Posts Made By: Dean Rowe

Doug Peterson said:

They kicked out the discredited hocky stick, but replaced it with Hanson's global average temperature plot--problem is it is only thru 2005 but last time I checked this is late 2009, so it cuts in half the flat temps for the last decade. Is this science? Reminds me, the fraudsters that generated the Copenhagen document shows ocean temps thru only 2003, not the demonstrated weak cooling shown since. Is this politics?


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/05/united-nations-pulls-hockey-stick-from-climate-report/#more-11504

Yawn.

Since Watt's says this:

You can see the GISS graph from the GISTEMP web page right here, oddly the UN used the 2005 version (citing Hansen et al 2005) rather than the 2009 version of the graph, seen below. Might it be that pesky downturn at the end of the graph? Or maybe they are just Google challenged?

which shows a chart that ends in 2008 at 0.44C and fails to mention that recent GISS temps have been higher, is he also then guilty of deception? After all _you_ make the point that it is now late 2009.

Yes, but it's only gained ice since 2007 which was an anomalously low year - Sept. 2009 levels are right on the declining trend



Large version:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png

Those are from the NSIDC press release:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html

Dave Snope said:

Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored.

Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2056988&p=2#ixzz0Sn36QZSF

As usual, the "skeptic" community gets all bent out of shape and blasts stuff like this all over the internet howling about fraud, cover up and a myriad of conspericies, but now we have learned, among other things, that:

1) Briffa told McIntyre that the data he was requesting belonged to his Swedish and Russian colleagues
2) That McIntyre actually had the data since 2004, which he got from - you guessed it - the Russians

So Dave - given all the outrage and noise, why do you suppose the "skeptic" community has gone quiet on these facts? Indeed - you yourself have made several post here concerning the Yamal flap but not a peep about this - now why is that???

The APS had a total membership of 47,189 as of January 2009:
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200902/membership.cfm

So 160 works out to a whopping 0.34% of their total membership.

Dave Snope said:

As Copenhagen nears, the media are pulling out all the stops to push us towards global redistribution of wealth.

From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index.html
The ice and snow that cap majestic Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania are vanishing before our eyes.

If current conditions persist, climate change experts say, Kilimanjaro's world-renowned glaciers, which have covered Africa's highest peak for centuries, will be gone within the next two decades.

"In a very real sense, these glaciers are being decapitated from the surface down," said Lonnie Thompson, professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University. Thompson is co-author of a study on Kilimanjaro published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study's authors blame the disappearing ice on increases in global temperatures and diminished snowfall at Kilimanjaro's summit.

Kilimanjaro's glaciers have been retreating steadily since well back into the 19th century, long before CO2 began rising and 100 years before claims of temperature hockey sticks began.

Um, CO2 levels were rising early in the 19th century.

Recent data from Kilimanjaro show temperatures on the 19,340-foot volcano never rise above freezing. So melting triggered by a warmer atmosphere can't be the reason the small summit ice sheet is retreating about 3 feet a year, said Georg Kaser, co-author of the new article and a glaciologist at the University of Innsbruck in Austria.

OK, this is from another news article, The Seattle Times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003744089_kilimanjaro12m.html

It says much more than just the part you quoted.

Likewise, the new study in PNAS that the CNN article is reporting on says much more than CNN is reporting:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/30/0906029106.full.pdf

Its only 6 pages and isn't a tough read, and it has several references to Kaser from the Seattle Times article. The only real difference that I could see was Kaser was reported in the Seattle Times as not having found evidence of ice melt while the PNAS study did in some areas. The PNAS study doesn't say ice melt is the sole cause of shrinkage:

The relative importance of the different processes responsible for the ice field shrinkage remains an area of active inquiry although multiple climatological factors are undoubtedly at work.

But then neither did CNN:

The study's authors blame the disappearing ice on increases in global temperatures and diminished snowfall at Kilimanjaro's summit.

IMO, this is much ado about nothing much. CNN could have done a better job of reporting the various factors causing shinkage other than the one liner, but that's about it, hardly worth the your post title of "CNN Still Pushing Debunked Kilimanjaro AGW Melting".

I don't know where you came up with 0.7C per century when the very source for your chart, UAH, lists the trend as 1.26C per century.

That chart is just the month of October. This is annual NCDC (only up to 2008 though):



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2008&month=ann

Rod Kaufman said:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-hacker22-2009nov22,0,913036.story
Taking snippets of hacked information out of context and representing it as fact and the skeptics hang their hats and their heads on it. Geez...

Yea, context is sorely lacking. For example, the part about bullying a science journal that's flying around is about a really bad paper published in "Climate Research" which was torn apart in EOS (with Mann as lead author BTW). The paper was so bad that three members of the editorial board resigned and the publisher changed the editorial process. There's a whole lot to just that one, including a Senate hearing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/science/politics-reasserts-itself-in-the-debate-over-climate-change-and-its-hazards.html?pagewanted=all

So you do need to read alot more than snips of emails saying this and that which the skeptics are going ga-ga over. I haven't looked into all of it by a long shot, but so far it doesn't look to me like the grand conspiracy that the skeptics are trying to make it out to be (no real surprise there). However, on the other side many are making it out as much-ado-about nothing. I suspect they will be proven overly optimistic. For example the stuff about asking others to delete emails has a particularly bad smell to it (regardless of the context).

Anyway, this is far from over and right now there's way too much noise, speculation and just plain nonsense flying around.

Gee - maybe the IPCC decided not to include it because it was shown to be problematic:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html

But then I suppose all data should be used, good and bad...

Dave Snope said:
...
From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and reconstructions.

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,�Oooops!�
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

This, people, is blatant data-cooking, with no pretense otherwise. It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1940s 1930s � see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century.

If your source had posted just a couple more lines of the briffa_sep98_d.pro, it would shown that the code to use this was commented out (that's the semicolons):

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
;
;filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow
;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20

and replaced with code that doesn't use it:

filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy,tslow=tslow
oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=21

So your example of "blatant data-cooking" doesn't do anything, gosh darn it.

So why wasn't your source honest enough to include this? If he had and explained that and the fact that the code to use is was commented out then you wouldn't have nearly so much to get excited about. Dave, you're a victim of fraud and deceit! Will we be hearing about your outrage??