Slashdot Mirror

A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products
The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...

Or free from extraneous influence

Well lets forget those decades of research by thousands of climate scientists.

You found an unpublished paper by an economist!!

Clearly he must have found a bunch of issues that the climate scientists weren't aware of and had no idea how to correct for!

ABSTRACT: Monthly surface temperature records from 1979 to 2000 were obtained from 218 indi-vidual stations in 93 countries and a linear trend coefficient determined for each site. This vector oftrends was regressed on measures of local climate, as well as indicators of local economic activity(income, gross domestic product [GDP] growth rates, coal use) and data quality. The spatial patternof trends is shown to be significantly correlated with non-climatic factors, including economic activ-ity and sociopolitical characteristics of the region. The analysis is then repeated on the correspondingIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gridded data, and very similar correlationsappear, despite previous attempts to remove non-climatic effects. The socioeconomic effects in thedata are shown to add up to a net warming bias, although more precise estimation of its magnitudewill require further research.

https://www.int-res.com/articl...

Ohhh! This time he found a small (now defunct) journal and a co-author who is one of the few climate scientists who is a skeptic! (and incidentally is funded primarily by oil companies).

That totally proves that the planet isn't warming and that all those other signals like drought, shrinking glaciers, shifting plant growth patterns, ocean temperatures, etc, etc, are somehow misleading.

A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products
The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...

Or free from extraneous influence

ABSTRACT: Monthly surface temperature records from 1979 to 2000 were obtained from 218 indi-vidual stations in 93 countries and a linear trend coefficient determined for each site. This vector oftrends was regressed on measures of local climate, as well as indicators of local economic activity(income, gross domestic product [GDP] growth rates, coal use) and data quality. The spatial patternof trends is shown to be significantly correlated with non-climatic factors, including economic activ-ity and sociopolitical characteristics of the region. The analysis is then repeated on the correspondingIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gridded data, and very similar correlationsappear, despite previous attempts to remove non-climatic effects. The socioeconomic effects in thedata are shown to add up to a net warming bias, although more precise estimation of its magnitudewill require further research.

https://www.int-res.com/articl...

Abstract: "ABSTRACT: Cyanobacteria make significant contributions to global carbon and nitrogen cycling, particularly in the oligotrophic subtropical and tropical gyres. The present study examined short-term (days) physiological and acclimation responses of natural cyanobacterial populations to changes in pH/pCO2 spanning the last glacial minimum, ~8.4/~150 ppm, to projected year 2100 values of ~7.8/~800 ppm. Fe- and P-replete colonies of Trichodesmium increased N2-fixation rates (nmol N colony1 h1) at pH 7.8 by 54% (range 6 to 156%) over ambient pH/pCO2 conditions, while N2-fixation at pH/pCO2 8.4 was 21% (range 6 to 65%) lower than at ambient pH/pCO2; a similar pattern was observed when the rates were normalized to colony C. C-fixation rates were on average 13% (range 72 to 112%) greater at low pH than at ambient pH and 37% (53 to 23%) greater than at high pH. Whole community assemblages dominated by Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus (47 to 95% of autotrophic biomass), whether nutrient-replete or P-limited, did not show a clear response of C-fixation rates to changes in pH/pCO2. Comparison of initial and final C-fixation responses across pH/pCO2 treatments suggests rapid acclimation of cellular physiology to new pH/pCO2 conditions. Changes in cell size and pigment content for Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus were minor and did not vary in a consistent manner with changes in pH/pCO2. These results for natural populations of all 3 cyanobacteria concur with previous research and suggest that one important response to changes in ocean pH and pCO2 might be an increase in N2 and C fixation by Trichodesmium under nutrient-replete conditions. The response of single-cell cyanobacteria to changes in pH/pCO2 will likely be indirect and controlled by the response to other variables, such as nutrients."

Source: http://www.int-res.com/article...

Of course scientists are only interested in arriving at the truth, right?

