I am somewhat confused by looking at the graph and his data. If you look at his reference and plot the numbers you will see that they are not the same as the graph he shows. For example take the large negative value in his graph in about 2006. It looks close to a value of -0.4. Yet if you look in his data you see a value of only -0.2.

So he has introduced an error in his calculations somewhere that shows a cooler trend than what the data shows. I suspect that I know what his error is but I have to check some sources first.

And once we get this resolved we can then discuss whether this data set or the M&W should be used and whether Fu's analysis of the contamination of stratospheric cooling is valid.

Good post, and you are correct Kate. One to keep and recommend. Lots of fun!

Regards,
John

the antarctic has been accumulating snow over the past 200 years. that is why the plastic flowing ice has been squeezing out and spalling off.

everyone relates their own small experience to the data set. if it is hot today its global warming, if it is a warm winters day it a relief. if its colder its delegated to the back of the mind experience files

Great report.

Summation: Some times it gets cold and some times it warms up. The main reason is the sun and it's activity. This has occurred for eons before the AUV was invented and will occur for eons after it's gone.

Now, will someone tell Al Gore his weather fairie tales will not get him near the presidency or the leadership of the UN.

Yup..there's just so much of that global warming stuff going on,that here in SE Man.,had to fire up the woodstove this a.m.to take the chill in the house away.

John Cross,

Can you point me to the reference in question? I looked at the references in his paper and saw no such discrepancy. Are you sure you saw a data series for the Southern hemisphere circa 2006, which is where the graph indicates a value of -0.4?

Grithater: If you read his paper, at the end he gives the references for the figures. First entry is:

1. UAH MSU http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

Regards,
John

Anyway, let's all work together to transition out of carbon fuels. Who cares about this or that theory, or the latest climate change study, debunking or otherwise.

Let's out the marxists who want to use the climate change debate to put it to the man. Patrick Moore can tell you all about it. He was a founder of Greenpeace until he became an oil shill (translation: he disagreed with their marxism)

The thing that still amazes me is that even this paper is largely second and third level inference from semi-related proxies. Either nobody is -measuring-, as in with dedicated, purpose built instruments, solar output and solar energy incident on the Earth, OR they're keeping it pretty frickin' obscure.

Annoying.

"let's all work together to transition out of carbon fuels:

Why? They're perfectly useful and economical.

"let's all work together to transition out of farming" as farming has had a greater impact on teh environemnt than any other human activity.

I was watching a program last night on the History Channel, about volcanologists in Hawaii studying volcanic activity there. Very interesting program, fascinating to watch the Earth's molten core spewing up through the planet's crust.

It occurred to me, a simple peasant, that scientists have established several facts: the Earth's core is molten, we are removing liquid and solid materials from under the earth's surface, through mining and oli production, and massive amounts of subsurface water for various uses.

So, if we remove what amounts to layers of insulation between the furnace below, and the surface,is it just possible that the surface of the planet can be warmed slightly by the removal of some of the insulation layer? Or is the amount removed so small as to be insignificant?

Can anyone enlighten me?

Test, am I allowed to post now?

Grithater: I gave a more detailed reply to you but got this response:

Thank you for commenting.

Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

Anyway, it is the first reference at the end of the paper.

Phantom: They are measuring solar output directly. Google Judith Lean. I believe she has done some work on it.

dmorris. The 100 or so miles of crust act as a pretty good insulator. I did the calcualtion once and solar effects are over 10,000 times greater than geo-thermal heat. Of course there are some areas where geothermal heat can be very significant.

Regards,
John

That the 'warming alarmists' use phoney science is a given. So why did the Kyoto hoax last as long as it did ?? IMO because of the media and their 'dumbing-down' ways.

Some brave journalists out there were calling BS all along.

Terrence Corcoran, for one, had it right way back in 1998;

Global Warming: The Real Agenda
Editorial by Terrence Corcoran
Copyright 1998 Financial Post (Canada)
December 26, 1998

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/reality/realagenda.html

He had it all together a decade ago and still does today;

Cool summits
Terence Corcoran, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, August 25, 2007

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=09559dfa-d0c0-4ce6-9f54-11ff4b05c3e6

Then there is the Gore/Suzuki crowd. As Kate's post shows the alarmists have been proven wrong all along.

