Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Of course, climateaudit.org has been overloaded all day.

Posted by Al at August 9, 2007 01:57 PM

Guess the trend wasn't as trendy as they thought.

Not quite. If you grab the corrected data and plot it, there's still a clear trend, up about 1°C in the past century.

If you break it down, to the extent that that makes any sense, then you get a warm of about 0.9°C between 1880 and 1930, so that the 1930s were just about as warm as today, then a cool of about 0.8°C from 1930 to 1970, so that the 70s were just about as cool as the 1880s, then a rapid 0.9°C warm from 1970 to the present.

Interestingly, if you cut off the data at 1970, it sure looks like the world is cooling off rapidly, which would explain the "Global Cooling" scare of the time.

From decades of looking at statistical data in complex systems, I will also say that whether this data represents a real underlying trend or just random long-term fluctuations is entirely unobvious to me.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 9, 2007 02:05 PM

Look, please stop bothering people with facts. algore told us that the scientific debate is OVER and that the planet has a fever.

Posted by philw at August 9, 2007 03:47 PM

"there's still a clear trend, up about 1°C in the past century."

How much of that increase is attributable to temperature reading stations placed beside exhaust vents, in asphalt parking lots etc.? And once you remove that, how much of the remaining increase (if any) is due to human activity and how much is due to natural (solar etc.) processes?

Man caused global warming is an over blown mega hyped farce.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 9, 2007 04:04 PM

If the only thing Al Gore said was that the planet had a fever, so to speak, then I'd agree with him. There are indeed far too many data that say the average temp of the planet is up over the last few decades, at least, if not the last few centuries. It's not just these recent US measurement data; there's O18/O16 ratios in Greenland ice cores, historical data on the extent of glaciers and icebergs, tree growth-ring data from ancient trees, et cetera, all pointing the same way.

But the tricky part here is knowing whether this warming trend is (1) a random fluctuation or a monotonic long-term trend, and (2) caused by human activities, specifically combustion.

With reference to (1), it's obvious there are short-term fluctuations in the planet's temp. It's never the same from year to year, and in any given location it varies tremendously. Hot summer one year, cold the next, drought for half a decade, then too much rain, et cetera.

But are there longer-period fluctuations, too? Why not? We know there are at least fluctuations over the 11-year solar cycle. Speaking very generally, it would be astonishing if the Sun did not have fluctuations in its energy output with an oscillation period of decades, centuries, millenia and even longer. How would we know?

With reference to (2), the energy flowchart of the entire ecosystem is exceedingly complex, and we are far from understanding it well. (If we did, it would be child's play to predict hurricanes and thunderstorms, and El Nino and droughts, which we can't.) Sure, excess CO2 in the atmosphere is an explanation for an increase in the planet's average temperature, but is it the explanation? Because there are certainly a round dozen other explanations we can imagine, and probably ten times that number we haven't imagined yet. Science doesn't consist in merely posing plausible explanations for things. Religion does that. Five-year-old children do that. (The baby got into mommy's belly when she ate something with a tiny baby in it.) Science consists of ruling out every possible explanation until you've only got one left. That has most certainly not yet been done with respect to CO2 and global warming.

Both factors lead the sensible person to a serious degree of skepticism about whether the observed warming is a fluctuation or a trend, and whether we know it comes from higher CO2 content in the atmosphere.

And that, in turn, urges significant caution when it comes to trying to "fix" things. So many human attempts to "fix" things -- wars to end all wars, revolutions to secure liberty and justice for all, putting out every single fire in the forest so Smokey Bear and Bambi don't snuff it -- do quite the opposite, because we fail to foresee all their consequences.

You ask me, the only sensible thing to do when your civilization gets so large that it starts messing with the planet's climate, is spread out onto more planets. Then each one can monkey with the climate as it chooses, and we can find out empirically what works and what doesn't. But living in the only climate you've got while you screw with it is just stupid.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 9, 2007 04:22 PM

IPCC = Power grab by corrupt elites, their retainer class, and useful "feel good" idiots.

If government employees are fudging numbers, or if they are THAT sloppy with their analysis, then why should I, or anyone, accept the validity of all the rest of the claims?