It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming. Global Warming With the Lid Off - The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science

Mann and his group are hardly the only climate scientists out there, and whatever you think of him flying off the handle about the pseudo-scientific stuff that some second-rate journal was publishing, there are plenty of other climate research groups that come to the same conclusions as him. I don't see any hidden "truth about climate science". I'd be pissed too if someone was using such bullshit tactics to try to discredit my work. It's one thing to be a skeptic and do honest research. It's quite another to use obviously fraudulent tactics, like cherry-picking your data, and then try to claim it's evidence. It was an indefensible study, as evidenced by their inability to defend it, and the eventual acceptance of even the journal publisher that they never should have printed it.

I doubt that the departments dealing with matters touching on evolutionary biology would be much (any?) better than the tainted "Climate Change" nee "Global Warming" departments in dealing with dissenting views regardless of the strength of the scientific case. That is really too bad. The skeptics are going to bring closer scrutiny of the theories and help weed out the bad ones better than those who love the theories. The scientists may deal with the ideas of evolution, but they are still only human.

I'm sure you doubt it. But then you don't seem to know what you're talking about anyway. New information is found all the time. Evolutionary theory has undergone a lot of changes over the years, as the information had to be accounted for. The theory itself hasn't been disproved, it has simply been made stronger and our knowledge has grown incredibly. Modern biology is based on these ideas, and works very well for us.

As soon as some other theory manages to explain more and be more useful in practical ways, it will displace the theory of evolution. Unfortunately IDers don't seem to be able to put together anything that's even testable, let alone complete enough to stand against the mountains of evidence supporting evolution.

"The review process had utterly failed; important questions have not been asked ... the methodological basis for such a conclusion (that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium) was simply not given."

before resigning. The publisher (Inter-Research) wrote the following editorial afterwards. Funnily enough they also publish a journal titled "Ethics in Science" :-) I hate to be in their shoes.
That quote comes from here ("Global warming: a load of hot air?") which has a nice summary of the politics (in 2004).
Lemme see if I can find the stolen CRU e-mails themselves..
Ah here, on the quite climate-skeptical looking website the Air Vent blog.
Can't find anything specific about the Soon and Baliunas article though.
The people at realclimate.org have done their utmost best to clarify and debunk the e-mails here.
To quote: "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants". In my personal opinion, the RealClimate debunking was believable, although it definitely showed us all that the CRU scientists were biased against the climate sceptics. They look a bit paler and more faded under the shock of sunlight they received on their e-mails :-).
Still, if the CRU climate scientists are petty and biased and spiteful but their scientific argumentation is solid (as I believe it still is--but I'm not a climate scientist), then I think we should look forward to reducing our CO2 production to the levels of 1990 and then even lower. On a worldwide level this becomes a problem for sociology or politics.
<incoherent_rant_mode>
I strongly suggest to read the last chapter of Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, he mentions how a societal (in this case, even global) problem can be recognized, even on time, but still the governing elite can be unwilling or powerless to do what is necessary to mitigate it due to social or cultural constraints (i.e. as if the Greenland Norse refused to live in igloos because it was "un-european" and "un-civilized"). Maybe I should even try to read Joseph Tainter whom Diamond refers to.
I was alive and conscious in the '90's, and I can tell the young ones, that to live at a level of industrial production similar to in the '90's (Kyoto protocol proposal, a reduction of 5%, which the USA refused to sign) doesn't mean abject poverty while being enslaved to the CO2-measuring communist overlords, as some climate sceptics try to paint it. But then again I was born in Europe, not in one of the Asian Tigers for example, so that colours my perspective strongly.
</incoherent_rant_mode>

"The review process had utterly failed; important questions have not been asked ... the methodological basis for such a conclusion (that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium) was simply not given."