Even Albert's AIT logo is backwards. Assuming that is supposed to represent a hurricane coming out of the smoke stacks, why is it pin-wheeling in a clockwise direction ??

Wimpy Canadian. We must transition out of carbon fuels, because of what China, India and others will do with them. We aren't the problem in that area, at least not compared with the the developing world.

John Cross, in case you are infering that K is picking on you ---- my commnets have also been held/lost many times.

Don't blame Kate, blame the wako spammers trying to prevent the truth being told. I would bet some are funded by well known major enviro-alarmists .

Great post and article on global climate change as affected by solar activity. This idea has been around a while and doesn't get the attention, I at least, think it merits.

Another interesting aside on all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over global warming is the power of mass media to induce mass hysteria. Truly, if a lie is repeated often enough....

having trouble connecting today. tried to post when article was first up. kept being denied. this is definately a keeper. those who poopoo it need to think again.

Glad to see this paper getting "out" in the public debate. I have to thank one of the posters at http://climatesci.colorado.edu/, for the reference. However, the Globe & Mail still thinks that James Hanson (of NASA fame ) is still a climate "Guru", predicting catastrophic sea rises, according to their article in Saturday's edition. This is the same man that refuses to release his data and methodolgy to the public on temperature measurements taken in the USA. Something to do with a Y2K glitch in their data set that they inconveniently missed, until pointed out to NASA by the one and only Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.com. You know, the guy who debunked Mann et al's "Hockey Stick" graph. Mr Hansen is on the defensive with climate warming "deniers", but the Globe still spouts his so-called expert scientific drivel, this time on the above mentioned catastrophic sea level rises. OOGA_BOOGA the sky is falling based on fraudulent, scientifically manipulated data. Be very afraid, of the MSM. It's all about selling newspapers, not getting the facts out so that the public can reach their own conclusions. Beer and popcorn come to mind.

Another article from the Lavoisier group: "China Temperature Data Now Tainted" by Douglas Keenan. Seems too many of the Chinese temperature monitoring stations have been relocated over the time of their operation to provide meaningful data for determining trends.

Update to a previous post-

Due to a scheduling conflict, CFRA's Late Night Counsell will have Dr. Tim Ball as guest, Monday, September 10 at 10 pm Eastern.

http://www.cfra.com/listen/index.asp

The Goracle and Dave want a word with you Kate.

You know what bugs me about this paper? The use of the term "centigrade". That is an archaic and obselete term that was officially deprecated around 1948 in favour of "Celsius".

I write and peer review technical papers. If I was given a paper that used the term "centigrade" for temperature, I would not approve it for publication until this was corrected. Granted, my field is geophysics, but I imagine that "centigrade" would be even less acceptable in climatology. Although the use of "centigrade" may seem like a small thing, it's hugely telling to a researcher.

In other words, chances are this paper was not written nor properly reviewed by a typically trained climatologist. Chances are this is an enthusiastic amateur working alone, with little communication with professional climatologists.

Now I don't have anything against researchers who are outside the mainstream. Generally their work should be judged on merit, not on their resume. However, in a summarizing work such as this, trust is everything, and don't think I could trust this paper when the details don't stand up.

Shamnrock. You didn't answer my question, you just restated your position.

Answer the question. Why must we transition out of fossil fuels? Or do I understand you "answer" to be "to allow India and China cheaper fossil fuels"?

Thanks MAdmacs, I look forward to it.

Rabbit, re. Centigrade:

This guy is a Brit. You're lucky he didn't use Farenheit or rods per cubic peasant uprising :-)

Wimpy, China is already an environmental mess. They are using energy at a monster clip, so we will have ecological disaster if they continue to burn fossil fuels at this rate. Maybe that's not a big deal to you, so be it. Good luck selling that politically. To adopt a line that we are OK here because we burn clean will surely get Dionsky elected. If that is what you want, then fine. If on the other hand, we develop clean technologies which can be used by developing world (not carbon credits which are a sham), then everybody wins. If we bankrupt our economy because we stuck by the "let's burn oil, but clean" line (that gets moonbats elected, who trade in CO2 market, thus destroying our wealth and ability to develop cleaner technologies), then we will be in trouble. Just my opinion.

