GISTEMP: 2009 tied for second warmest year on record

[insane_alien]

jryan, you seem to be assuming that the people who study this are completely clueless when it comes to analysing data. they do not think of it in terms of 'hot' and 'cold' but 'hotter' and 'colder' this is evidenced by the fact they work on a relative scale.

 

changing the zero point would not change the conclusions.

 

as for warmest in a century, thats absolute. if its warmer than the previous 100 years then it is the warmest in a century regardless of what came before that. to say otherwise is to be just plain wrong.

 

either you have a poor knowledge of data analysis or you've muddled yourself up by changing the meaning of many common phrases that you think everyone else mst be muddled up too.

[jryan]

You never mentioned you were talking about US temperatures in your post. Since the discussion is about global warming, I think that this objection is disingenuous at best.

 

I linked you to the article concerning Hansen's Y2K gaffe. As I pointed out in the earlier post, it is his lack of attention to detail that has me wonder about his product.

 

 

 

 

 

Wait, what? Do you understand what a mean (average) is? A graph that's 1000 years long, and all but the last 150 (or 30) years is below the mean, and this isn't a cause for concern? Lop off the most recent data, and the past is not a "cold streak" anymore — it's business as usual. You can only call it a cold streak in light of recent, dramatic warming. That's spin, pure and simple.

 

No, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying that selective choices of baseline change the tone of the graph.

 

If instead of 1650-1680 you chose 1969-1999 it would, as you pointed out, show very little positive anomaly which would make concern a harder sell to the public. So how you choose the 0 is important, but for political reasons.

 

As for choosing 1000 or 150 or 120 or 30 year time slices, that too depends on what message you are trying to convey. But in any case you are leading the data to the message rather than the reverse.

[insane_alien]

political reasons are irrelevant to the science.

 

if you want to discuss the politics of climate change then go over to the politics forum, if you want to remain here then take a scientific viewpoint and forget the damn politics.

[jryan]

jryan, you seem to be assuming that the people who study this are completely clueless when it comes to analysing data. they do not think of it in terms of 'hot' and 'cold' but 'hotter' and 'colder' this is evidenced by the fact they work on a relative scale.

 

That is a rather bizarre claim to make given that the press release is specifically about a "hotter" or "hottest" message. So of course they care.

 

Hell, Hansen was recently arrested for chaining himself up outside a coal mine... so it's not like he isn't fully invested in one conclusion.

 

changing the zero point would not change the conclusions.

 

It would change the perception, which is my point. The whole fact that they choose "recorded record" as opposed to a "last 1000 years" is due to perception.

 

The fact that they consistently fail to insert the caveat that the century of warming is following the LIA is about perception, not the dry conclusion.

 

as for warmest in a century, thats absolute. if its warmer than the previous 100 years then it is the warmest in a century regardless of what came before that. to say otherwise is to be just plain wrong.

 

It's absolute, and in the case of AGW it is also absolutely meaningless.

 

either you have a poor knowledge of data analysis or you've muddled yourself up by changing the meaning of many common phrases that you think everyone else mst be muddled up too.

 

No, I misread an article by Swansnot, but other than that I don't see how my observation isn't valid. "Warmest in a century" is meaningless unless you can prove some uniqueness over longer time scales, and have good reasons for your choices when choosing the scales.

 

Because the whole endeavor is to show that the introduction of anthropogenic CO2 has caused an anomaly in the climate record never seen before. If you can't pick that anomaly out of the noise then any claim of AGW is meaningless... and 100 years is especially meaningless as, as I have said, follows LIA and also is completely bound inside the industrial revolution so the observation has no control outside the anthropogenic effect.

 

1000 years is somewhat better, but the confidence interval over even that modest time scale between 1000AD and 1880 makes it all but impossible to discern uniqueness of the last 100 years of signal over the other 900 years. And we aren't even considering the larger climate oscillation cycles that occur over several millenniums.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

political reasons are irrelevant to the science.

 

if you want to discuss the politics of climate change then go over to the politics forum, if you want to remain here then take a scientific viewpoint and forget the damn politics.

 

But what is "warmest in a century" if not political? why does pure science care about the last decade in a time line that stretches for billions of years?

 

Face facts, the "warmest in a century" is meant to sway peopl eto a very specific and political conclusion.

