As an analogy, and not to imply the East Anglia offense is anywhere near as serious, Jaycee Dugard was kidnapped and held for 18 years. If the statute of limitations on kidnapping was 15 years, would that mean that her abductors could not be charged with kidnapping? I’d say no, because the crime continued right up until she was freed.

Nobody, I’d seen that, and it’s tosh from the first sentence, which claims to have instrumental records going back 150 years. That’s the time when the first white man reached the source of the Nile.

The instrumental records are uneven, unreliable and mostly non-existent. The proxies are uneven, less reliable and in some cases invented or imaginary.

Whatever they are, they are incapable of determining the global temperature to within a hundredth or thousandth of a degree, although Hansen claims to know that.

There has most likely been natural variation towards warm over a century. The idea that the fraction attributable to new gases can be determined is pure nonsense.

I would have been prepared to examine claims that were less precise, but because the claimants are not only claiming to know more than they know but more than they can know, I draw my own conclusions.

I presume a lot of people who visit VC have professional knowledge about standards of evidence. All I have is a war surplus BS detector, but it’s sensitive enough.

Harry Eagar:

[zuch]: ‘… that does not escape your notice if you happen to be sailing…).’

It didn’t escape my notice in my comment, either.

I was referring to non-uniform distribution of shipping. We keep a sharp watch near shipping lanes and coasts. Very close encounters with freighters are uncomfortable.

Cheers,

Harry Eagar: So, which are you going to do — give up saying the MWP was regional, or give up claiming the 20th c. warming was global? You cannot have both.

You might be interested in the paleoclimatology survey constructed by the Bush administration National Research Council (executive summary here; warning: pdf). Unfortunately, they do not reach your conclusion. It would be nice if we could mitigate global warming by eliminating temperature stations.

It didn’t escape my notice in my comment, either.

So, which are you going to do — give up saying the MWP was regional, or give up claiming the 20th c. warming was global? You cannot have both.

Very much so.

If you’re asking me to choose one liar over another, so they can be stuffed in a pot with 534 other liars to make sausage, I’ve got a very different standard of proof. Particularly since I’m going to get a chance to revise my decision two years later.

This matter seems to be more serious.

HarryEagar: However, 100 years ago, there was temperature data being collected in parts of the ocean by ships.

While ocean temperatures tend to be a bit more homogeneous (requiring fewer observations), I’d note that ship traffic is far from uniformly distributed (something that does not escape your notice if you happen to be sailing…).

Cheers,

pmorem:

[zuch]: Yes, indeed. We want to see the long form certificate….

The number of people ready to throw insults, like “birther” or “denialist” does not help build trust.

I was more making a comment on the standards of proof that people seem to need. That’s situational. I’d note for the record that those that insist on “definitive proof” for AGW before acting (and often proclaim the truth of H[0] in the absence of such) are often the same as those that accept as true allegations that Obama is a socialist or wants the Terra-ists to win, without any substantiation for such outrageous claims. If they held Republican congresscritters to the same high standards they insist should be met by climate scientists, they’d never vote for them in a million years….

Cheers,

Pachauri stood behind the Himalayan galcier statement in the latest IPCC report before Copenhagen. He has recently (within the past week) recanted that assessment.

So, yes. He defended the statement in the report issued under HIS watch when it was convenient. Now that Copenhagen is a total abject failure, and the sources were cross checked (by deniers), he has had to walk that one back.

Zuch also sez: ’70% of the globe is ocean….’

Which has climate, too. However, 100 years ago, there was temperature data being collected in parts of the ocean by ships. This might be not as good as fixed stations, or, because of the more or less continuous monitoring, it might even be better. But there are data for parts of the ocean. There are not data for more than a small fraction of the land back then.

Even for most of the land for which there are data, the station network would not meet Menne’s Rule. Antarctica, most of Africa, Amazonia, the Tibetan Plateau and southwestern Asia don’t meet Menne’s Rule now. Even more places wouldn’t have met it 100 years ago, including almost all of Canada, Alaska and Greenland.

If you are going to claim — incorrectly, see Le Roy Ladurie, ‘Times of Feast, Times of Famine’ — that the Greenland warming was regional, then you cannot simultaneously claim that the sample of the globe that was being taken 100 years ago was not also regional.

People who claim to know what the global temperature was 100 years are charlatans.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

Read the updates, too.

For further analysis, see:

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/01/25/us-temp-record-reliable/

and

http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/

I think the answer is that no, they have not previously released this kind of summary. I did note the investigation of the algorithms treatment of Cheesman, CO. I didn’t get a sense that they’d carefully investigated the cumulative impact, at least within published papers. If I saw that kind of result in my own work, I’m hoping I’d catch it and investigate.

