Bishop Hill Another congressional inquiry
Apr 1, 2011 Climate: Parliament The US Congress has decided to look at climate change again. Here are a few links to stories that journalists and bloggers have found interesting.
Steve McIntyre has taken a pot shot at Kerry Emanuel for being, ahem, less than precise with his evidence on "hide the decline". Chris Mooney describes Emanuel's testimony as "powerful" in an enthusiastic review at Discover magazine.
The New York Times notes Richard Mullers contribution, in which he discussed the preliminary results from the BEST project, which apparently confirm warming. The excitement over the BEST project strikes me as overdone. I certainly don't expect them to disagree wildly with CRU and GISS.
Anthony Watts was less than impressed with Muller, who mentioned some of Anthony's unpublished resuts. Anthony has written to the committee chairman Ralph Hall to put him straight.
Judith Curry has a roundup here, in particular defending Muller against Anthony W's concerns and also pointing to John Christy's insider story of how the Hockey Stick found its way into the Third Assessment Report.
Reader Comments (52)
Christy's opening statement says it all, really:
The preliminary BEST results can be viewed here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011
Looks very much like the CRU and GISS temperature data. But it does come with this caveat:
"Land average temperatures from the three major programs, compared with an
initial test of the Berkeley Earth dataset and analysis process. Approximately 2 percent
of the available sites were chosen randomly from the complete set of 39,028 sites. The
Berkeley data are marked as preliminary because they do not include treatments for the
reduction of systematic bias."
A congressional job creation scheme, nice work if you can get it!
So Watts was wrong about the initial stations all being in Japan.
The issue of "hide the decline" keeps coming up. I also find the issue comes up when I talk with people who are not closely involved in global warming. There have been several exposés explaining the issue, and why this is corruption.
If you had to explain the issue to a non-scientist, what single exposé do you think is best?
Poiuyt:
This is a useful (very short) summary by Ross McKitrick and Steve
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/31/disinformation-from-kerry-emanuel/#comment-259583
Here is Oxford Professor Jonathan Jones' quote:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/23/the-beddington-challenge.html?currentPage=2#comment
Here is Berkeley Professor Richard A. Muller's quote
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/scientists-speak-out/
I must admit to a little disenchantment from Prof Muller's testimony to Congress, but only a little, as I was dubious from the outset about his motives and those of the BEST team due to the business purpose of Muller's consultancy business which trades in the area of minimising the effects of CAGW and the source of the BEST team's finances, a business with a similar corporate mission.
Muller is a convinced warmist and his somewhat contrary thought processes are best summed by his comments about the Toyota Prius car, which are summarised as:
a) the Prius has a battery which has a huge carbon footprint and must be replaced every three years or so at a cost greater than the price of a used Prius
b) driving a Prius on my campus gets you immediate icon status
c) I drive a Prius.
BEST is a fraud.
This group haven't been open and transparent at all.
It looks like Muller has been misrepresenting theirs and others work and misinforming interested parties of what BEST has supposedly been doing.
Anyone who defends Muller's behaviour is doing science no favours.
Once again we see that the only reliable record we have is the satellite data.
Emanuel is ok. This bit was very clear.
There are three aspects of this problem that make it particularly difficult to deal with:
1. It is global. All countries emit greenhouse gases to varying degrees, and it is therefore politically very difficult to regulate such emissions.
2. The risks, while potentially large, are still very uncertain, and in my view, the level of uncertainty is not likely to drop anytime soon.
3. While the costs of confronting these risks will fall largely to our generation, the primary beneficiaries of our actions will be our children and grandchildren, not us.
The last puzzled me a bit - if we move to a low(er)-carbon energy system, which is much more expensive, presumably our descendants keep paying, they'll have to service and replace the windmills as they wear out, as they would have to deal with nuclear waste and decommissioning. It's not a one-off hit to GDP as far as I am aware, although there will be huge transitional costs.
While agreeing that Watts was not best pleased (to coin a phrase) with Muller's testimony at first, it's worth noting this afterwards:
I always put much more store by the openness and transparency of BEST than the likelihood of their discovering something surprising about temperature rises since 1850. Muller's idea of Climate ARPA is both a cool bit of marketing (because Arpanet became the Internet) and worthwhile in its own right. I certainly haven't given up on Muller and team, just as Curry hasn't.