[insane_alien]

warmest in a century could mean just exactly that. it was the warmest year in a century. thats what i'd take it to mean. just like when they says its the worst storm in a century or whatever.

 

you arguements all come down to perception, this does not affect the science in the slightest. go to the politics forum if you want to discuss the political aspects please.

[bascule]

But what is "warmest in a century" if not political? why does pure science care about the last decade in a time line that stretches for billions of years?

 

In the last century there was sufficiently accurate instrumentation to assess temperature and people taking the temperature often enough for it to be a significant data point.

 

Face facts, the "warmest in a century" is meant to sway peopl eto a very specific and political conclusion.

 

No surprise that's your viewpoint, Mr. Climate Troll comes around every few months to rattle the cages then disappears. Harsh, but it's the truth. My responses to you aren't so much for your own edification but for posterity, since you don't seem to care but continue to post the same myopic climate science denial drivel then disappear for a few months. If you disagree, stick around, and actually defend your position. My guess is you won't.

[jackson33]

I have previously sited a 2008 Petition Project, will now go further with the qualifications and actual names, many of which (if truly interested in both sides the issue) you should recognize. 31,000 American Scientist, is not a trivial opposition to AGW...

 

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

 

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,714 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science. [/Quote]

 

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

 

 

Many of those that signed their disagreement and educational background.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

 

bascule, has entered a thread "GISTEMP: 2009 tied for second warmest year on record", in the Ecology & Environmental category which as most all issues under science, have different viewpoint from different people. I believe bascule was correct in it's placement, GISS being a science oriented operation, headed by scientist, even though represented one side of an obvious two sided issue. Additionally Hansen a scientist in his own right and his public spokesperson Al Gore NOT a scientist, but politician) are prominent individuals.

 

I wonder then, why is 'jryan' being the scolded?

 

bascule; If your "Mr. Climate Troll" happens to be me, I'm sorry you feel I hit and run. Many times, I've mentioned that I'll do 2-3 post per day, now actually more, but Political Forums/Blogs are heating up for the elections in November. If it matters I do stop by near daily reading the threads off 'New Post', that interest me. However it is nice to see you welcoming a poster, you disagree with...

[jryan]

In the last century there was sufficiently accurate instrumentation to assess temperature and people taking the temperature often enough for it to be a significant data point.

 

Yes, but the whole reason the last 100 years is of any interest is it is supposed to be different than the past, abnormal. It has no real interest in and of itself, any more than 100 years of cooling would be by itself.

 

 

No surprise that's your viewpoint, Mr. Climate Troll comes around every few months to rattle the cages then disappears. Harsh, but it's the truth. My responses to you aren't so much for your own edification but for posterity, since you don't seem to care but continue to post the same myopic climate science denial drivel then disappear for a few months. If you disagree, stick around, and actually defend your position. My guess is you won't.

 

You have selective memory, then. I generally leave because in the past their has been public berating of deniers much like you last post while you gave insult machines such as iNow free reign. In PMs I was always asured that "oh, we are dealing with iNow" but never was there actually any change.

 

I haven't seen iNow yet, but others appear to have picked up the slack.

 

I wound up on this thread because Bascule asked me to "opine" on this 100 year anouncement, it remionded my of past GISS "warmest ever" pronouncements that came to naught, and off we went.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It would be great if we could keep this discussion about the data, not about each other. Let's not get personal, guys.

 

Really. Nobody's ever won a scientific by insulting and attacking their opponent.

 

Unless, of course, it's the cultural anthropology department, and you're discussing the evolution of insults through cultures over time.

 

Now, if I do not see calm, rational discussion, with no name-calling or insults (even insinuated ones), I will have to close this thread and beat a few people over the head with a stick.

[iNow]

You have selective memory, then. I generally leave because in the past their has been public berating of deniers much like you last post while you gave insult machines such as iNow free reign. In PMs I was always asured that "oh, we are dealing with iNow" but never was there actually any change.

 

I haven't seen iNow yet, but others appear to have picked up the slack.

 

So, again instead of addressing the criticisms put to you and the rebuttals of your points, you continue to avoid offering anything of substance, anything which is accurate and supports your assertions... you content yourself with evasion, ignore the content of the evidence presented against you, and try to divert the conversation to me. Nice.

[swansont]

I linked you to the article concerning Hansen's Y2K gaffe. As I pointed out in the earlier post, it is his lack of attention to detail that has me wonder about his product.