Transparency (of data and methods), reproducibility of results, verifiability (of predictions) -- these are the core elements of science.

They are the antitheses of politics.

There are very good reasons to reduce our oil consumption. Search "Michael J. Hornitschek" for an example. Global warming (or global climate change) is not one of them.

Posted by MG at August 9, 2007 05:26 PM

My skepticism regarding the concept of anthropogenic global warming was awakened when I sat down and read through the various annual "Highlights in Space" that I picked up at UNISPACE III. Buried deep in one of the reports of what was going on in orbit was the little nugget that correlation of orbital readings with ground-truth data indicated that a particular satellite was providing data that was about 1.5 degrees too 'hot'. This awakened doubts in my mind regarding the calibration of instruments and thereby the data being fed into the computer models.

Coming from the financial industry as a credit analyst, I have a natural disinclination to trusting any kind of computer model, be it VAR or automated bond pricing or company projections. The theory is usually compelling, but the practice tends to just blow it all to heck. By the same token I don't care how much computing power you throw at her, Momma Nature is always going to outdo us because she's working on atomic and quantum scales in a huge way. How you gonna replicate that?

So while I ascribe to theory that tomorrow's weather will be different from yesterday's, I question (a) the precision of our historical record (I don't think Ma Nature is going to make it that easy for us), and (b) the accuracy of our orbital instruments uncalibrated post-launch.

That's why you need humans in the loop, and why we need to develop a better infrastructure for operating our assets in space. Post-launch inspection, or even assembly, to allow for better calibration and longer-term, more effective operation of those assets.

Long-term, weather-wise, I just hope we get a space elevator or several up before the next ice age hits.

Posted by Ken Murphy at August 9, 2007 05:52 PM

Rand, I'm being told that the correction was 0.15 C in USA only so it doesn't have that much effect to the world temperature.

Posted by mz at August 9, 2007 07:32 PM

"Rand, I'm being told that the correction was 0.15 C in USA only so it doesn't have that much effect to the world temperature."

mz,

Could you use the active voice, and attribute this?

I am not sure this particular "correction" significance lies in its size. Rather, begs the question of what other:

flawed data
flawed model assumptions
flawed calibrations
flawed theoretical constructs
flawed vetting
flawed interpretation
flawed degree of certainty

fuels the power grab of this.

And yes, this issue gets me very riled. Not at any of the posters here -- just at the puritanical power-grabbers.

"More equal than others", indeed!

Okay, I feel better now. Thanks for your indulgence.

Posted by MG at August 10, 2007 12:52 AM

http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=462
The following is a quote of Gavin Schmidt at Realclimate comments:

McIntyre noticed that there was an odd offset in the GISTEMP analysis in 2000 which turned out to be related to the transition between USHCN data to the GHCN data. The offset occurred because the USHCN corrections (for Time of Observation bias mainly) affect the more recent values in USHCN but not GHCN (as opposed to only affecting earlier values). Once notified of the problem, GISS investigated immediately, found the error, and added an extra step to the analysis to remove any jump at the transition. This only affected the US temperatures (reducing the mean by about 0.15 ºC in 2000-2006), but since the US is such a small part of the world, it doesn’t effect the global temperatures. Note that this wasn’t a problem with the USHCN data - rather in how the different data sources are melded. It also had nothing to do with any micro-site issues. - gavin

It's good that the error was found. It hardly changes the big trends.

Posted by mz at August 10, 2007 04:48 AM

Oh, and Rand, your blurb of course is very misleading, you should correct it:

1934 is the warmest US year. Globally 2005 was the warmest year in GISS and NCDC, 1998 in the CRU analysis

Posted by mz at August 10, 2007 04:50 AM

Anyway, as has always been said, single years shouldn't be used that much as the noise makes it harder to see a signal. Rather 5 to 15 year averages.

Even if the temperature trend stayed level but was superimposed by noise, there would be record years from time to time after starting the book keeping at some point. That's just mathematics and probability theory.

Sorry for the triple post.