@Roddy Campbell: "3. While the costs of confronting these risks will fall largely to our generation, the primary beneficiaries of our actions will be our children and grandchildren, not us.
The last puzzled me a bit - if we move to a low(er)-carbon energy system, which is much more expensive, presumably our descendants keep paying, they'll have to service and replace the windmills as they wear out, as they would have to deal with nuclear waste and decommissioning. It's not a one-off hit to GDP as far as I am aware, although there will be huge transitional costs."
It is a one off cost if we subsequently discover the whole thing is a hoax, maybe the good Prof Emmanuel is subconsciously telling us something.
Mac
You say
Fraud is a very serious accusation. Nothing Muller/BEST has done comes close to merit such an accusation. This word is used far too frequently in climate discussions.
You 'like' the satellite data. There is good agreement between the satellite record and surface temperatures. So if the satellite data are good, so is HADCRUT3. No doubt BEST will reflect this when it is complete.
There are problems with GISTEMP, which is biased high for temperature, but not trend.
See here.
Poiuyt at 9:44 AM
I'm not sure that I can answer your question but something from my past jogged the memory the other day and it is germane to "hide the decline".
Rather than clutter up this posr with my ramblings I've posted it on my own blog at http://standstoreason.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/racing-uncertainty/.
Have a look at it. It's relevant (and I need the hits!)
@Hallam: Yes, (Anthony) Watts did make an error over the 2% of stations being in Japan, and was big enough to own to it on March 22nd:
As Anthony admits, being 80% deaf, and unable to take copious notes, he was at a disadvantage during the briefing. Would that others in the AGW scam were as quick to own to their mistakes!
BBD
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/31/expect-the-best-plan-for-the-worst/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/comments-on-the-testimony-of-richard-muller-at-the-united-states-house-of-representatives-committee-on-energy-and-the-environment/
BEST is a fraud, and a poor one at that.
Mac
Please show me where RP Sr accuses Muller or BEST of fraud.
Also recall that as Judith Curry observes, Muller was required to testify. He did not volunteer his testimony. This is getting forgotten much too quickly, if it is even acknowledged in the first place (emphasis added):
http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/31/congressional-hearing-on-climate-change-part-ii/
So, you repeated accusation of fraud is based on what exactly?
You do not address the question re satellite data in good agreement with surface temperature record. I am curious about that too.
I saw a number of definitions of "pot shot" floating around and I was curious as to your intent with describing SM's comments as a pot shot.
1: a shot taken from ambush or at a random or easy target
2: a critical remark made in a random or sporadic manner
1. (Individual Sports & Recreations / Hunting) a chance shot taken casually, hastily, or without careful aim
2. (Individual Sports & Recreations / Hunting) a shot fired to kill game in disregard of the rules of sport
3. (Individual Sports & Recreations / Hunting) a shot fired at quarry within easy range, often from an ambush
My guess is you mean he is being hasty, but wanted to clarify.
J
BBD
This gives a good summary of why the land surface temperature record is not what it appears.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/16/uah-and-uhi/
BEST promised openess and transparency on data availabilty, methodologies and the issue of quality control. We have not seen that.
What we got was a rush to publicise conclusions but no supporting information. That isn't good enough, not nearly good enough. I am not alone in being disappointed by the misinformation and misrepresentation that has occured. To me fraud means trickery. BEST have been involved in trickery.
Mac
But it doesn't address the good agreement between satellite tropospheric and surface temperature trends.
No record is perfect. I am not suggesting that and I am well-versed in the long, long argument about the surface temperature records we have.
BEST seems to have (deliberately?) been bumped into making a preliminary statement. Which arguably, it fluffed. This is not fraud or trickery.
BEST is to make all data and methodology publicly available, so what on earth are we arguing about? If something is wrong, it will be found out.
Where is the fraud?
BBD,
While I am trying to see what Mac is saying here, I also feel that ' academic fraud' itself has been elevated to such an exalted status that only outright criminals who would secretly smuggle into a lab under disguise are the only ones capable of committing it.
It may be useful and accurate, in the interest of individual perpetrators, to correctly identify the exact nature of scientific misdemeanor so as to not falsely foist serious culpable charges on minor transgressions. But to the science itself, these things make no difference. A fraud, an honest mistake, a botched excel sheet, a missing line of code can all produce wrong results and mislead scientists' own efforts and others due to the error.