WC:

That may indeed explain the use of "centigrade". I doubt, however, that MSS (main stream scientists) - even in a living anachronism like Britain - would use the term, so in all likelihood this guy is an outsider.

@John Cross at August 25, 2007 8:50 AM;
Grithater at August 25, 2007 10:59 AM

I plotted the referenced data. My curves effectively look the same, but are not identical. The major difference is that I have about one more year worth of data, and that his last year's data (mid-2005 to mid-2006) appears 0.15 to 0.2 Celcius degrees cooler than the current data set. Cursory inspection reveals no difference at earlier years.

The present dataset yields average mean warming sover the last 5 years of 0.175 C (SH), 0.373 (NH), and 0.274 (Global).

I really want see if there has been any change to the referenced dataset.

I really want to see raw data, and a full explanation of how all adjustments are made.

...so I went looking.

See MSU/AMSU atmospheric temperature products.
Changes from RSS Version 2.1 to RSS Version 3.0
at http://www.remss.com/data/msu/support/Changes_from_Version%202_1_to_3_0.pdf

See the Description of MSU and AMSU Data Products at http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

where "The most important changes included in V3.0:

AMSU data is now included in the TLT product.
This allows us to extend the TLT product to the present.

Intersatellite offsets now vary as a function of latitude.
This leads to changes in the long-term trends as a function of latitude.

Data from NOAA-16 AMSU are no longer used.
NOAA-16 data appear to be drifting relative to data from earlier satellites.

The NetCDF format is altered so that there is only 1 time dimension."

Note also the caution that follows: "The MSU and AMSU instruments were intended for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality dataset can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the distinct MSU and AMSU instruments."

...to which I will add the comment
"careful intercalibration of the distinct MSU and AMSU instruments."?!
After knocking out NOAA-16 AMSU, the resulting calculated temperature anomaly is now statistically less certain than before.

I want to see the uncertainties!

Tenebris: I was trying to track down his error, but I could not find an old data set I needed. I suspect that what he has done is to use the old MSU2LT5.1 data set as opposed to the newer 5.2. Without getting into the details of the change between the 5.1 and 5.1 were the correction to the diurnal drift. The details are here.

As a general intorduction to the topic I would recommend Scott Church's excellent paper.

Regards,
John

Excellent paper ?? Which part ?

This ?
[There is general agreement among the world’s climate scientists that the Earth’s global average
surface-air temperature is now increasing at rates that are without precedent during the last 1000 years,
and that this increase is at least in part due to human activity]

Wrong. Canadian Steve McIntyre forced Hansen to admit to 'cooking the books'.

Or this ?
[But even so, it can be clearly
seen that the last century (particularly, the last few decades) show highly unusual warming trends
compared to the long-term historical record. Mann et al. (1999) concluded that as of 1999, the 1990’s
was the warmest decade since 1000 A.D. and 1998 was the warmest year.]

Wrong again. Mann's hockey stick graph has been proven a fraud a long time ago.

I, for one, am tired of JC's muddy the water links.

I always love it when denier-deniers get down and dirty on the microscopic issues that they feel are really, really important - to their cause, but when others do the same we hear "...insignificant, outsider, he used centigrade instead of celcius etc, etc," ad infinitum. Sort of like confusing the issue. This paper, in general, comes to the conclusion that the sun is the driver of planetary warming on a cyclical basis and increased CO2 is probably beneficial to our agriculture production. Period. Well, debate the paper on those issues. If you think otherwise, produce your paper(s) to refute that premise, that is science in action. I'll read them and come to my own conclusions. I have said this in the past and will do so in the future - human input to climate change or global warming, however you wish to slice and dice it, is insignificant. You can do nothing to alter the planet's climate. It has nothing to do with CO2. Wasting time and resources trying to alter the climate is just that - a waste. Better to adapt than fight Mother Nature. In this case global cooling is probably the next curve to be thrown at our societal control freaks and doomsday predicting "scientific" community. The whole issue has become politically tainted to the point that science and the scientific process has been relegated to the level of "junk science" and creditable scientists to a level of "Bill Ny the science guy".

John Cross:

I have some kind of problem loading "Scott Church's excellent paper". Therefore I am unable to ascertain exactly who Scott Church really is.