Posted by mz at August 10, 2007 04:53 AM

single years shouldn't be used that much as the noise makes it harder to see a signal. Rather 5 to 15 year averages.

mz, did you get the data and actually plot it before you estimated how much data smoothing makes sense? Or is this just some random guess?

I got the data and plotted it. Frankly, I see no particular length of time over which it makes sense to smooth the data. You smooth data when you know there is some short-duration process about which you don't care, and some long-duration process about which you do. If the two time scales are cleanly separated, you can smooth on the time scale of the short process and the long process shows up more clearly.

Now I can easily see the justification for smoothing on a 1-year time scale. Seasons are an obvious short-term process about which we don't care, and we can smooth their variations away harmlessly. But what is the justification for a 5 year, 15 year, or longer length smoothing? What kind of process is going on at those length scales that you known isn't relevant to overall trends?

If you respond by pointing to the Atlantic Oscillation, or El Nino, then we come to a different question: if you already know climate has decades-long oscillations, how do you know it doesn't have centuries-long oscillations? And if it does, what's the justification for regarding a warming between 1880 and 2007 as being a long-term permanent trend instead of a centuries-long oscillation? Gee, maybe the Earth is cooling overall -- over a span of millenia -- but we're in the middle of a 300-year oscillation on the upswing side. That's a question that must be answered before we go fiddling about trying to "fix" things.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 10, 2007 02:45 PM

No, I don't really know what all the causes for short inter year variations are, do you?

They can be gotten rid of with a mean filter for example. I just threw the 5 to 15 years as an estimate.
You could also do Fourier analysis if you wanted, and whatnot fancy.
The point is, we're not interested in short one year variations but longer term variations.

It makes sense in other fields too, when you're not interested in the short time phenomena. For example, when trying to measure brain or heart signals there is always some high frequency noise from the measurement. If you don't want the noise to mask the biosignal, use a smoothing filter.

The original point was just that the issue if the single year of 1934 is 0.01 degrees warmer or colder than 1998 in the US temperature record makes no real difference whatsoever since the overall trends are quite unchanged. Claiming otherwise is just posturing.

Irrelevant offtopicness:

Regarding the longer oscillations, there isn't a cycle in the past that looks like the recent warming.

And yeah, glacial cycles are at a point of cooling "soon", in the scales of tens of thousands of years. That's a longer term problem.

Posted by mz at August 10, 2007 05:48 PM

mz, I've reviewed plenty of scientific manuscripts for physics and chemistry journals, and any that contained such a load of crap about why they applied a smoothing operation to their data would have that paper back so fast the envelope would scorch. And I would not suggest to the editor that it be reconsidered after revision.

Any time you "smooth" your data, you distort it. If you expect folks to believe your conclusions, you had better be damn sure your distortion can't alter your conclusions. That means in particular if you apply a low-pass filter, you better have a very good reason for picking your frequency cutoff, and you better make sure that all those high-frequency processes you suppress are well and truly decoupled from the low frequency processes you're interested in.

Can you say that about this temperature data? I think not. So you have no justification for the smoothing. Furthermore, you run the very real risk of giving a false and misleading impression when you smooth the data arbitrarily. For example, if you smooth the temperature data in this case appropriately, you will get essentially a smooth straight upward line from 1880 to 2007, which looks like an open-and-shut case for a monotonic warming trend.

But that's a very serious distortion, as you can see when you look at the raw data. The raw data clearly shows massive fluctuations on a yearly and decadal basis that are significantly larger than the claimed average increase. That is a big warning. It says that there are many processes strongly coupled here, and that the system is way more complex than the simple monotonic line would indicate. To put it very crudely, by smoothing your data you have arbitrarily reduced the error bars on your data, and any good empirical scientist knows that the error estimates on your data are at least as important as the data itself.

Quite right. Rand was wrong (or at least gave the wrong impression), as I said in my first post. But you're equally wrong if you think you can just throw a low-pass filter at your data when you feel like it, without understanding the system, and be confident you haven't drawn equally bogus conclusions.

Regarding the longer oscillations, there isn't a cycle in the past that looks like the recent warming.