In this light, the tendency of academics to view their own actions in a bewilderingly fine gradient starting from simple fudges going all the way to crimes only Scienctific Satan can commit, does seem a little too convenient at times.
Muller's team has obviously not committed any fraud, but what are they futzing around for then?
BBD
We disagree on many things, but you post on a website, the contributors to which, are often prone (IMO) to hysteria and prejudice amongst many other failings.
You feel you have some minority views in common with them, which are not often aired elsewhere, let alone discussed,I do understand your motivations for frequenting this place.
I must declare myself impresed, in that you are one of the closest here to actual scepticism. Not only do you pick point out where climate science is weak or in error (you are of course completely wrong in every single one of those accusations, but that's not the point right now), but you're one of the very few who frequent this site, who are prepared to point out when people are talking tripe of the first order.
You generally steer clear of the (often American) true rabid nutjobs, which can seem rather glaring. I guess, if someone is incapable of learning, what's the point of trying? It's a general weakness of this site.
But you are prepared to call bullshit when you see it, even if it's on your team. It's admirable, and suggests you're more confident in your understanding of the subject, than those who uncritically swallow (or at least never challenge) every foaming-at-the-mouth anti-science type who posts here.
I'm busy at the mo, with something, so rarely get the chance to post here. I'm sure most Hilly Billies will be gutted about that. Nonetheless, although we disagree on some crucial issues, I'm glad you're frequenting this place.
In my (temporary - you'll all be pleased to hear) absence, I'll be delighted if you keep on pointing out rubbish when you see it.
Zed
I've been dammned with faint praise before, but this may be a highlight.
My motivation is curiosity. Presumably yours too. Nothing wrong with that.
Lovely to have you back again.
Shub
Futzing around what? All BEST methodology and data will be public. We (including the arguably pressurised BEST group) are all jumping the gun.
Everyone needs to calm down and give them a chance to get on with it.
Agreed. But I doubt BEST is a good place to start
Nor is it clear that climate science is rife with misconduct. Calculated and questionably amplified pessimism, yes, (Rahmstorf's sea level rise work comes to mind) but outright naughtiness? No.
BBD it's more like Noble Cause Corruption.
BBD - Nobel Cause Corruption is most certainly rife in climate research.
The problem is not in the methodology - it's in the data. A better record of temperature would be produced by visiting current sites with a long record, identifying metadata (date of installation, changes of location, changes to surrounding built environment etc) and selecting only those which satisfy rigid criteria.
The other thing which almost no-one (apart from me) talks about is precipitation. Ice core records show a link between temperature and air-borne dust, an indicator of humidity.
http://www.climatedata.info/Impacts/Impacts/dust.html
The modelled projection of a temperature increase larger than 1 C depends on increased water vapour; whether that increased water vapour become precipitation or clouds (and what type of clouds) has a large bearing on the temperature. Only if we get good records of both precipitation and temperature can we judge the science to be anything other than speculative.
BBD
There is divergence between the land temperature records for satellites and land based recordings, especially so over the last 10-12 years.
However, there more fundamental concerns that need to be addressed before dealing with results never mind deriving any conclusions - siting, homogenisation, etc.
BEST was supposed to address these in an open and transparent way. They have done the opposite. We have conclusions, no data, no methodoligies, no quality control, no nothing. We have the situation now where BEST will have to support their actions - an outwardly defensive position.
BEST was supposed to be different. They have proved themselves to be no different from Jones, et al. BEST have indulged in trickery, that to me is fraud.
AusieDan
Re Noble (Nobel!) Cause Corruption: a strong case can be made for Noble Cause Corruption in environmental sciences generally, eg I posted this recently:
But for the most part we are talking exaggeration, scare-mongering and confirmation bias, rather than scientific misconduct. It is vital, for the purpose of rational debate, to define between NCC and misconduct.
Mac, for example, does not seem able to do so.
Mac
I'm going to be blunt. Arguments over the problems with the various surface temperature records are a distraction. Yesterday's game.
Nobody serious is suggesting that the world is not warming. This is clear in the 30-year trend in all records. Yes, of course the trend has been flat since the 1998 El Nino, and this is very interesting to anyone more concerned with explaining it rather than dismissing it (as the consensus tends to) on the basis of it being a short period.
