication after starting LCHF. Still it is going to kill us in some magical way.
A funny anecdote about how stubbornly stupid experts can be. In Finland you are labelled an alcoholic if you have a liver cirrhosis. The proof that you are an alcoholic is that you have a liver cirrhosis. If you say you don’t drink alcohol, you are labelled a lying alcoholic with a liver cirrhosis.
The officials recommend everyone eats a lots of carbs and as little dietary fat as possible, with the exception of small amount of olive oil, rapeseed oil or fish oil. Carbs are good!
In everywhere else in the world 66% of liver cirrhosis cases are caused by eating too much carbohydrates. There are no known cases of carbohydrates causing liver cirrhosis in Finland.
I wonder why?
I went on the low-carb-high-fat -diet several years ago and feel a lot better. Blood pressure is back down to normal, nightly Acid reflux has been gone for years unless I cheat. Even the arthritis and back pain is a lot better.
What no one bothers to tell people is sugar makes you hunger while fat shuts off the appetite so you eat a lot less.
And yes the vitamins and minerals are important too.
http://theconversation.com/failure-in-real-science-is-good-and-different-from-phony-controversies-37217
Climate change is not phoney only what they say hehehe
Overhyping to the mass media before checking results: climate alarmists would love those guys.
Recommendation: Look at satellite versus surface data for different time periods, day/week/month/year. See if correlations are high. (They likely will be, except for day-offset issues.)
Then show that correlation worked … until recently.
==============/ Keith DeHavelle
The current divergence between satellite and surface trends really started about the time Gavin took over.
Lubos,
Please do tell what the satellites are measuring and why that data should be dismissed over the highly adjusted data you apparently prefer?
http://www.ditchthecarbs.com/2015/01/06/new-year-new-you-part-2/?utm_content=buffer44a4e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Time magazine done it again!
“…..Back in the 80’s, eggs and bacon were off the menu and the rise of the low fat ‘product’ began. Ancel Keys who started the low fat guidelines after his study on 22 countries, was based on bad science and even more dubious conclusions. He conveniently removed all but 7 countries which didn’t fit into his hypothesis…….”
Now the culprit is sugar.
Fat is absolutely necessary in the human diet. Refined sugar we can easily do without.
Stick to the veggies, fruit and meat we humans have always eaten lay off the refined sugar and high salt junk food and unless you are very active eat grains sparingly.
Does it really take a rocket scientist to figure out what a normal human diet should be?
You’re absolutely correct Gail. Fat is necessary. Both as a source of energy and a cleansing solvent. Many chemicals (some toxic) are oil soluble, and stored in fat, and cannot be passed out of the body in urine. They need to be absorbed in fat passing through the intestines and carried out that way. That’s why I like butter so much.
😀
I think the refined sugar is a hobgoblin, but I tend to avoid it anyway. Of course, I avoid most fruit sugar as well, since it’s the same shit. I mean, simple sugars have one purpose: fermentation! Don’t waste potential intoxicants on simply feeding yourself! Get drunk!
Lubos has now blocked me from commenting on his site. I was not abusive in any way and I was on topic. All I did was point out his hypocrisy. He has officially put himself in the Skeptical Science category of blog sites.
According to the IPCC the global Anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere was a total of 112 Billion Metric Tons from 1990 to 1999. The atmosphere weighs in at 5.5 Billion Trillion (Quadrillion) tons. The atmosphere thins with altitude and the Troposphere weighs in at 4.4 Billion Trillion tons. Therefore it follows that the Anthropogenic CO2 contribution resolves to an increase of Tropospheric CO2 was 2.7 Ten Thousandths of One Percent during that period.
Globally $359 Billion (2012) was expended on “Climate Change” in the form of Research, Technology, Renewable Energy, Conservation etc, almost $1 Billion a day. The IPCC has found this amount to be insufficient and suggest that $700 Billion annually is more appropriate. QED
A quadrillion is 10^15, while a billion trillion is 10^9 x 10^12 or 10^21.
I first took your billion trillion expression and found that the 1990 to 1999 contribution of man to the entire atmosphere was only 2 x 10^(-9)%, but on using quadrillion, the result was 2 thousandths of a %, not 2 ten thousandths of a %.