What you mean to say -- what a careful scientist would say -- is that there isn't any data presently indicating a cycle in the past that looks like the recent warming. See the difference? It's a very important difference.

For example, we know the globe warmed far more than 1 C after the last glacial period, right? So how fast was that warming, and was it monotonic, steady, or did temperaters flop around by 1-3 C every century for a while? You don't know. Nobody does, not yet. And it's kind of an important question, isn't it? Whether or not the planet when it had no human industry at all is capable of oscillations as big and sharp as what we're seeing?

To summarize: I've got no problem with the data showing the globe is warming recently. It's a very solid case. Anyone who doubts is either (1) ignorant, or (2) incapable of being objective. However the case for this warming trend being monotonic -- the case for just extrapolating recent trends forever -- is much weaker. The case for the correlation between the rise in CO2 levels (unassailable in itself) and the warming is plausible to me, but I'm a lot less convinced that we know the causality arrow runs CO2 => warming, rather than the other way around. And the case that this is all the result of human-generated CO2 I find weakest of all. It reminds me of a child at the seashore who sneezes and then sees a dolphin jump out of the water, and leaps to the conclusion that the sneeze causes the dolphin.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 11, 2007 01:25 AM

There are multiple independent lines of evidence that all point to the CO2, it's not just the paleoclimate. (The fuss about the "warming precedes CO2", and the line that Rand often repeats too, "correlation is not causation" are facts in themselves but misunderstood in meaning, perpetrated by institutions interested in deregulation.)

The absorbtion lines (pressure broadening taken into account), the temperature inversion with height at least spring to mind.

BTW here's a figure for all the interested parties, note it's USA not world:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif
And here is the world:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

Complaining about smoothing here, when idiots cavort that "Hansen should have egg on his face", as if he was somehow utterly wrong about global warming, is hypocritical, to say it in the kindest way.

Posted by mz at August 11, 2007 06:19 AM

I neither wrote, nor implied, that Hansen should have egg on his face because "he was somehow utterly wrong about global warming." I wrote what I wrote. I have no control over foolish inferences.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 11, 2007 06:49 AM

So, you won't correct your implication about the world temperature vs the US.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
"The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Dumdidum, it was the WORLD temperature. So James Hansen should NOT have egg on his face, but Rand Simberg.

Posted by mz at August 11, 2007 08:05 AM

If it needed a "correction" (again, I have no control over what you choose to mistakenly infer), others have already done it numerous times in this comments section. And yes, Hansen should still have egg on his face.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 11, 2007 08:40 AM

From what should Hansen have egg on his face?

From the fact that 1998 still is warmer than the thirties, in the world?

From the fact that he never claimed that 1998 was the warmest in USA?

Also, the daily tech article talks about an "y2k bug", which it never was, among other gross inaccuracies.

You can read the real technical details here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/langswitch_lang/sk

Posted by mz at August 11, 2007 10:41 AM

mz, maybe it's a language issue, since I think you implied in another thread that English is not your mother tongue, but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Rand has updated his post to clarify his point, which is that he was not suggesting that a warming trend has now been disproved or cast doubt upon, but that he thinks no scientist worthy of the name would fail to explain to any who asked, in precise detail, exactly what kind of "smoothing" and "correction" he has applied to his raw data, so that others can replicate and criticize his results.

With that statement, as you can see from my post above, I am in complete agreement.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 11, 2007 12:08 PM

No, you still keep mixing global and US temperature, as does Coyote blog too.

And McIntyre got the data and did research with it, that is very good, now there are fewer errors.

No, it was not silently changed, but McIntyre was thanked explicitly.

Remember some time back when I was talking about the southern hemisphere satellite data (when some person here in the comments said that the southern satellite measurements show no warming), and how the data had a correction since at first the wrong satellite was removed, a good one instead of a faulty one. They corrected it and notify in the data.
Look here for yourself:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.

Took me 20 seconds to find GISS and the temperature data there.

Yes, this US temperature error should have been spotted earlier, yes, there are more mistakes certainly in the process, no, it probably doesn't make a global difference, no, it doesn't make global warming a religion.