 

And the link discusses both the US shift and global shift.

 

 

 

 

No, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying that selective choices of baseline change the tone of the graph.

 

Not so much for people who know how to read graphs, I think.

 

If instead of 1650-1680 you chose 1969-1999 it would, as you pointed out, show very little positive anomaly which would make concern a harder sell to the public. So how you choose the 0 is important, but for political reasons.

 

Then I guess we agree that the zero was not chosen for political reasons.

[jryan]

And the link discusses both the US shift and global shift.

 

Yes, it is chock full of alarmist predictions that, just two years later, appear rather silly... including the "increased monsoons and flooding".

 

Or is this another matter of their anecdotes of disaster are climate related while subsequent two years of average monsoons and hurricanes are "weather"?

 

OR, the third way... can you agree that your posted article's use of weather related disasters are inappropriate in a discussion of climate?

 

Not so much for people who know how to read graphs, I think.

 

Yes, but those peopel would also know the pointlessness of a "warmest in 100 years" claim when talking about climate, I think.

 

 

 

Then I guess we agree that the zero was not chosen for political reasons.

 

It was chosen to coincide with the rise in CO2 emissions beginning in the late 50s, early 60s. Or it was a pleasant coincidence... but not likely since that is the crux of the assertion by the AGW climatologists.

[swansont]

Yes, it is chock full of alarmist predictions that, just two years later, appear rather silly... including the "increased monsoons and flooding".

 

Or is this another matter of their anecdotes of disaster are climate related while subsequent two years of average monsoons and hurricanes are "weather"?

 

OR, the third way... can you agree that your posted article's use of weather related disasters are inappropriate in a discussion of climate?

 

Umm, I was talking about the article you linked to. Reto Ruedy's response, which gives the numbers, includes both a US and global correction the the temperatures. So there was no indication that you were discussing the US temperatures.

 

As far as the article I linked to goes, there are no predictions in it at all, as far as I can see. It's a listing of events from 2007, and it was published in Dec 2007. Do you deny these events happened? Or will you retract your "alarmist prediction" claim?

[bascule]

You have selective memory, then. I generally leave because in the past their has been public berating of deniers much like you last post while you gave insult machines such as iNow free reign. In PMs I was always asured that "oh, we are dealing with iNow" but never was there actually any change.

 

Well let's see, so far you've claimed:

 

1) The Y2K data error meant only 2 years instead of 8 of the previous decade were among the 10 warmest on record (wrong)

2) That James Hansen was sued because he failed to comply with a FOIA request for his data (wrong)

3) It took a FOIA request to get his data (wrong)

4) It took James Hansen a year to release the GISTEMP source code after McIntyre requested it (wrong)

 

And that was in a span of a few hours... in this thread alone.

 

Welcome back jryan, you're off to a great start. Here's a hint: if you want people to take you seriously don't post blatantly factual inaccuracies left and right.

 

This approach is representative of climate denialists in general: you seem to care more about disparaging climate science than you do about the factual accuracy of the information you present.

 

This is a science thread. Please stick to the facts, thanks.

 

I wound up on this thread because Bascule asked me to "opine" on this 100 year anouncement, it remionded my of past GISS "warmest ever" pronouncements that came to naught, and off we went.

 

Which announcements are those? Lie #5 perhaps?

 

You showed up to this thread and proceeded to lie your ass off and launch a barrage of ad hominems and slander against James Hansen. Are you surprised at the response?

 

Generally what you're doing is referred to as "trolling"

[jryan]

Well let's see, so far you've claimed:

 

1) The Y2K data error meant only 2 years instead of 8 of the previous decade were among the 10 warmest on record (wrong)

2) That James Hansen was sued because he failed to comply with a FOIA request for his data (wrong)

3) It took a FOIA request to get his data (wrong)

4) It took James Hansen a year to release the GISTEMP source code after McIntyre requested it (wrong)

 

How about you provide links.

 

1) Y2K error reduced the number of American records: True - I already provided those links

2) James Hansen was sued because he failed to comply with FOIA - True - I provided those links. Argue them, or argue links of your own.