As Kevin Trenberth asks: where did the energy go? If the atmosphere did not heat up, then something else should have done - or the actual forcing from CO2 is somehow being offset by something we don't know about.
Oddly though, the (short) Argo data series for OHC (2000m layer) shows almost no trend. Deep ocean warming may be happening (Purkey & Johnson, 2010) but not sufficient to account for the amount of energy imbalance Trenberth thinks he has found in the CERES data for TOA radiative imbalance.
That's the interesting bit. All this back-and-forth over the minutiae of the surface temp records is beside the point. The longer trends in all data sets, including satellite tropospheric, OHC, surface and SST show warming. There's no getting around that nor any point in trying. It just looks ostrich-like and silly.
What we need to know is how the climate system responds to various forcings, especially CO2. Does it really give us a no-feedbacks forcing of ~+1C? Does this really synergise with water vapour feedback to give us +3C (or higher)?
Or does the climate system respond to CO2 forcing by increasing the rate at which energy is transported to space? Might this be why there's been no warming for over a decade?
Forget about BEST. Think about the interesting questions. It's more productive.
Actually BBD I take a different view on the issue of the surface temperature and whether it's been manipulated to exaggerate the warming, and indeed to depress the early 20th century warm periods.While we've been sleeping the green monster has crept into power in most institutions and the MSM. To the extent that they had manaed to all but stifle and censor any alternative views, even from the scientific community. Each of the three keepers of the temperature data records are hotbeds of environmental activism, so it is important that we get the right information about the actual temperature records (by the way I don't believe you can measure a GATA anyway, but it is a tool in their propoganda war). More importantly if they have been manipulating the data to make things worse then let's have that out in the open, we need to show the general public that they're not dealing with "scientists" in the ordinary sense in climate science, we're talking of activist scientists with and agentda to prove global warming is real, it's human induced and that it will be catastrophic.
I don't deny warming is happening, but the extent that they've gone to, through their hockeystick graphs to deny it's happened before tells me that they are worried that the general public, for which I have the greatest admiration, will, not unnaturally ask if it's happened before what caused it then?
geronimo
WRT 'cooling' the 1930s - we are speaking of GISTEMP I presume? I'm not aware of this being done to other reconstructions.
And I agree, what appears to have been done in the adjustments to GISTEMP is suspiciously like what I might do if I wanted to make the late C20th warming look... unprecedented.
I'm assuming that we are all very well-versed in the creation and misuse of the Mannean Hockey Stick, so I'll add that to the basket of things we don't like about activist climate science.
But you hit the nail in your final sentence: what indeed is causing current warming? And does it have any relevance at all to what caused the Mediaeval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods?
Now that's important. Because if the current warming is multifactoral (as the more broadminded climatologists allow), then we need to sort out the elements of the signal.
How much is natural recovery from the LIA vs how much is CO2 forcing vs how much is other anthropogenic (land use, black carbon)?
THEN we need to consider the things discussed in my previous comment. It all boils down to trying to isolate the CO2 forcing so we can quantify climate sensitivity.
Which is easier said than done.
The problem you face is this: show causation. Clearly not all the post-1950 warming is internal variation and it doesn't appear to be solar, so what is it?
The likely answer is that CO2 forcing is emerging as the dominant factor in increasing T. Unless and until some other forcing can be identified, that is the logical explanation.
And it doesn't go away because the Mannean Hockey Stick is wrong, or because GISTEMP has been adjusted. This is the part many here seem to find difficult. It is entirely possible for the universe to contain MBH98/99, the IPCC, Al Gore and real CO2-forced global warming.
I think most everyone has missed the significance of Muller's testimony to a congressional committee. His testimony put into the Congressional Record the statement that problems with measurement sites are not important. That was quite a coup for the Warmista. As a result of this, many of us are talking with our representatives to learn who in Congress enabled his testimony and who in Congress failed to stop his testimony.
As regards his testimony, The New York Times reported that his findings, though incomplete, are not very different from NOAA and the others. The Times should have said that his findings are preliminary rather than incomplete findings. Muller prefaced his remarks with the word 'preliminary'. The various methods that Muller promised Anthony Watts that he would apply to the data have not been applied. Muller has published neither data, methods, nor code. In our local terminology, Muller blind-sided Watts and did so before the ball was snapped.