This is 20 ppm. 20ppm/400ppm = 0.05, which given the predominance of water vapor effects in the first place, saturation effects in the second place, and the overall exaggeration of all greenhouse effects relative reality, it is no wonder that despite a couple hundred billion dollars of research funding the proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming have not been able to prove their hypothesis true.
For your information this is what I posted on Lubos site. It is still in moderation.
Just when it looks like the mainstream media might start questioning the validity of temperature data used by President Obama to enact draconian climate and energy regulations you throw cold water on the whole thing and even call Steve Goddard “irrational”. You appear to agree with Steve Goddard that the temperature data was probably adjusted to show warming but make a big deal about how some adjusted data is a good thing. With President Obama claiming Climate Change is a greater threat to the U.S. than Radical Islamic terrorism or Iran about to get nukes this appears to be a relatively minor point in the whole scheme of things. Why not emphasize the part showing the data does appear to be adjusted thus should not be used to make energy policy with. Energy policy like shutting down U.S. Coal which provides the U.S. 40% or our energy and blocking development of the U.S. vast natural fossil fuel resources.
What’s stunning is the adamant and stubborn rationalizations for data tampering from the AGW crowd, and now Lubos, an allegedly rational scientist. I wonder if he realizes the effect this cavalier position of “trust the data tamperers” has on those of us that read his 8 million posts on Higgs Boson research. Should we now assume that they allow
fudgingadjusting of these microscopic measurements of charge? Are these alleged high five sigma assurances even to be believed at all? I’m being totally serious here. Alleged electronvolt precision on one hand, but wholesale temperature data homogenization on the other, both coming out of the mouth of the same person saying trust me?Hey Lubos, here’s an idea. Why not invite the Bezerkley BEST gang in to purify the data collected from the various particle smashers, accelerators and colliders past and present, you know, so that the data from older ones nicely fits in to the newer ones. I mean, who cares if a few quarks and stuff get disappeared through homogenization.
Ya know, I’ll take a computer scientist ( or geologist, or chemist, and a few others ) over the ramblings of a drama queen that spends hours watching and discussing the “Big Band Theory” low brow TV show. Computer programming, data forensics, hardware design and similar fields may be the last hard “real” sciences in existence because we take data seriously. Like a medical doctor we operate under a Hippocratic oath. Data will not be destroyed or tampered with, and when we need to perform destructive procedures it is done on duplicate images. One would think that this philosophy would be natural to the earth sciences but thanks to the climate kooks apparently it is a completely foreign concept.
Data that is adjusted is no longer data at all. If it is bogus it should be discarded but definitely not altered. Once it is altered it is something else entirely. Mosher the “Estimator” will never understand this. And I guess it is safe to say that theoretical physics isn’t a real science after all as demonstrated by these wildly irrational comments by Lubos. Speaking for myself, when I next hear him tell me the significance of some billionth quadrillionth of a joule ( or whatever it is ) and what it means and what the confidence level is, how can I take it seriously? Good job Lubos, I am now officially skeptical … of you.
Unfortunately my response to his blind support of Zeke and Mosher is exactly the same. DON’T tamper with the raw data. Add error bars, add comments with valid reasons and do your analysis but DON’T call your analysis DATA. It is not.
At the rate these turkeys are trashing science there will not be any younger scientists and engineers left to run civilization.
So true Gail. Science is near death. It appears Eisenhower was most prescient in warning of the inevitable government intrusion. Socialized science, like medicine, and welfare will devour everything in its path ( my words, not his ).
I see Lubos bottomed-off and closed that thread with this insane logic: Luboš Motl host 4 hours ago: Sorry, Gentlemen, I obviously can’t afford to waste the time by responding to every single nut job who has posted to this thread because their number has been overwhelming. None of you has presented any genuine or rational evidence that any of the global-temperature-related adjustments were illegitimate…..
He has completely reversed the burden-of-proof to the position that only a government funded pseudo-scientist could love: “We’re right by default, now prove us wrong”. Science by decree! Yeah, that’s a swell idea. What an effin idiot. So now ‘I’ll ban a bunch of people and then close the thread because the majority of you are anti-science nut-jobs that disagree with me.’
It’s starting to look like an epic meltdown is underway. I’ve tried to read some of the other threads but it is difficult thanks to the ridiculous style sheet he employs ( uggh ). But near as I can tell he is also busy attacking the USA over our alleged plans on helping out Ukraine defenders ( right! as if President Dingleberry would raise a finger to help out anti-Communists in any situation ever ).