3) False: An FOIA request was filed on August 20th, 2007 BEFORE he released his data and code (link to NASA FOIA docket list (pdf))

4) You are correct, it wasn't a year, that is one out of 4... but a weak 1 out of 4, as it did require an FOIA to get the data and code released

 

And that was in a span of a few hours... in this thread alone.

 

Welcome back jryan, you're off to a great start. Here's a hint: if you want people to take you seriously don't post blatantly factual inaccuracies left and right.

 

I suggest you scale back the victory parades in your honor, Bascule, as you are far from infallible yourself. See above.

 

 

This approach is representative of climate denialists in general: you seem to care more about disparaging climate science than you do about the factual accuracy of the information you present.

 

What is a "climate denialist"? I do not deny that there is a climate. I don't even deny that there has been demonstrable warming in the last 100 years. I do deny that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the warming trend of the last 100 years is abnormal in the history of the planet, and I doubt that humanity is responsible for all (or even most) of the warming measured.

 

Your choice of label for those of us not as concerned as you about current climate trends is born of the politics of the subject. Nobody denies "climate", and such implications there in are rather offensive and not conducive to discussion.

 

This is a science thread. Please stick to the facts, thanks.

 

Try doing the same, thanks in advance!

 

 

Which announcements are those? Lie #5 perhaps?

 

No, here is the Washington Post blurb about the GISS press release. This claim had to be retracted later as it was heavily influenced by the Y2K error.

 

You showed up to this thread and proceeded to lie your ass off and launch a barrage of ad hominems and slander against James Hansen. Are you surprised at the response?

 

As I have demonstrated, bascule, I am not "lying my ass off", and you would be greatly served by not running off at the mouth (or keyboard) so. As I stated before, as you and swansnot started calling me a "troll", it was your poor behavior as well as iNow and others that makes this site unwelcoming to those who's views are at odds with yours. It is THIS reason you will find many of us unwilling to hang around for extended periods of time.

 

 

Generally what you're doing is referred to as "trolling"

 

No, "trolling" is coming in an calling everyone here and idiot for not believing X,Y and Z specifically to get a rise out of the community. I have not done that, and at worst have reduced my self to responding in kind to such attacks from regulars on this board in the past.

Edited February 1, 2010 by jryan

[swansont]

jryan, are you going to retract your "alarmist prediction" claim from post 37?

[jryan]

jryan, are you going to retract your "alarmist prediction" claim from post 37?

 

No, because it is as I stated. Are you saying that they aren't linking climate and weather disasters in that article?

[bascule]

Y2K error reduced the number of American records: True - I already provided those links

 

Reduced it two 2 of the years in the previous decade being in the top 10 as you claimed? Wrong.

 

James Hansen was sued because he failed to comply with FOIA - True - I provided those links. Argue them, or argue links of your own.

 

He was never sued. The FOIA request was not for his data, it was for internal department email.

 

An FOIA request was filed on August 20th, 2007 BEFORE he released his data and code (link to NASA FOIA docket list[/url'] (pdf))

 

The FOIA request was not for his code or data but for internal department email.

 

What is a "climate denialist"?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

[swansont]

No, because it is as I stated. Are you saying that they aren't linking climate and weather disasters in that article?

 

No, I'm saying they are making no predictions, much less alarmist ones. I thought that was clear from my previous post. An article that explains what happened in 2007, published at the end of 2007, is making no predictions whatsoever (prediction being about future events and all that). It's simply a summary article from the World Meteorological Organization.

 

However, you had claimed it to be

 

Yes, it is chock full of alarmist predictions that, just two years later, appear rather silly... including the "increased monsoons and flooding".

 

 

I'm wondering why you say that the reporting of events such as

Monsoon-related extreme rainfall events caused the worst flooding in years in parts of South Asia.

would seem silly two years later.

[jryan]

Reduced it two 2 of the years in the previous decade being in the top 10 as you claimed? Wrong.

 

No it's not.

 

He was never sued. The FOIA request was not for his data, it was for internal department email.

 

The 9/12/2007 filing was for:

 

"Copies of all records, documents, internal

communications and other relevant covered

material created by, provided to and/or sent by

NASA GISS."

 

Code would fall under "documents" or "relevant material"

 

9/20/2007 was for:

 

"Information regarding NASA GISS citing,

referencing, discussing or otherwise related to the

August 2007 correction online temperature data,

etc. (See request for more details)"

 

(sorry, it wasn't August. you can find them on page 58)

 

The FOIA request was not for his code or data but for internal department email.

