Dr. Bill Gray's Rebuttal of Boston Globe OpEd

Update: Flashback to Kerry Emanuel's false predictions in Time Magazine 1987

Good Technical Summary of Climategate

Prepared by Ross McKitrick PhD for the UK panel reviewing the Climategate emails:

 

Gavin Schmidt's "Good Science" Part 2

In part 2 of the last post, Good Science Gets Its Revenge, we examine additional emails from the recently released NASA FOIA files part 4. Gavin Schmidt, taxpayer-supported blogger-in-chief at realclimate.org (see also The Truth About Realclimate.org), is quoted in the New York Times: “Climate scientists are paid to do climate science” and “Their job is not persuading the public”. In the following email, Gavin acknowledges that his job is "explaining the science to the general public/blogosphere", although he can't be explaining papers he has no refutation for such as in the title of the email "half of recent arctic warming may not be due to greenhouse gases" since he "can't be picking up after everybody".

 
(on a subsequent post I will show 3 emails from taxpayers to NASA/GISS in the FOIA files complaining about Gavin Schmidt being paid by taxpayers to essentially full-time blog on a privately-owned left-wing political advocacy site connected to Al Gore, George Soros, Michael Mann, etc. masquerading as the authoritative scientific source of all things climate. I will also have a post on the paper Gavin "doesn't want to pick up after" in Nature Geosciences stating that "half of recent arctic warming may not be due to greenhouse gases" )


As the following email shows, the paper Gavin wrote for submission to BAMS (the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society), which was rejected twice by BAMS upon the unanimous recommendation of three peer reviews, was actually written because Gavin needed a single peer reviewed reference on this topic for purposes of debunking Dr. Richard Lindzen on Gavin's blog:

Good Science Gets Its Revenge

In a New York Times article published today, taxpayer-supported nutter-blogger-in-chief at realclimate.org Gavin A. Schmidt is quoted as follows:

But some scientists said that responding to climate change skeptics was a fool’s errand.
“Climate scientists are paid to do climate science,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a senior climatologist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. “Their job is not persuading the public.”
He said that the recent flurry of hostility to climate science had been driven as much by the cold winter as by any real or perceived scientific sins.“There have always been people accusing us of being fraudulent criminals, of the I.P.C.C. being corrupt,” Dr. Schmidt said. “What is new is this paranoia combined with a spell of cold weather in the United States and the ‘climategate’ release. It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”
The answer is simple, he said.
“Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”

I fully agree with Gavin's last quote, that good science is the best revenge. Let's take a look at this in action, from the recently released NASA FOIA files part 4 is a series of emails detailing a trouncing by 3 scathing reviews of a paper written by Gavin Schmidt et al submitted not once but twice to BAMS (the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) and ultimately rejected outright. Followed by this are emails regarding a blog posting at climatedepot.com in 2009 stating "prominent scientist appalled by Gavin Schmidt's lack of knowledge". Looks like Gavin better just stick to persuading the public at his blog rather than being paid to do climate science.

The Truth About Realclimate.org

Another "awful" email from Phil Jones?

From the recently released NASA FOIA files part 4 (not in the Climategate files), what appears to be another "awful" email from Phil Jones to James Hansen & Co. at GISS:

In point #4 Phil Jones says his "biggest worry is China. CMA [The Chinese Meteorological Agency] don't (sic) measure at airports, and they keep moving suburban locations a few more miles out as the cities expand...hope they will...send me their adjusted data (for site moves, but not urban influences). They are doing some reasonable work, but not seeing the big picture..."

As I understand this email, Phil Joneses biggest worry is that China doesn't have upwardly biased temperature records like many other parts of the world because they don't measure at airports and keep moving thermometers further out as the cities expand. What a terrible practice that is! And why isn't Phil interested in the urban influences data? It must be that the Chinese are not seeing the big picture...  And what big picture would that be that Phil didn't want to put in writing in this email?

