Free Markets, Free People

Climate Alarmists claim victory with an old and discredited data set on temperature

Kevin Drum is all excited.  Writing at Mother Jones he tells us:

But Muller’s congressional testimony last March didn’t go according to plan. He told them a preliminary analysis suggested that the three main climate models in use today—each of which uses a different estimating technique, and each of which has potential flaws—are all pretty accurate: Global temperatures have gone up considerably over the past century, and the increase has accelerated over the past few decades. Yesterday, BEST confirmed these results and others in its first set of published papers about land temperatures.

Oh boy … confirmation.  “I told you so” time.  Finally got those deniers pinned to the wall.

Yeah, not really. Anthony Watts cites a paragraph from the Economist and then explains why this isn’t anything new:

Economist: “There are three compilations of mean global temperatures, each one based on readings from thousands of thermometers, kept in weather stations and aboard ships, going back over 150 years. Two are American, provided by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one is a collaboration between Britain’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (known as Hadley CRU). And all suggest a similar pattern of warming: amounting to about 0.9°C over land in the past half century.”

The nearly identical trends is no surprise as they draw from mostly the same raw data!

Same old data (that’s been questioned quite often given the location of many of the temperature stations in parking lots, fudging of numbers, cherry picking, etc), “new” trend analysis, same results. 

Watts concludes:

The new Muller et al study, therefore,   has a very major unanswered question. I have asked it on Judy’s [Curry] weblog since she is a co-author of these studies [and Muller never replied to my request to answer this question].

“Hi Judy – I encourage you to document how much overlap there is in Muller’s analysis with the locations used by GISS, NCDC and CRU. In our paper

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

we reported that

“The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same. The best estimate that has been reported is that 90–95% of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same (P. Jones, personal communication, 2003).”

Unless, Muller pulls from a significantly different set of raw data, it is no surprise that his trends are the same.

More deception cloaked as “new” science from the alarmist crowd.

What a surprise indeed.


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

10 Responses to Climate Alarmists claim victory with an old and discredited data set on temperature

  • True “scientific consensus”…collude in your selection of data.  From Mao-ther Jones, this is no surprise.

  • Has anyone bothered to specify the ideal global mean temperature? Personally, I think 70 degrees F with a slight breeze from the south is good. My grandmother, who has thinner blood, would probably opt for 75.

    • I’ll see your grandmother and raise her another 5-8F. I like warmth. I did 20 years in MI near Detroit. I hate cold. Cold is evil. Winter in MI starts in October and does not let up until May. It is evil. Did I mention that I hate cold?

  • Notice how the graph that goes with the climate warming story starts at 1800… why 1800… why not 1500, or 1000, or 1 AD? Could it be because we had a little ice age, and that emerging from it will demonstrate ‘warming’ better than showing a natural wave pattern going back thousands of years? Fools and idiots.

  • If we assume that the BEST study holds up, there are lots of questions left unanswered.
    First, the 39,000 or so weather stations cover 29% of the planet and a third of them showed no warming over the 60-year period under consideration, indeed they showed cooling.  Why is Global Warming so uneven ?
    Second, the study claimed there is no “Urban Heat Island.”  To a certain degree this is a side topic, but frankly, we can’t have this UHI/noUHI discrepancy being used on all sides of the arguments.  UHI has be used as “scientific fact” to force modifications to building codes.  If it doesn’t exist, how is it scientific fact ?
    Third, how much of this warming is man manmade ?
    Which leads us to the most important question … what can we do ?  Can we stop it ? .. or do we have to live with it ? .. or mix of both ?
    In a recent Congressional hearing, an Administration EPA official indicated that the present plans for CO2 controls, expected to cost billions for the project 250,000 enforcement employees, and trillions for industry and taxpayers, will have “no effect” on global temperatures.
    We could prevent thousands, perhaps millions, of rapes and murders with that much money.  Is it worth it if it has “no effect” ?

  • Did the weather folks ever adjust their data for the 40% of stations shut down in the 80’s and 90’s, the overwhelming majority of which were in extreme northern latitudes?
    Answer: “Not yet!”.