The Achilles Heel of the Warmista, at least among Americans, is that they have shown no respect for data, they have shown that they are willing to corrupt data, and that they fear to approach data without the security blanket of novel statistical techniques. Muller is using novel statistical techniques. Such elementary technical matters are way above the heads of the NYT. Two of the bulwarks against poor data practices are McIntyre and Watts. Those who believe that BEST was created to neutralize Watts should not be treated as paranoid.
As regards the word 'fraud', there is a cultural difference between Brits and Yanks. Brits labor under severe laws governing libel but Yanks do not. To prove libel here, you must prove that the speaker knew he was lying, that his comment was malicious, and that he intended malice. Pretty high standard of proof, wouldn't you say? John Stuart Mill would have approved without qualification.
Mac
Sorry - should have addressed this earlier but was in the usual Saturday rush:
Okay, but what kind of divergence exactly?
Let's have a look.
As so often, GISTEMP is the outlier, this time not just in temperature, but also in trend. I am absolutely not going to defend GISTEMP.
However, if we look at UAH/RSS vs HADCRUT, we see that the surface temperature is trending lower than the satellite tropospheric temperature.
Hardly the signature of a well-cooked surface temp series, is it?
Minor variance aside, as usual, the satellite tropospheric trend is in good agreement with the surface trend. Unless you believe GISTEMP of course, which frankly, I don't.
I have read Anthony Watts blog for a very long time. I have heard his surface stations presentation first hand and met him. He can get irritated, can rush to print too early, is human, but has, for me, one golden attribute- I trust him on the subject of weather station records above any other living soul.
Pharos
I'm not questioning Anthony Watts' integrity.
Your point re this is missing:
Apologies, formatting mess.
BEST is a fraud
http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/2011/04/best-novim-and-other-solution.html
Case closed.
BBD
There is a clear divergence between the satellite data and land (surface) data. It is well documented and widely reported.
John Daly summarised the errors with the surface data based on a comparison with the satellite data;
John Daly also recommended that the only way forward was;
Compare that approach to BEST's where they have decided to have an inclusive response. In being inclusive quality control becomes nigh impossible.
Surprise, surprise, such an approach has already produced more warming (1.2C) than either GISS or CRU.
BEST was simply designed to make us all warmists. It failed.
The lesson here is all that glistens is not necessarily gold.
Mac
From the blog you link: Muller appears to believe that
- CO2-forced warming is real
- Future emissions will be driven by developing (not developed) economies
- We can't do anything about this
- Renewables are not a solution to CO2-forced warming
- The existing temperature records, while not perfect, are broadly accurate in trend and clearly show warming
- In the face of failed emissions abatement policy, geo-engineering may be the only remaining option
He sounds logical, realistic and well informed. Rather than dismissing him and BEST as you do, you should pay close attention.
And every morning, take a look at the UAH and RSS interpretations of the satellite data, and ask yourself 'what am I seeing here?'
This is getting tiresome. I have explained why you are incorrect with links to actual graphs displaying actual data.
You assert much and demonstrate nothing.
Please re-read all relevant posts above. It's all there. Just saying stuff does not count as rational debate.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
Quote:
Who is Robert A Rohde? Well he is 'Dragons flight' (Wikipedia administrator, predominantly on global warming) and Richard Muller's BEST data analyst.
The figure produced by Rohde is interesting because it is a comparison of surface and satellite temperature data, and trends derived for the period 1982 - 2005.
What is the reason given for this period selection with regard the trends? Well we are told, "there is still a significant discrepancy between the very earliest satellite measurements and the ground based measurements at that time".
What we have is a classic example of cherry-picking the data to eliminate any notion of significant divergence in the data-sets taking root in the reader's mind. Divergence? What divergence?
We can all indulge in the cherry-picking game. If I was to pick a period from 1981 to 2005, just a change of 1 year in the starting point, I would be able to argue that there IS a large and significant discrepancy between surface and satellite data trends. Why, because of the divergence of 0.4C in the data-sets at, or around 1981.
If the data is to do the real talking in this debate, the divergence points, the discrepancies, the differences in absolute terms all need explaining. That is at the heart of this debate, the results mean absolutely nothing if the basis for their derivation are not fully explained and their limitations remain unexposed.