So we just might be seeing the spectacle of a Czech dude supporting the Sudetenland-like sacrifice of Ukraine, ( and after a recent get-together in Munich of all places! ) WTF!? Czech dude shows more animosity for US than Russia and Putin. This is like the worst case of devil’s advocate argument imaginable. Taken together with this “Anti-Science” pro-data-tampering craziness I fear our friend has taken leave of his senses. Get an MRI Lubos, fast.
I swear I just woke up on negative Earth or something. Maybe a string theory accident took place at the super-collider? How would we know? I guess when we see Spock show up in a goatee or somethin…
Then again, it is possible that Lubos is merely cracking up due to the subject covered by this latest post at WUWT …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/10/another-settled-science-topic-is-not-so-settled-after-all-big-bang-theory-questioned/
Ironically my own last post over there was reaming Leif a new one for lumping the Big Bang “theory” with the Apollo landings and in typical Lewandowsky-fashion calling us kooks for not believing “both” equally. He didn’t like that very much but one is a fact and one is a conjecture. A true scientist knows this distinction. A religious zealot does not.
I just checked back at Motl’s. He left my first two comments but the others that showed where he was mistaken about Tony’s graphs (They are USHCN rural not BEST) and where the adjustments were incorrect never got posted.
I posted a longer version of the same comments starting HERE:
http://iceagenow.info/2015/02/london-telegraph-agw-biggest-science-scandal/#comment-284188
I sure hope Lubos gets medical help fast.
They can’t even understand simple graphs.
Oh, I am glad someone reamed Leif. Jo Nova handed him is rump on a platter too.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/
A bit more humble pie will do his ego some good.
“They can’t even understand simple graphs.”
…….
Motl could not even read the title and legend on your graphs. He went off about the CO2 rising linearly and reflecting the linear rise in UHI. That the adjustments also rose linearly so it was no wonder they correlated but it was a correlation with UHI and the resulting station moves to more rural areas. He then went on to say the adjustments to the BEST dataset were automated so that meant they were not fiddled….
#1. Since the data set was USHCN ( mostly Rural) and not BEST that whole argument falls apart.
2. The correlation between adjustments and CO2 was 0.99 while the correlation with the raw data was 0.003. You do not get a perfect correlation like that especially in something manipulated by man without conscious effort. A correlation of 0.7 or 0.8 would leave room for doubt 0.99 does not especially when Hansen had a vested interest in making sure the temperature showed correlation with CO2.
However the statement that really takes the cake is the fact the adjustments aren’t fiddled in the BEST dataset because they are automated! That means the ONLY reason for the adjustment is someone’s idea that was programed into a computer. No matter how Zeke and Mosher twist and turn there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of a station move, a change in thermometer or anything else to justify all these adjustments. All they have is a ‘break’ in the data trend to justify the mauling of the data.
WTF? We are talking WEATHER.
I have lived in the North Carolina piedmont for 20 years. We have had a weather shift from summers with highs of 90 to over 100F all summer long with high temperatures never dipping below 90F to the last few summers with day time highs rarely reaching 90 F and only reaching 95F or above once a summer. We have gone from winters where you had to mow the coastal bermuda lawn in December to where the bermuda has gone dormant in the beginning of November. Therefore looking at the data from the local weather station would show a ‘break’ even though the station is a 14 year old state of the art station at a rural airport with no moves or equipment changes.
That does not even get into the days were the temperate can drop ten, twenty degrees or even more as a weather front passes.
In addition Meteorology: A Text-book on the Weather, the Causes of Its Changes, and Weather Forecasting By Willis Isbister Milham 1918 says:
I think a lot of people are dazzled by the nifty ‘scalpel’ wielded by the BEST Team and forget to look at the reasoning and whether or not it is justified.
The other interesting point is when Anthony Watts put up his rough draft for comments Zeke and The Mosh Pup pushed and bullied and yammered at him until he agreed to do the TOBS adjustment. This greatly helped swing his data more into line with the ‘accepted’ data sets.
Zeke then uses Anthony’s capitulation to say:
(A really nice example of Herding the Controlled Opposition by the CAGW sheperds isn’t it?)
But is the TOBS justified?
Tony looked at the data by several methods and said no.