Someone please tell me I misunderstood and why. And please also explain #1 listed under "other issues" on why NCDC will be increasing global temps from about 2000 onwards. Hansen likes this and says in his reply at top that the NOAA SSTs [sea surface temperatures] seemed just a hair cool to him as well.

Paper: "no change" climate "model" is 7 times better than IPCC model

A 2009 paper published in the International Journal of Forecasting states, in erudite terminology, that a "benchmark model" of climate, the "benchmark model" simply being that the climate will not change, resulted in climate change forecasting errors from 1851-1975 seven times less than the IPCC model which attributes climate change primarily to CO2 levels:

In other words, the IPCC model of climate change forecasting is, as Einstein might quip, "not even wrong". The paper goes on to say, scientist tongue apparently planted firmly in cheek, that "decision makers who had assumed that temperatures would not change [instead of what the IPCC model predicts] would have had no reason for regret".

UK public confidence in climate science declines to new post-ice age low of 31%

UK Headline 2/2010:

Followed a couple weeks later by this UK Headline:

Any questions?     
(yes, I know weather is not climate and #1 is primarily SSTs & #2 NH land temps. Source of 31% UK public confidence level is REUTERS)  (The UK Met Office originally predicted only a 20 per cent chance of a colder than average winter but was embarrassed yet again when official figures revealed it was the coldest for more than 30 years)
Related: Coldest Winter In 30 Years  & Coldest February Since 1979  
Coldest Winter in 3 Decades over South Florida
 

Another Bogus Graph created for IPCC AR4

This impressive-looking-at-first-glance graph created by the IPCC for AR4, Chapter 5, page 36 (the graph is not taken from any peer-reviewed literature) purports to show a "remarkable...pattern of change in the ocean", claiming a spatial relationship between different levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, temperature, and sea levels at different latitudes:

The legend, however, notes that the data comes from 4 different sources each from vastly different time periods, the carbon concentration is only the anthropogenic fraction (3-4%) of the total carbon emissions which has a different spatial distribution than the anthropogenic only, and there is an inverse correlation between sea level rise above 60 degrees N 1993-2003 and temperature decrease in the same region 1955-2003 (note anthropogenic climate changes are supposed to be most pronounced at the poles). In sum, the graph proves nothing and on close inspection just weakens the IPCC "message". How does junk science like this get through the "extensive review process of hundreds of international experts"? Probably the same way as the IPCC paleoclimate reconstructions.

Back to the Future

Circa 1989:

From the archives of the New York Times

Circa 2008:

But...but why are they saying otherwise now? Oh, they had to "fix" the old data in the mean time.

many thanks to Wattsupwiththat.com, climaterealists.com, & nyt.com for sources. Another version of the fixed US temperature data.

Slingo Says Land Temps are 10x more accurate than Satellite data

Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office UK in answering a question as to why the land based temperature data record has shown higher temperature anomaly than the two satellite records explains that the reason is that satellite data is "an order of magnitude" (10 times) less accurate than the land based thermometer data [you know those thermometers in little latex-painted boxes at the end of aircraft runways and in cities]. She dismisses the urban heat effect by saying "we've looked at it" and says the issues with the Mann Hockey Stick have been "resolved" without mentioning that it has been discredited. Truly a piece of work as are the other apologists.

 

Phil Jones holding all of the scientific evidence of AGW

Don't miss the first part of the hearing discussing the Mann Hockey Stick as "fraudulent" and Mike's Nature Trick as a deliberate deception intended to hide the decline. Professor Phil Jones trembles and hands shake throughout his testimony as he evades answering questions. Good summary of the hearing at Bishop Hill. 

Update: Dr. Roy Spencer, NASA/UAH Satellite expert states Slingo is incorrect about the accuracy of satellite data v. land based thermometers.