Deriving trends to suit a warmist agenda simply won't do, that's what Rohde's figure is all about, and since Robert A Rohde is at the heart of the BEST project that won't do either.
BEST is busted.
Mac
From your Wikipedia link (emphasis added):
Some points:
First, the v5.2 UAH dataset used by Rhode is now out of date. The following trends are derived using version 5.3:
Decadal trend (C) 1982 – 2005:
+0.15 HADCRUT
+ 0.14 UAH
+0.16 RSS
Decadal trend (C) 1982 – present:
+0.16 HADCRUT
+ 0.17 UAH
+0.18 RSS
Decadal trend (C) 1979 – present:
+0.15 HADCRUT
+ 0.14 UAH
+0.16 RSS
Second, the satellite record is constructed from several data sets from MSUs flown on successive satellites. The oldest is unsurprisingly considered less reliable than the rest. Nevertheless, from the various trends obtained from different time-series above, it is not clear that there is any significant divergence between the satellite tropospheric and surface temperature record (HADCRUT3).
The full 1979 – present trend shows HADCRUT neatly bracketed by UAH below and RSS. The same occurs between 1982 – 2005. The 1982 – present trend shows HADCRUT trending below UAH by 0.01C/decade and RSS by 0.02C/decade.
Once again, I cannot find any evidence supporting what you repeatedly describe as ‘significant divergence’ between satellite and surface measurements.
Next, you keep changing your tune. On Apr 2, 2011 at 12:47 PM you said:
Today it is:
Presumably this tactic is a response to the fact that there isn't a divergence 'especially over the last 10-12 years' as I pointed out on Apr 2, 2011 at 7:45 PM.
Anyway, the 0.4C divergence you note is between UAH and RSS, not between surface temperature and the combined UAH/RSS interpretation of the tropospheric temperature.
Decadal trend (C) 1981 – 2005:
+0.18 HADCRUT
+ 0.15 UAH
+0.19 RSS
This would indeed be cherry-picking, which is why I am trying to avoid inserting my choice of start points in the three time series examined. Except when I have to in response to your claims.
It's best to work from 1979 over the full length of the satellite record. Even so, in your cherry-picked example, HADCRUT still trends below RSS, and is much closer in trend to RSS than UAH.
Aren't the surface measurements supposed to be artificially high compared to the more 'honest' satellite measurements?
And isn't what's really interesting here getting overlooked? Namely that the hypothesised higher trend for tropospheric heating by CO2 forcing is ambiguous and may not even be present.
So I have to ask myself, what are you doing? You appear to have set out to discredit all surface temperature records while endorsing the satellite data. Remember, this was you three days ago:
But then you find out that the satellite data shows a warming trend very similar to the surface temperature and you don’t ‘like’ that so you start attacking the satellite data as well.
Is this all about a fundamental aversion to any metric that shows warming? Does this explain your virulent and libellous antipathy to BEST?
Anyway, this has consumed my lunch break and I have little more to add except this question:
Are you being honest with yourself about what the data show? Because your inconsistencies over timescale and switching from pro- to anti- satellite suggest otherwise.
Cut and paste error above:
This is incorrect:
Decadal trend (C) 1982 – 2005:
+0.15 HADCRUT
+ 0.14 UAH
+0.16 RSS
Decadal trend (C) 1982 – 2005:
+0.20 HADCRUT
+ 0.18 UAH
+0.21 RSS
Apologies.
Sorry BBD there a periods where there are signficant divergence in the data-sets, up to 0.6C around 2008. Why is that?
Deriving trends when such divergences in rate, period and magnitude are not explained, or even understood is a bogus exercise.
......... but that is what Rohde did.
Mac
Have your actually read my comment above? It really doesn't sound like it.
The 0.6C divergence you are now pointing to (it's always something else isn't it?) occurs because the effects of ENSO - in 2008, La Nina cooling - are much more evident in tropospheric temps than surface temps.
Didn't you know that?
You are now pointing to single-year events as 'evidence'. Weather, not climate. Hand-waving not debate.
And I'm beginning to get fed up with this.
Please read my comment above with an open mind. Examine the graphs I have prepared (transparently and using the raw data). I actually don't much care what you claim Rhode did. The data is there - I've gone to the time and trouble to graph it up for you - please take the time to look at it carefully.
