Was It Really All A Hoax?

 

We seem to have some new commentators here, so I’ll throw something out for discussion which may be illuminating. 

By now, almost everyone is aware, or should be aware if climate is a subject they follow, that we’ve had a couple of very disturbing revelations recently about our temp data.  Some may be shocked.  For those of us who have been at this for a while knew about it for some time. 

We’ll get to the most common part first.  Anthony has a post up …..

New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization

Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].

PDF Full text:

NOTE!!!!  The GHCN is where most temp data comes from.

Now, like I stated, for us veterans of the climate wars, this isn’t new.  It is exciting that it got published, but my experience is that this won’t change any beliefs. 

One of the most prolific blog writers I have ever seen, Steven Goddard, has been at this for some time with the USHCN.  Steve probably writes more posts in a day than any other blogger I’ve seen.  The thing about Steve is that sometimes he writes to a specific audience.  He assumes all people engaged in the discussion have the same level of knowledge.  In other words, he writes to veteran climate skeptics.  This isn’t a criticism, it’s just an observation.  He provides a wealth of knowledge and has been very influential in presenting skeptic points of view.  Continuing with the altered temp data, he presents USHCN data altering…….

How USHCN Hides The Decline In US Temperatures

He notes that the raw data shows a noticeable decline in the temps, but the adjustments and alterations show that the U.S. is warming …. significantly. 

Now, I’ve written about this in the past, This Isn’t About The Climate , if you haven’t read it yet, I’d recommend it. 

But, here’s my point.  I have no doubt in my mind there have been some unscrupulous people with their thumbs on the scales.   But, I also know that many are honest.  Their only sin was faith.  The faith was misplaced.  And, who’s to blame them?  When a colleague affirms something to them, then they believe it.  No one has time to run down every bit of supposed science to see if it is all true or not.  No one can. 

Many may recall when I endeavored to look at all of the tidal gauges and tried to determine the sea level, the historic rate of rise and the present rate of rise.  It should have been simple.   But, things never are as simple as you conceive them.  After a few months of processing the tidal data, I came to a spot where I would have to rely on my judgment to move forward.  The tidal data, like the temp data isn’t pure.  The distribution isn’t consistent.  The continuity of the data isn’t there.  For instance, you can have a record for one place which had consistent measurements of a tidal gauge for 20-30 years.  But, then there will be a gap, maybe even for several years, and then new readings again.  Almost always, there will be a step change in the measurements one way or the other.  What do you do?  In my case, I threw out the old measurement.  Or in some cases I kept the one with the longest continuous measurements.  But, I couldn’t do this through the years without having to make a subjective choice. 

I had intended to submit my findings to a journal.  And, I still may after all is said and done.  But, I know what my findings will say.  There is absolutely no way to discern global sea level, the rate of rise in the past or the present using PSMSL data.  Any assertion one way or the other is simply subjective opinion.  I’ve seen it go both ways and they are both wrong.  Yes, there are statistical manipulations one can make and do, but, that’s all they are. 

The thermometer temperature data is exactly the same.  We have people pretending to know what the global temps were in the 1800s.  We know the coverage and continuity doesn’t allow for this.  The 1940s are problematic as well.  The thermometer record is and always has been bollocks.  We do have satellite records, but they have their own problems.  But, most importantly, we have no idea how they relate to the past. 

I don’t blame the people in the past for making assumptions as they did.  Today, there is no excuse. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Was It Really All A Hoax?

  1. styts, if there are ”unscrupulous people on the scales” now; how about the professional Swindlers for ”proxy data” from hundreds and thousands of years ago?! Did that ever cross your mind? Today’s Warmist are scrutinized; before 1990, nobody was scrutinized them – it was going ”tons of shonky evidences in the education books, as ”official facts / cycles, 2C warmer 6000y ago above mid Pacific?. Using ”those facts” you people are keeping the Warmist on the throne. If a Fake knows what was exactly the temperature above Pacific 1000y ago, 6000y ago – he is a wizard; or a shameless Warmist’ doormat. I rest my case…

    • suyts says:

      Lol, well yes, I did. They have an out. In fact, they must get out. You see, all of the paleo data is calibrated to what people believed the temps were. Clearly, this was in error.