 

See above.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

 

Did you mean to link to an article admitting the term is used as a perjorative?

[bascule]

There was the Y2K flub where they started measuring temps later in the day after the Y2K software update and failed to adjust.. this was the source of the "8 of the 10 warmest years were in the last decade" claim... which had to be downgraded to 2 out of 10. Oops.

 

Are you still standing by this statement? Sorry, it's just wrong. None of the links you're giving to defend it are even remotely relevant.

 

The 9/12/2007 filing was for:

 

"Copies of all records' date=' documents, internal

communications and other relevant covered

material created by, provided to and/or sent by

NASA GISS."[/i']

 

Code would fall under "documents" or "relevant material"

 

No? They were not specifically requesting the GISTEMP source code, nor would they have to as it was already available at that time by anyone who wanted to download it off NASA's web site:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20070911181959/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/

 

Sources

 

Source code and documentation for GISTEMP software is available here. The programs are intended for installation and use on a computer with a Unix-like operating system.

 

* Download GISTEMP_sources.tar.gz.

 

This archive is approximately 2.2 MB. It was last updated Sep. 10, 2007, to clarify the procedures of some steps.

Edited February 2, 2010 by bascule

[jryan]

Are you still standing by this statement? Sorry, it's just wrong. None of the links you're giving to defend it are even remotely relevant.

 

They are relevant, actually, but I was off by one in my statement of the effect of the Y2K error in the American record.

 

Here is one of the articles from August 2007 that bothered to list the record chages due to the Y2K error:

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html

 

In which they note:

 

1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20.

 

That is a rather large error to miss for more than 5 years.

 

No? They were not specifically requesting the GISTEMP source code, nor would they have to as it was already available at that time by anyone who wanted to download it off NASA's web site:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20070911181959/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/

 

Sources

 

Source code and documentation for GISTEMP software is available here. The programs are intended for installation and use on a computer with a Unix-like operating system.

 

* Download GISTEMP_sources.tar.gz.

 

This archive is approximately 2.2 MB. It was last updated Sep. 10, 2007, to clarify the procedures of some steps.

 

You're right, McIntyre had been working on the issue since June 2007, and on 8/6/2007 McIntyre stated in his blog that his requests for code were ignored and he would file an FOI for the code. The code was then released about a month later.

 

(by the way, in my research to locate articles I located this one in which Schmidt complains -- after another QC failure -- that NASA doesn't have enough people to manage GISTEMP.... they have a whole 0.25 Full Time possitions dedicated to managing GISTEMP.. not so comforting)

 

Anyway, McIntyre had been working in the issue since June.

[bascule]

They are relevant, actually, but I was off by one in my statement of the effect of the Y2K error in the American record.

 

Here is one of the articles from August 2007 that bothered to list the record chages due to the Y2K error:

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html

 

In which they note:

 

1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20.

 

That is a rather large error to miss for more than 5 years.

 

Le sigh...

 

I wouldn't have thought a < 0.01 ºC change could have done that to the global temperature averages.

 

Oh, wait. It didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm

 

Even with the Y2K errors accounted for 2005, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2004, 2001, and 2008 are 9 of the top 10 hottest years on record (in that order)

[swansont]

IOW, it's GLOBAL warming under discussion in this thread. Hasn't that been made abundantly clear?

[jryan]

Le sigh...

 

Le Pew.

 

Even with the Y2K errors accounted for 2005, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2004, 2001, and 2008 are 9 of the top 10 hottest years on record (in that order)

 

Hey cool, they are also the plateau of the current warming trend! It's amazing how that works.

 

Also the "record" who's record global temperture is setting is completely uninformative regarding global warming. For the "warmest in 100 years" to be of any value you have to show that it is unique on longer time scales.

 

If the current trend ends up failing to surpass the even the Medieval Warm Period then AGW or not it becomes a non-issue.

 

Furthermore, I'm still going to take all of Hansen's predictions with a grain of salt because 1) he has shown an ability for stupid mistakes (Y2K error in US and the Siberian flub) and 2) he is a hard core advocate rather than a pure scientist, making it even harder for him to check his own work.

 

Anyway, keep listening to Hansen, it makes no difference to me. But a few years from now these discoveries will fall into the category of "why didn't we catch these signs sooner?".