And then answer some questions directly for once. Starting with this:
1/. What happened in 4 days to have you switch from endorsing the satellite data to attacking it?
2/. Is it because it doesn't show what you want it to?
3/. If not, why have you reversed your position?
You first claimed a trend divergence over the last 10 - 12 years. Then it shifted to 1981 - 2005. Now it's 2008.
1/. Why do you keep altering your time series?
2/. Examining the full 1979 - present satellite record, and comparing it with HADCRUT, where is the 'significant divergence' you claim?
Here again, and for the last time, are the decadal trends for the period:
+0.15 HADCRUT
+ 0.14 UAH
+0.16 RSS
Deriving simplistic linear trends does not provide any insight to what is happening to and within the data. It is simply a political tool, because you get to choose the start and end points, and can extrapolate to your hearts content.
There are reported problems between comparing the land surface records and the satellite data. Many as I have said before remain unresolved.
Here is a definitive paper that discusses some aspects of these problems.
An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere; Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr.,Roger A. Pielke Jr.,John R. Christy, and Richard T. McNider.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/r-345.pdf
Put simply again, BEST is busted.
A perspective from Roger Pielke Jnr on a new paper.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/04/global-warming-its-worse-than-you-think.html
There are lots of problems with land surface records, lots of problems. Until they are addressed fully in an open and transparent way we have only the satellite data to rely on.
Further, I would add this, until the land and ocean surface records can be shown/made to replicate fully the satellite data over the past 30 years we can place little faith in the land and ocean surface records that pre-date the satellite era.
That is a tough ask, but everyone is expected to make tough decisions in the way we are supposed to live in the future.
Mac
Why haven't you answered a single one of the direct questions I asked in my last post?
*
You haven't understood Montandon et al. 2011. The paper appears to validate a higher-than-expected trend for LST (cf. the 1.2C warming suggested by BEST). You know, the same higher temps that you are certain are fraudulent.
The problem here - as I have tried to point out - is NOT with the satellite data per se. It is with the increasing likelihood that the prediction of tropospheric T trends rising faster than LST trends is going to be falsified.
LSTs are trending higher than expected relative to tropospheric trends. In fact the two are virtually identical (see above, ad nauseam) and the LST trend may have to be raised even further in the light of work like Montandon et al. and BEST.
According to the blackboard physics, tropospheric T should trend higher than LST. Not the other way around. So what is really going on? Systematic cool bias in the satellite data or some atmospheric dynamics that nobody expected and no one has yet identified?
You are so fixated on trying to prove that all the science is wrong/fraudulent that you have completely missed the point. The sceptical point.
And, were it not for the fortuitous timing of RP Jr's post, you would still be floundering around trying to 'prove' that there's something systematically wrong with the satellite data.
I give up. Have it your own way. Just don't pass it of as scientific scepticism because it falls a very long way short of that.
Mac
Answers please. No more evasions and goalpost-shifting:
1/. What happened in 4 days to have you switch from endorsing the satellite data to attacking it?
2/. Is it because it doesn't show what you want it to?
3/. If not, why have you reversed your position?
You first claimed a trend divergence over the last 10 - 12 years. Then it shifted to 1981 - 2005. Now it's 2008.
1/. Why do you keep altering your time series?
2/. Examining the full 1979 - present satellite record, and comparing it with HADCRUT, where is the 'significant divergence' you claim?
Here again, and for the last time, are the decadal trends for the period:
+0.15 HADCRUT
+ 0.14 UAH
+0.16 RSS
My position has never changed.
"Once again we see that the only reliable record we have is the satellite data. Apr 1, 2011 at 12:07 PM | Mac"
"There is divergence between the land temperature records for satellites and land based recordings. Apr 2, 2011 at 12:47 PM | Mac"
"There is a clear divergence between the satellite data and land (surface) data. It is well documented and widely reported. Apr 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM | Mac"
My arguements are that BEST have not been open and transparent as was promised. BEST rushed to publish a non-peer reviewed result when they promised not to do so. BEST promised access to published data, they have not done so. BEST has a data analyst who operates as a gatekeeper at Wikipedia on the issue of global warming. BEST have been accused by scientists on both sides of the debate as being naive, unprofessional, ill informed and disengenius.
BBD you are simply arguing with your own assumptions, perceptions and deflections.
I know where I stand.