The number of people ready to throw insults, like “birther” or “denialist” does not help build trust.

I’m really sorry if that’s the only way you can feel adequate within this conversation. It wasn’t intended.

pmorem:

[zuch]: Which climate scientists “swore” that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035?

Let’s go with R. K. Pachauri, here.

However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”

Huh? Does Pachauri say that “the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035″?

Cheers,

pmorem: Gore threw down the gauntlet with “The debate is over”. Ending debate without trust must mean it’s time to fight.
It seems to me that there are two ways to resolve this now. Either building trust, or force of arms. Right now, I don’t think there is a sufficient basis for trust.

Yes, indeed. We want to see the long form certificate….

Cheers,

zuch: Which climate scientists “swore” that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035?Cheers,

Guess you missed the most recent IPCC report. Understandable, as it was well hidden and shielded from public scrutiny.

You know, the one that the head of the IPCC was told about before Copenhaen?

You know, the one where the IPCC has had to walk back from?

You know, aw, nevermind.

Look! Squirrell!

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/last:360/plot/gistemp/last:360/trend/plot/rss/last:360/plot/rss/last:360/trend

Do you believe all advertising you receive? Those “male enhancement” products, ferinstance?

zuch — What do you have against Smiling Bob (of the enzyte commercials fame)? He’s a lot more entertaining than most TV comedies or “reality shows.”*

* Not intended as scare quotes. I just can’t figure out was “reality shows” have in common with reality.

pmorem: I couldn’t find any indication that they’ve analyzed the cumulative effects of homogenization.The question (for me) is whether or not they’ve gone looking for evidence of their own confirmation bias.

Also from the NOAA site: documentation of the pairwise homogenization algorithm (warning: pdf); pp. 18-26 describe evaluation of the algorithm, and the accompanying tables.

Let’s go with R. K. Pachauri, here.

However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”

I couldn’t find any indication that they’ve analyzed the cumulative effects of homogenization. The question (for me) is whether or not they’ve gone looking for evidence of their own confirmation bias.

More broadly, it comes down to a question of trust.

Concealing data does not inspire trust.

Avoiding prosecution by running out the clock does not inspire trust.

Including known defective information for purposes of hype does not inspire trust.

Gore threw down the gauntlet with “The debate is over”. Ending debate without trust must mean it’s time to fight.

It seems to me that there are two ways to resolve this now. Either building trust, or force of arms. Right now, I don’t think there is a sufficient basis for trust. Where that basis forms (in terms of optimal atmospheric CO2 harm/benefit) is yet to be determined.

Open-sourcing GISTEMP is a step in the right direction.

K Dackson: Oh, then it’s just as credible as the claims of so-called “climate scientists” who swore that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

Which climate scientists “swore” that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035?

Cheers,

geokstr [quoting Wiki]: … with trees [citation needed] and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed.

Do you know what “citation needed” means?

More Wiki from geokstr: … Barley was grown as a crop up to the 70th degree [10]
…

Did you click through and look up that cite?!?!? Did you read the cite?

Not to mention, barley is not wheat….

Cheers,

zuch:
Geokstr’s approach here is “anecdotal science” or “science by soundbite” … which is to say, “not science”.

Oh, then it’s just as credible as the claims of so-called “climate scientists” who swore that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

Until they got caught.

How many other lies will they be caught in?

HarryEagar: 100 years ago, there were 0 stations for about 70–75% of the globe.

70% of the globe is ocean….

Cheers,

K Dackson: zuch:Wow.I never thought of that insight.Thank you for opening my eyes.
ublltwaddley

Geokstr’s “wheat farming” and “vinyards” is builltwaddley. Or walrus scat, take your pick.

Vinland (probably Newfoundland or Labrador or even farther south) is supposedly where they found grapes, but if you think you ever could grow grapes on Greenland (in modern history), you’re nuts.

It was marginally warmer there during the MWP (which, despite persistent false claims to the contrary, is included in Mann’s “Hockey Stick”) but not enough to make it the “green land” of advertising fame. And the loss of settlements there was not unequivocally due to poorer weather; it may have also had to do with soil exhaustion, and depletion of the scarce wood (as well as lack of supplies, or Inuit hostility). And the MWP wasn’t a global warming (see Wiki link above).

Geokstr’s approach here is “anecdotal science” or “science by soundbite” … which is to say, “not science”.