The articles as well as Rand's blurb are still mostly wrong. To be factual and not misleading, they should in the least:
1) Make a difference between US and global temps, 2) Mention the effect on global temps

Currently they imply global temps were astoundingly changed.

3) Not say the release was silent
4) Not say the changes are astounding
5) Numerous other things.

But as I see, Rand doesn't have the guts to admit he has been misled once again. You really should stop reading that Dailytech or Coyoteblog. Weird, as you just above have an article about "fact checking".

Posted by mz at August 11, 2007 02:07 PM

Yes, this US temperature error should have been spotted earlier, yes, there are more mistakes certainly in the process, no, it probably doesn't make a global difference, no, it doesn't make global warming a religion.
The articles as well as Rand's blurb are still mostly wrong. To be factual and not misleading, they should in the least:
1) Make a difference between US and global temps, 2) Mention the effect on global temps

Currently they imply global temps were astoundingly changed.

You might have to revise your understanding a bit more. It seems like McIntyre's catch is just the first of many. It turns out that the Chinese records that form the core of some of the IPCC's newest climate estimates are in error as well, and in a way that indicates either willful stupidity, or duplicity. Read the reports linked to on the link below.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/10/un-s-ipcc-accused-possible-research-fraud

Now very few of us doubt that there is some warming. However, what is going on here at its core is at best sloppy work by scientsts who should damn well know better, and at worst scientific malfeasance. Without independent verification, there is no science. This is the core of the scientific method. Give me your data, give me your algorithms, and lets repeat the experiment. Without that I repeat, there is no science.

Posted by at August 11, 2007 11:30 PM

Yes, I think it has been alleged that misconduct or fraud has been happening by certain chinese scientists.
People were already earlier wondering why the Chinese data was higher than models predicted.

Posted by mz at August 12, 2007 11:43 AM

Yes, I think it has been alleged that misconduct or fraud has been happening by certain chinese scientists. People were already earlier wondering why the Chinese data was higher than models predicted.

(sorry I left my name of the last post)

If it were only the Chinese scientists then that would be one thing. However, in science, especially a subject as important as this one, requires due diligence. I have already seen the deplorable state of many of the temperature monitors in the U.S. and now China. How many of the others are non functional in a rigorous scientific sense?

Much has been made about how up to 1980 solar influences could account for climate warming and how since then the divergence cannot be accounted for by the sun. However, now we find out that there is not just one flawed data set, but two. Will the scientists that did these studies now go back and redo them with the lower trendlines?

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 12, 2007 11:53 AM

Are you kidding? The changes are minor, they will not change anything looking at the solar data which completely in the opposite direction from the temperature.

Posted by mz at August 12, 2007 02:19 PM

Are you kidding? The changes are minor, they will not change anything looking at the solar data which completely in the opposite direction from the temperature.

How do you know this? The evalutation of the impact of the flawed Hansen data and the flawed IPCC data has not yet even begun.

I call for a complete reverification of all of the global terrestrial weather stations. Those that are messed up, for whatever reason need to be replaced. I also call for anew network of stations that are in remote locations and tied to the Internet via satellite with a public caching of the data so that anyone can take the data and work with it.

As for solar influences, there have been articles of late stating that "natural" forces have mitigated global warming over the last two years and that they expect it to "take off" again in 2009. Yea right.

That solar data has gone in the opposite sense of temperature is a misnomer. Yes this past cycle is lower than the one before. However, solar activity is still much higher than it was in the late 1800's. Just look at the graphs on Wikipedia for an example. However, on the bright side, if the emerging data on solar cycle 24 and 25 are correct, it looks like solar activity will be on a decline for at least the next two decades. This will give all of us definitive proof of whether or not the recent spate of warming is anthropogenic or not.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 12, 2007 03:54 PM

Have you seen what the changes have been? 0.1 C change in US temperature, which is about one 50th of the whole world surface, can't change much. And there are many different datasets of surface station temps (only GISS had the error) as well as satellite measurements, lake melt, whatnot.

You can watch Martin Durkin being interviewed here about his Swindle movie and the Solar graphs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8
It's hilarious.