before resigning. The publisher (Inter-Research) wrote the following editorial afterwards. Funnily enough they also publish a journal titled "Ethics in Science" :-) I hate to be in their shoes.
That quote comes from here ("Global warming: a load of hot air?") which has a nice summary of the politics (in 2004).
Lemme see if I can find the stolen CRU e-mails themselves..
Ah here, on the quite climate-skeptical looking website the Air Vent blog.
Can't find anything specific about the Soon and Baliunas article though.
The people at realclimate.org have done their utmost best to clarify and debunk the e-mails here.
To quote: "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants". In my personal opinion, the RealClimate debunking was believable, although it definitely showed us all that the CRU scientists were biased against the climate sceptics. They look a bit paler and more faded under the shock of sunlight they received on their e-mails :-).
Still, if the CRU climate scientists are petty and biased and spiteful but their scientific argumentation is solid (as I believe it still is--but I'm not a climate scientist), then I think we should look forward to reducing our CO2 production to the levels of 1990 and then even lower. On a worldwide level this becomes a problem for sociology or politics.
<incoherent_rant_mode>
I strongly suggest to read the last chapter of Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, he mentions how a societal (in this case, even global) problem can be recognized, even on time, but still the governing elite can be unwilling or powerless to do what is necessary to mitigate it due to social or cultural constraints (i.e. as if the Greenland Norse refused to live in igloos because it was "un-european" and "un-civilized"). Maybe I should even try to read Joseph Tainter whom Diamond refers to.
I was alive and conscious in the '90's, and I can tell the young ones, that to live at a level of industrial production similar to in the '90's (Kyoto protocol proposal, a reduction of 5%, which the USA refused to sign) doesn't mean abject poverty while being enslaved to the CO2-measuring communist overlords, as some climate sceptics try to paint it. But then again I was born in Europe, not in one of the Asian Tigers for example, so that colours my perspective strongly.
</incoherent_rant_mode>

The papers that Mann and Co wanted to "censor" really are complete garbage (I've personally read a couple of them).

But to understand *why* they are garbage, you need to have an undergraduate-level understanding of science and math (Earth science, some calculus, some statistics, etc.). The papers in question had *no* business being published in a professional journal. They wouldn't even make the grade as undergraduate term papers!

Here's a link to the first paper: http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf

Anyone with an undergraduate-level "common-sense" understanding of Earth-science and statistics should be able to flag several major "show-stopper" problems with this paper's methodology.

Here's a link to the second paper: http://climatedebatedaily.com/southern_oscillation.pdf

This paper contains a blunder that someone who understands calculus at the freshman level should know better than to make. Hint: What does the time-derivative operation do to long-term trend information (i.e. the global-warming signal) in temperature data? Another hint (and this one's giving away the store): The time-derivative operation acts as a high-pass filter.

And here's an excerpt from the paper that should have any upper-division EE major howling with laughter:

To remove the noise, the absolute values were replaced with derivative values based on variations.

This is global-warming-denier science at its finest, folks: Using a derivative operation to remove noise!

The real scandal is that this paper actually made into the Journal of Geophysical Research!

Is it any wonder that Mann and Co. were pissed?

But how do you explain all this to your average Sarah Palin follower? That's the scientists' conundrum here.

Why do people use the term Global Warming. It is a misleading term that does not properly identify what is happening to our planet. The fact is that the atmosphere is variable and will continue to fluctuate in terms of average temperature.

The real problem we are facing is rising sea TEMPERATURES. Here's just one technical article that studies the effects of rising sea temperatures on phytoplankton on Australia's coastline: http://www.int-res.com/articles/feature/m394p001.pdf If you search the http://www.int-res.com/ site you'll find a lot more really technical research articles that are great reads if you like this stuff :)

Rising sea temperatures mess up the sea currents and make fish search out better habitats (or die), perhaps because of the rising temperature itself, or maybe because their food supply is damaged (due to phytoplankton dieoff). If something doesn't change soon, we are in danger of losing vast populations in the ocean. This will have huge repercussions on our global food supply.

In the end, it doesn't matter if we are the ones causing it, or the sun is. Who cares. It is a complex system, and you can prove, through science, that carbon emissions directly affect sea temperatures. Maybe it's miniscule. Maybe it's not, but we have to do something or we are in severe danger of entirely losing our oceans.