Cheers,

zuch says:

geokstr: Given that Greenland is now pretty much ice-bound except for a very brief summer, and in the MWP they had vineyards, livestock, and wheat farming there, it would seem mere common sense that it was considerably warmer then than now, probably even warmer than the IPCC says it will get in the next 100 years even if we do nothing about AGW.

Do you believe all advertising you receive? Those “male enhancement” products, ferinstance?

Nah. Never had the need for them. How about you?

When it comes to temperatures in Greenland during the MWP, I go to the leftists’ own favorite source, wikipedia. You know, that site that recently kicked off William Connolly of CRU fame after it had been revealed that he’d banned anyone who didn’t agree with his views on globaloney, and also wrote, rewrote or editted every one of the 5,000+ pages to make sure they conformed to your precious religion:

“The settlements, such as Brattahlið, thrived for centuries but disappeared some time in the 15th century, perhaps at the onset of the Little Ice Age.[9] Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees[citation needed] and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. Barley was grown as a crop up to the 70th degree [10] What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years.[11]“

Wikipedia: Greenland
Oh, and that Little Ice Age thing, that’s the other inconvenient anomaly that they had to “smooth” out and adjust for along with the MWP in order to make Mann’s debunked “hockey stick” look truly frightening to the great unwashed in flyover country, clinging to their guns and stuff.

Oh, and yes, I am also aware that Mann conveniently claims to have “proven” that both these periods were just local anomalies. Of course they were, because if they weren’t, there goes AGW. As we can see by the last ten years, the climate is just so much more homogenous today, though.

Mark Buehner: a clarification of the timing of the adjustments and the curve they create (if any), which clearly is the relevant question, not the average of the adjustments.

I may have been hard on you, but what the first analysis showed was not the average adjustments, but rather the trend of adjustments. i.e. think slope, not mean. For any continuous dataseries, any attempt to lower past temperatures and raise more recent temperatures would show a positive slope. The first analysis took a distribution of these slopes, which centered on zero.

pmorem: I don’t recall ever seeing NOAA/NCDC summarize the cumulative effect of homogenization. It would have caught my eye.

I do not know if this is what you are looking for, but this(from the NCDC/NOAA site) is a description of the construction of the GHCN v.2 dataset (warning: pdf). Tangentially, NASA/GISS is reportedly going to code created open-source at clearclimatecode.org, so feel free to browse.

I note that this study was conducted to determine “how far off [the recorded temperatures] are from the ‘true’ area temps…

And how does one go about doing that? Assuming the thermometer works, its giving an accurate reading of its surroundings. The temperature under a AC exhaust on an asphalt driveway is what it is. So assuming that isn’t an accurate average of the surrounding X square miles of earth, how does one go about ‘adjusting’ that reading without simply looking at other thermometers at god knows where and what relation- and once you start doing that, whats the point of pretending you have two distinct data points, because you dont. And if you decide to go moving that thermometer, wherever it ends up what justifies you in in calling that the same data point?!

(Tangentially, this criticism is reminiscent of your repeated criticisms that an artificial warming trend is constructed via lowering more distant temperatures and raising more recent temperatures — claims which can be — and have been — empirically tested, and whose veracity is dependent upon a hypothetical dataset nowhere in evidence.

You were the one pointing to a claim of a Gaussian distribution of adjustments on a third party cite. I simply asked for a clarification of the timing of the adjustments and the curve they create (if any), which clearly is the relevant question, not the average of the adjustments. I don’t intend to go digging through sql to find out for you.

Yes, the logic is simple. So simple it seems to elude some people that thermometers could be reading high and need to be adjusted down.

But that wouldn’t fit the narrative.

It seems to have been overlooked, but the Menne paper implies what we could call the Menne Rule: If it takes roughly 71 collection stations to get sufficient reports for 2% of the globe, then it would take roughly 3,500 to get the whole globe.

Of course, you don’t need the whole globe, but I think you need some ‘robust’ (as the Chicken Littles say) proportion of it.

If you are going to claim that it was cooler 100 years ago, then show me your stations. There weren’t 1,700 stations back then. Heck, there aren’t 1,700 stations in the reference network today.

And they have to be well-distributed stations. They cannot all be in Greenland. 100 years ago, there were 0 stations for about 70-75% of the globe.

Without, I am sure, meaning to, Menne (if accepted) just dumped all claims about warming over the past century into the ashcan.

I don’t recall ever seeing NOAA/NCDC summarize the cumulative effect of homogenization. It would have caught my eye.

I wouldn’t say it’s proof of anything. It does, however, raise the question of whether or not there is a bias somewhere.