So, would this be the Scott Church who authored the excellent paper to which you provided the link.

http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/Default.aspx

If so,, then this Scott Church's "excellent paper" would have some serious problems relating to scientific objectivity. If this is another Scott Church, then ignore the following.

The Scott Church at the above link:

1)Has created this site on climate change to "to raise awareness of environmental and social issues from a Christian perspective and provide a scientific, theological, and ethical alternative to fundamentalism."

2)Claims a Biblical link for environmentalism

3)Has serious problems with scientists who are sceptical of AGW.

4) Has some very serious problems with conservatives

5) Has a very serious problem with Fox News Network. The rants and details are worth the read.

6) Seems to have a problem WITH JUST ABOUT EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH HIM.

I certainly hope this is a different Scott Church, and not the one who authored that "excellent paper".

( I guess I'm betting it is, because he mentions and links to most of the items that I saw in the first 10 pages of his "excellent paper" that I was able to download.)

If this is the same Scott Church then you didn't do much background vetting before you labeled his paper. If it is a different Scott Church, then I apologize.

If on the other hand, this is the one and the same Scott Church, then your street cred just took a hit.

Yoop, I believe it is the same Scott Church. I think the paper I linked to is excellent because of the content that it has in regards to the topic being discussed. I try not to judge a paper based on the background of the person authoring it and I am somewhat surprised that you seem to think it is important.

I will never say that a paper by Spencer and Christy is poor because he seems to be a believer in Intelligent Design. If there is a fundamental problem with Mr. Church's paper then point it out, but the above amounts to a classic ad hominem argument.

Regards,
John

John,

With all due respect, I think you had better read,
I mean relly read, all of Scott Church's pages that make up his web site. Then see if I was making an ad hominen argument, or if I was basing my characterization upon his scientific objectivity.

I believe you may not have delved very far into his *universe*. In there you may find some REAL ad hominen arguments.

Believe me, I was in the science business long enough that if I was making an ad hominen argument there would be no question that that was exactly my intent.

In this case, I think you need to vet your source throughly.

Yoop: It is not a valid argument to disagree with a man's religion and/or politics and then say that this shows poor judgement so his conclusions are wrong. Sir Newton wrote extensively about alchemy but Principia is still considered a great scientific work.

If there are scientific errors, then great we can discuss them in a scientific context. If there are not scientific errors, then who cares about his politics.

Regards,
John

John,

Show me where I "disagreed" with his religion. I simply note that he has no problem making it an issue on his web site, and I consider that when considering the possibilities of bias.

He also is openly biased against conservatives,"conservative" media, Republican administrations and industry.

My long experience is that, most of the time, strongly biased scientists produce biased work. You may think otherwise, and that is your prerogative. My more cautious approach worked for me.

Others have pointed to assertions that he maintains that have been called into question. I don't need to repeat those. He maintains, repeatedly, that the last decade of temp rise is "unprecedented". Do you still maintain that stance?

As to the mix of theology and science, it can be a problem. I was once briefly associated with a company that had gotten burned to the tune of $75 million because they were not paying attention to the very public theological bias of their geologist on a certain project. It seems that it was not possible for 10 million-year-old erosional features to exist on a planet that was only 10,000 years old. Leases and equipment were purchased for reserves that were 50% less than predicted. Creationism and coal exploration didn't mix well.

I always look for bias, while hoping I won't find it. I am not surprised, nor shocked, when I do. Again, my way worked for me. I hope your way works for you.

I still suspect that you have not perused all of his pages on his site.

Yoop: Our ways seem to be the same. I always look for bias but I stress that it does not matter whether the author politics, religion, etc. agree with me or not.

If you read back up the thread you will see that I recommended it as an excellent introduction to the issue of the measurement of the earth via MSU satellites. I stand by this comment. Perhaps if you can point out the specific points in this regards where his bias is showing we can discuss them.

However, let me ask you a direct question. Do you agree with my point that Archibald has distorted the data or not?

Regards,
John

"However, let me ask you a direct question. Do you agree with my point that Archibald has distorted the data or not?"
[Posted by: John Cross at August 27, 2007 11:00 AM]

At this point in time I would say that both sides of the issue have shown their bias by distorting selected data, or at least interpreting it to support their particular view.

I believe that the issue is far from settled.