Imagine if the seafood industry went belly up. It would cause a worldwide depression the likes of which we have not seen or dreamed of, especially for areas that depend heavily on the ocean for their nation's food supply.

AT THE VERY LEAST, if we are not going to reduce carbon emissions or whatever we can to reduce the effect on oceans, we need to have an actionable plan for what to do once the oceans die. Because it will happen if this trend continues. Having a plan doesn't mean it's going to be used, but we need to be able to continue functioning as a species if it does!

Why do people use the term Global Warming. It is a misleading term that does not properly identify what is happening to our planet. The fact is that the atmosphere is variable and will continue to fluctuate in terms of average temperature.

The real problem we are facing is rising sea TEMPERATURES. Here's just one technical article that studies the effects of rising sea temperatures on phytoplankton on Australia's coastline: http://www.int-res.com/articles/feature/m394p001.pdf If you search the http://www.int-res.com/ site you'll find a lot more really technical research articles that are great reads if you like this stuff :)

Rising sea temperatures mess up the sea currents and make fish search out better habitats (or die), perhaps because of the rising temperature itself, or maybe because their food supply is damaged (due to phytoplankton dieoff). If something doesn't change soon, we are in danger of losing vast populations in the ocean. This will have huge repercussions on our global food supply.

In the end, it doesn't matter if we are the ones causing it, or the sun is. Who cares. It is a complex system, and you can prove, through science, that carbon emissions directly affect sea temperatures. Maybe it's miniscule. Maybe it's not, but we have to do something or we are in severe danger of entirely losing our oceans.

Imagine if the seafood industry went belly up. It would cause a worldwide depression the likes of which we have not seen or dreamed of, especially for areas that depend heavily on the ocean for their nation's food supply.

AT THE VERY LEAST, if we are not going to reduce carbon emissions or whatever we can to reduce the effect on oceans, we need to have an actionable plan for what to do once the oceans die. Because it will happen if this trend continues. Having a plan doesn't mean it's going to be used, but we need to be able to continue functioning as a species if it does!

It is hypothesized that we can control the temperature of the planer by controlling the albedo of the Tibetan plateau for example, http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2002/20/c020p001 .pdf (or just search on Tibetan plateau albedo Asian monsoon. We can control the albedo of the Tibetan plateau simple by "dusting" the plateau with substances of varied reflectivity. We should easily be able to control the effects of global warming by inducing global cooling using this method.

If we really want to get ambitious, we could just blow a big honking hole in the Tibetan plateau, and let Siberia warm up while India cools down. This would, most likely, solve most of the major climate problems on the planet (Hurricanes in gulf, drought in Africa, the Moonsoon systems, the freezing temperatures in lands north of the Tibetan Plateau, since most of them were generated by the uplift of the Tibetan plateau in the first place. Better yet, all those defense contractors would have a way to make money on explosives WITHOUT starting a war.

AS an additional bonus, right now, 50% of the human races gets it's fresh water from melting of the snows on the plateau. The increased melting, plus the warming of Siberia to Southern American temperatures, would result in someplace to put all the excess population of China (such as the Uighirs) without undue hardship, as well as other cultures in danger, such as those in Darfur.

The telegraph article is a pretty lousy article, and gives few details. A bettle article is available at Space Flight Now. Apparently, the study was partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute so I would be especially wary of bias.

There isn't enough evidence in the articles to understand what the study actually found. They published some of their findings in the Climate Research journal, which only gives an abstract without a subscription. However, they haven't even published their full findings which are supposed to be published in Energy and Environment which appears to be more of a policy journal than a scientific journal.

I think it is very hard to evaluate the credibility of these claims without seeing the actual journal article that explains them. Another thing is that according to Space Flight Now article, is that the study is actually "A review of more than 200 climate studies," and we need to look at the authenticity of these studies. However, maybe it will help us look at global warming from a new perspective.