BBC article & small video segment        Memoranda to the UK Parliamentary Committee

Dr. Richard Lindzen's Talk at Fermilab

Richard Lindzen PhD, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was recently invited to give a talk entitled "The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming" at Fermilab 2/10/10 which you can watch in its entirety with slides here. Dr. Lindzen calmly eviscerates the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) and the IPCC "consensus". Highly recommended. Some of the key slides from the presentation are archived at the link below. Below are 3 slides from the presentation, the first noting that the theory of intelligent design sounds rigorous by comparison to the theory of anthropogenic global warming, the second noting that 3 pro-CAGW publications have already acknowledged that temperature data has contradicted the man-made attribution assumption (primarily CO2), which is the inherent assumption of the IPCC models, and the third noting that the fundamental assumption of CAGW that there is positive feedback by water vapor due to CO2 is "likely wrong".

Archive of some key slides from the talk

Sea Levels: Large Variances between Tide Gauges and Satellite Altimetry

Determining changes in global sea levels is an enormously complicated undertaking, with measurement error, calibration error, seasonal adjustments, and regional differences as four of the most significant problems to overcome. Different types of measurement achieve different results. For instance, Sea Level Expert Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner (see post just prior to this also) finds that careful analysis of historical tide gauge records (correcting for subsiding, tectonic shifts, etc) shows no significant global sea level rise during most of the 20th century, and also finds corroboration of this from the geologic and coral reef records in the field (if the sea level doesn't rise reefs have to grow laterally rather than vertically, etc.).

How about satellite altimetry measurements of sea levels? These have their own unique set of problems, including

• Large divergences between GPS-corrected tide gauges and satellite altimetry at the same location (see below)
• Use of two different satellites at different times, and two different altimeters "due to degradation in the original instrument" on TOPEX with different electronics and resultant measurement divergence
• And factors mentioned in Nerem et al:

"Satellite altimetry is somewhat unique in that many adjustments must be made to the raw range measurements to account for atmospheric delays (ionosphere, troposphere), ocean tides, variations in wave height (which can bias how the altimeter measures sea level), and a variety of other effects. In addition, the sea level measurements can be affected by the method used to process the altimeter waveforms, and by the techniques and data used to compute the orbit of the satellite. Early releases of the satellite Geophysical Data Records (GDRs) often contain errors in the raw measurements, the measurement corrections, and the orbit estimates." Nerem et al also mentions other major problems such as drift in the TOPEX microwave radiometer, a change from the original TOPEX altimeter to the back-up altimeter in 1999 "due to degradation in the original instrument" which had "different electronics" from the original resulting in divergent measurements which had to be "corrected'.

What about the first point, that there are large variances between GPS-corrected tide gauges and satellite altimetry at the same location? Here are 2 graphs from the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change site:

TOPEX calibration

Sea Level Expert: "80% of us disagree with the IPCC"

according to an interview recorded 5 days ago with Sea Level Expert Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner. Dr. Mörner is the recently-retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 38 years. 

In the interview, Dr. Morner states that none of the 33 authors of the 2001 IPCC Chapter on sea levels was considered to be a sea level expert, that all 33 were from other disciplines and selected "due to loyalty" to the IPCC. Furthermore, Dr. Morner estimates that of the 300-400 individual scientists "in the sea-level [scientific] community", 80% of sea-level experts disagree with the IPCC conclusions regarding sea level rise.

I have emailed Dr. Morner for his reply to the critique by Nerem et al and any comments on the post here "Global Sea Level Decrease 2004-2010 Part 2"  and will post his reply here.

Graphs from a Chapter written by Dr. Morner in the book Encyclopedia of Coastal Science by Maurice L. Schwartz, editor, showing TOPEX satellite altimetry data with no long term trend prior to the slew of adjustments broadly outlined by Nerem et al:

Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel

Article showing the IPCC paleoclimate reconstructions are oversimplified and overstated as also shown in prior hockey schtick posts here and here.