Posted by mz at August 13, 2007 11:33 AM

Yes. the planet did indeed warm from the 1880s to the 1930s -- the earth was still coming out of the Little Ice Age when it was about 2 degrees C colder than now. We still have a long way to go until we reach the sultrier Medieval Warming Period when wine grapes were grown near Hadrian's Wall.

Posted by John Costello at August 13, 2007 02:35 PM

not a very long way

Posted by mz at August 13, 2007 06:00 PM

Good try at dodging the point mz. The core thesis of the AGW crowd is that since 1980 the divergence in global temperatures are such that they cannot be explained by anything other than human induced cause (with solar predominating before that). Now we have found that Hansen's data was wrong, and as well the Chinese data. How about the rest of the stations around the globe? If the sensors in the U.S. and China are this seriously compromised, then what is the state of those around the rest of the world?

There is no question that there is warming. The question is, what is the magnitude, and what is the source? If the magnitude is less than what is currently advertised, then is that magnitude still consistent with solar warming.

Now your reply will be a lot of blather about how solar influences are not adequate to explain the warming, but our understanding of how the sun influences climate is very incomplete. It was only in the mid 1990's that the entire field of helioseismology was discovered and the study begun. There does seem to be a very nice correlation between global temperature and the strength of the solar magnetic field over the last 130 years of instrumented records.

In any event we will have proof one way or another if the forecasts of the solar minimalists (those who think that the next two solar cycles will be weak) are correct, which is increasingly becoming the case.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 13, 2007 06:01 PM

You cannot misunderstand the magnitude of the error, the solar data goes in completely the opposite direction from the temperature after the 1980:s.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/cycles.jpg

http://www.realclimate.org/veizer_fig_14a.jpg

The temperature record, the glacier volume record, the animal migrations, the satellite data, all would have to be drastically wrong for the temperature to follow the solar curve.

That's why the swindle movie showed the graph only to 1980:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/scycles.jpg

You can not be serious about this.

Posted by mz at August 13, 2007 06:10 PM

Here's a good link too for you, Dennis.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

Posted by mz at August 13, 2007 06:56 PM

You cannot misunderstand the magnitude of the error, the solar data goes in completely the opposite direction from the temperature after the 1980:s.

*************

Again, you are mistaking relative change for absolute change. Also, if you are interested, do a search on the magnitude of the solar magnetic field vs temperature. You might fight something interesting.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 13, 2007 08:07 PM

The first graph that you showed is completely irrelevant in that it is a graph of solar cycle length to temperature (also this is the uncorrected temperature).

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 13, 2007 08:10 PM

The second graph is just as irrelevant and misleading. The magnitude of the temperature excursion is grossly exaggerated and it is still graphed against solar cycle length, which is not directly related to solar cycle intensity (longer cycles are generally lower in intensity but the last several cycles have been short up until cycle 23. Again, this may be an indication that cycle 24 will be weaker than 23 and that 25 will be weaker than 24.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 13, 2007 08:13 PM

I am not the one making the claim that solar cycle length is a direct correlative factor. I understand why it is, but it is not the whole story as I related before. Also, none of these plots have incorporated the corrected U.S. and Chinese data. Also, there has been no audit of weather stations around the globe either, which should be done. Until that audit is complete the data that you cite is incomplete and suspect.

Again, the state of our knowledge of the solar influence on climate is primitive at best

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 13, 2007 08:20 PM

The paper that you posted, while interesting, uses Mike Mann's now discredited Hockey stick graph for temperature. Again, I don't use solar cycle duration as the primary indicator for solar influence. The solar magnetic field is a better indicator.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at August 13, 2007 08:25 PM

Mike Mann's "hockey stick" is not discredited.
Other reconstructions look prettymuch the same too.

Show me a graph where the solar data (whatever variable it is), goes up after 1980 and I'm listening to you.

Any changes won't point the temperature data DOWN from 1980 onwards. Do you seriously believe that will happen "once data is audited"? There may be some errors, yes, but not of that magnitude.

Posted by mz at August 15, 2007 07:40 AM

Ah, found another paper by accident when browsing some blogs,
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Posted by mz at August 15, 2007 07:01 PM

Post a comment