      • kim2ooo says:

        And well known! IMO
        Used to promote the post-normal science practice of paleontology and climatology

      • suyts says:

        It’s all over but the shouting.

      • suyts, before 1990, they were not getting the billions; they had to exaggerated / manipulate/ invent, much more – than after.

        I have reason to suspect that; climatology was the oldest profession, not the other one – on occasions is impossible to separate them one from the other. If you have enough taxpayer’s money – you can buy yourself a dozen new ”proxy” GLOBAL warmings; to be inserted as: ”suyts cycles…. a whole harem of phony GLOBAL warmings

        • miked1947 says:

          Stefan:
          You are still ignoring the biological information that was used to determine what the overall climate conditions were in certain regions around the globe during the last 400, thousand years and longer. Even the writing from different regions that can be read to see more dramatic weather events than what we are experiencing currently.
          All these things show “CYCLES” in weather patterns.
          It is well known the globe has been cooling for 8,522 years, with short warming periods interspersed. We just happen to be living during one of those warmer periods, maybe! Of course, due to the lack of usable quality data about current conditions, we do not know with any degree of confidence how the current conditions compare to those even thirty years ago.
          Plus of minus 5C is about the degree of accuracy we currently have.

  2. Scott says:

    I’m going to reserve judgment until some qualified and as-close-to-unbiased stathead fully evaluates the paper. Just because the paper’s conclusions agree with my own suspicions (even quantitatively!) doesn’t mean I’m not skeptical of it.

    -Scott

    • vvenema says:

      “Now, like I stated, for us veterans of the climate wars, this isn’t new. It is exciting that it got published, but my experience is that this won’t change any beliefs. ”

      Very good Scott, because this study did not get published. Most citations are from a presentation at a conference, which means “no review” and no paper where you can read what the actually did. And not even this study claimed that all of the adjustments due to homogenization were artificial, that is a fantasy of Anthony Watts.

    • suyts says:

      Anthony never claimed that all of the adjustments due to homogenization were artificial”> That is a fantasy of yours.

      But, if you’ve got proof that the paper is in error, I’d happily cross post your proofs with your blog. Or, address Steve Goddard’s observations. Or my own observations. It does bring me some satisfaction that you’ve provided evidence that I was correct in the quote you’ve offered.

      • vvenema says:

        According to the “paper” the trend could be anywhere between 0.4 (raw data) and 0.7 (homogenized data), according to the WUWT headline (“New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization”) the trend is 0.35°C per century. Thus he states that the entire change due to homogenization is artificial.

      • suyts says:

        Okay, with proper wordsmithing one can come to such a conclusion. But, having read the WUWT post, that’s not the impression I got of Anthony’s position. You have to go all the way to his second paragraph to see what he was stating.

        “Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].”

        In other words, they looked at homogenization errors. At least that was my take away. Being a blog owner yourself, do you feel it necessary to caveat all of your statements? If you do, then you have run-on statements and loquacious confusion. You have to let the readers have some interpretive latitude.

  3. gator69 says:

    Hey James! I was a climatology student in the 1980’s and wrote a now most embarrassing paper on ‘Desertification’. And just as you surmised above, I was mislead by every university and government study I read. My conclusion was that unless we spent the world’s fortune on mitigation, there would be famine, mass migrations and war. Sound at all familiar?

    The problem with desertification was that governments could not pin it on man, and therefore could tax us.

    I should have known better, having spent years as a geology student, but I was young and trusting of my leaders and mentors. Thankfully I am not the slowest learner, and my very first reaction the the term ‘Global Warming’ was ‘b*llsh*t’.

    • suyts says:

      Lol, Gator you could have been rich!!! But, yeh, these are the people who are suppose to know, and so you trust them. It is quite a process to unlearn things you once held as true. But, like you, I had already gone through that by the time I heard “Global Warming”, so like you, my first instinct was…. ‘b*llsh*t’ 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s