I used a different method and look at the written history. There is an 1892 (96 page) Instruction Manual for Voluntary Observers
For the maximum thermometer the instructions state:
That would indicate the max thermometer should be read just after the heat of the day and any adjustment for reading at the wrong time of day — “… Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960,…” — should INCREASE the maximum temperature not lower it!
Therefore the cooling of the data before 1960 because of TOBS is not only wrong it is in the opposite direction from what the evidence says it should be.
The statement “There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s” is equally wrong based on actual trials.
The BEST Team is really starting to smell like a bunch of skunks aren’t they?
I read Lubos’ post on this yesterday and have been thinking about it. His argument boils down to:
* There is no reason to hate on adjustments, per se.
* There are legitimate reasons to adjust certain quantities and measurements for biases or errors.
* Because all of the adjustments applied by the various climate organisations to the averaged surface data are in broad concurrence, they are “basically right”.
* UHI is not a big deal and does not substantially alter the recorded trend.
* There is not too much difference between the weather station trends and satellite trends.
* However, having said all of the above, “the climate alarmists…have really managed to spuriously increase warming trends by a selective application of would-be clever “adjustments” to the datasets.”
* Also, the threat of manmade climate disruption in the next 100 years is basically non-existent.
Well, I have never seen Tony argue that adjustments are wrong, per se. I have, however, seen him provide example after example of adjustments which are biased towards cooling the past and warming the present. I have seen example after example of raw data adjustments which not only change the slope, but the direction of the trend. Case after case of irrationally small adjustments for UHI effects which can only be explained by either willful ignorance or intentional malfeasance. Examples of in-filling of missing data which, for reasons not fully explained by the adjusters, prefers to adopt nearby warm data rather than cooler data stations.
The reason why Lubos does not understand Tony’s arguments is that he has, by his admission, spent virtually no time on this site and has his own preconceived notions of what the effect of the adjustments are. So, with a paucity of time and evidence, he dismisses Tony as one of the “millions” of ignorant people who think that any adjustments are verboten.
To the contrary, I have seen Tony argue many times that there are legitimate reasons for certain adjustments over certain timeframes, in certain places (eg. TOBS, UHI). What he rails against are illegitimate adjustments and those which reinforce the desired trend.
If Lubos did spend some time reading what Tony has written over the years, then he would know that they are on the same page. Namely, “the climate alarmists…have really managed to spuriously increase warming trends by a selective application of would-be clever “adjustments” to the datasets.”
Lobos is right. The two data sets measure different things. And by all green house gas theory the satellite data set should be warming faster than the surface data set – they should not show the same thing! But the satellite sets show less warming. This one fact invalidates green house gas theory.
Perhaps Lubos employer has ‘pulled his chain’. Something’s happened, maybe he was hit by a Boson.
I admire Lubos enormously, but no you are not wrong Steve.
Your comparison of TLT RSS global map for Dec 2014 and for the corresponding GHCN dataset were both month long temperature anomaly datasets (ie pretty well equilibrated thermodynamically – especially for a desert) and the in-filling for Saudi Arabia (which was that particular example) was clearly from a few urban or airport located thermometers on the coast. The RSS TLT data was direct measurement.
I do estimate stuff from time to time when I have minimal data, but if my estimate does not match the direct measurement it isn’t the direct measurement that is at fault.
“…so these three paragraphs represent all the time I will dedicate to your blog post.”
That is the sort of posturing that people always take when they are lying.
It sounds like someone made Lubos an offer he couldn’t refuse.
I think Lubos is overcompensating about being a skeptic. He is one but don’t like being labelled one. Then he lashes out on other skeptics to prove to himself that he doesn’t belong into any group.
It’s a bit like not wanting to be a individualist because everybody are.
I stopped following his blog a few years ago, because his extremely arrogant style annoyed me. He had self-diagnosed some strange condition about himself and while trying to heal it he started a really low-carb diet.
After that he felt like he was going to die and wrote something like a farewell letter to his blog. I tried explaining to him that that happens often if you change your diet too quickly into a low-carb diet and I had seen the exact same situation happen many times over. You literally feel like your body is failing and you are going to die.
I advised him to eat sea salt and mineral supplements to balance out all those minerals that he had lost and said he would feel better in a few days.
And what did I get from my consultation based on experience with genuine desire to help? Arrogant condescending comments.
He isn’t dead so I guess I was right. Did I get a thanks? I don’t know because I haven’t read his blog since.