From the Front Page of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL today 02/26/2010

• Article
• Video
• Interactive Graphics
• Comments (253)

 

The group expressed 'regret' last month for an erroneous projection in its influential 2007 climate report that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

In the next few days, the world's leading authority on global warming plans to roll out a strategy to tackle a tough problem: restoring its own bruised reputation.

A months-long crisis at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has upended the world's perception of global warming, after hacked emails and other disclosures revealed deep divisions among scientists working with the United Nation-sponsored group. That has raised questions about the panel's objectivity in assessing one of today's most hotly debated scientific fields.

The problem stems from the IPCC's thorny mission: Take sophisticated and sometimes inconclusive science, and boil it down to usable advice for lawmakers. To meet that goal, scientists working with the IPCC say they sometimes faced institutional bias toward oversimplification, a Wall Street Journal examination shows. Read more at article link above.

Michael Mann is angry about this article

Baby steps to a Mea Culpa?

[Trenberth sort-of goes public with his climategate email in graph at the header]

Scientists examine causes for lull in warming 
 

* Exact causes unknown for lack of warming from 1999-2008 

* The underlying reason for cold winter not known 

* Climate science in focus after email scandal, errors 

By Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle LONDON/OSLO, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public. At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels. Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by an error in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing. Scientists said they must explain better how a freezing winter this year in parts of the northern hemisphere and a break in a rising trend in global temperatures since 1998 can happen when heat-trapping gases are pouring into the atmosphere. "There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998, or in 2005 according to one U.S. analysis. Part of the explanation could be a failure to account for rapid warming in parts of the Arctic, where sea ice had melted, and where there were fewer monitoring stations, he said. "I think we need better analysis of what's going on on a routine basis so that everyone, politicians and the general public, are informed about our current understanding of what is happening, more statements in a much quicker fashion instead of waiting for another six years for the next IPCC report." The latest, fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was published in 2007 and the next is due in 2014. The proportion of British adults who had no doubt climate change was happening had dropped in January to 31 percent from 44 percent in January 2009, an Ipsos MORI poll showed this week.

The Reference Frame analysis of this news item

Another Analysis Confirms Greenhouse Effect of CO2 already Saturated

Unpublished paper well worth a read available today at climaterealists.com by mechanical engineer and heat transfer expert Dan Pangburn

"is a comprehensive discussion of the science relating to the Global Warming issue and includes a fairly simple model (on page 15) that accurately predicts all average global temperatures since 1895 including the recent decline.

I observed the many conflicting assertions regarding the existence and cause of Global Warming, particularly as to whether it was significantly contributed to by human activity.
This led to substantial curiosity as to the truth. As a result I have conducted research on the issue for thousands of hours for over three years and have determined that the belief that human activity has had a significant influence on global climate is a mistake.

Greenhouse Analogy

This may be how the mistake began. Incorrect conclusions may have been drawn from various observations and discoveries. Some of the discoveries and developments are..."

One of the conclusions pertinent to recent discussions and posts here is the corroboration using different methods that:

"at the present CO2 level, atmospheric carbon dioxide increase has no significant influence on [average global temperatures]"

Your Own IPCC Climate Computer

Hey kids, now you too can do your own climate modeling using the IPCC's own complex & sophisticated climate computer (97% of it). Just enter the starting CO2 level in parts per million and the ending and it will calculate how much global warming will occur!  Here

Warning: do not use without parental supervision. Climate computer uses only 97% of the IPCC model of total positive radiative forcing since only 97% of it comes from CO2: temperature anomaly=4.7*ln(ending CO2/starting CO2). Model only applies to the 20th and 21st centuries since temperature anomalies bear no relation to the Medieval Warming Period with much lower CO2 levels nor the geologic record with CO2 levels in the mid-1000s per million throughout ice ages.The "official" temperature anomaly calculated by this computer is not guaranteed to match 97% of the IPCC model nor reality.