But I also have taken note of changes in temp records by NOAA, poor site locations for temp recordings in the US, and the apple-oranges problem with the moving sites in China.

That is why I really am considered to be in the *denier* camp. The issue is FAR FROM SETTLED SCIENCE, as the AGW proponents have claimed, and stated virgorously, and often. Couple that with the increasing problems that the AGW proponents have with the basic data sets and I see the term SETTLED SCIENCE becoming less of an error, and more of a lie.

I also know we are in one of the numerous inter-glacial periods that the earth has cycled through, and the claim that the rate of increase in global temperatures over the last decade is UNPRECEDENTED is an unsupported claim. There is an extremely high probability that it is a factualy incorrect claim, yet the AGW proponents state it with a certainty. Therefore I tend to view their papers, and their claims, as suspect and biased.

I ask this question a lot, but never get an answer. So, here it is, again. When the last continental glacier retreated from it's terminal advance (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, etc.) and was an ice sheet that was over two miles thick in Wisconsin, to where it now exist at the north pole, what was the rate of global temperature increase at the start of this inter-glacial period? Was that rate greater or less than the one that is now labeled as UNPRECEDENTED over the last decade?

You know what? The AGW proponents don't know. So they are trafficing in hyperbole, ignorance, or outright lying. Which is it?

Yoop: I doubt that you intended it, but it was somewhat ironic that you claim that you "never get an answer" to your question while at the same time you avoided answering mine.

First, let me ask it again, in the context of this post where Kate posted a graph by Archibald, do you agree that his data does not support his assertion.

Second, in regards to your question, I am happy to say that I do not think that the current warming trend is unprecedented. I believe that the scientific community accepts the existence of Dansgaard-Oeschger events which are more rapid than the current warming trend. There may be some question as to whether these are global or Northern Hemisphere since Vostok doesn't seem to show them as strongly. However the resolution in Vostok is poor so it is hard to say.

Do you have examples where this is stated?

Regards,
John

Yoop, why do you feed this troll? He posts on other blogsites under different names. He/she/it just likes to argue, like a dog chasing it's tail.

jt: do you have any disagreement with the data or conclusions I present? What have I posted here that would appear to be "trolling"? I have never asked to be taken at face value and am prepared to back up whatever assertions I make. All I hope is that people judge the information I present, not me as a person.

Also, I deny that I post on other blogs under different names (although sometimes I have posted under John C or something similar). Since Steve McIntyre "outed" me I have always posted under my own name. Please present whatever evidence you have that I post under other names.

Regards,
John

JC, then address 11:55pm, please.

I saw graf showing the MEDEVAL WARM PERIOD but when the UNs NPCC got though it had dissapeared that means the UN is cheating and lying

JC - I'm the one who posted the reference to this paper on this website a couple of days ago. You are a poor reader and nothing but a green troll. I suggest that you visit the following websites and educate yourself before you come here and spout off on the fraud of AGW. The science is NOT settled, this isn't a court case being decided by lawyers, although I would be happy to see that happen, as I have posted above. If you had any scientific background you would understand what I mean by that statement. However, it would appear that you don't have any scientific background so you are simply an AGW troll. A perpetrator of a fraud, so get lost.

www.climateaudit.com

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/08/08/giss-has-reranked-us-temperature-anomalies/

http://www.geologytimes.com/Research/Strong_Evidence_Points_to_Earths_Proximity_to_Sun_as_Ice_Age_Trigger.asp

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/

Don't come back here to spout off until you do some re-education, troll.

Try this one too:

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm

Settled science - I doubt it.

I heard that ANTARTICA is getting colder so all those PENGUINS and ARTIC TERNS can enjoy all that cold air and vote to keep AL GORE and GREENPEACE out

jt: Instead of calling me a troll, can you actually provide any insight into the topic being discussed (either Mr. Archibald's analysis or the broader issue of the MSU's in general). When the topic is dispute about a scientific point, you generally do better by making specific, relevant points, not insulting people who don't agree with you.

On the other hand if your definition of troll is someone who disagrees with yourself but backs up their points, then I plead guilty.

Regards,
John

PS, I see you have not posted any evidence that I post under other names. However you have another chance to back up your assertions. Please find a post where I claim that "the science is settled".