Why are global warming alarmists so slow to learn the facts?

Question

Anthony Watts, a broadcast meteorologist, is leading an effort to photograph weather stations and document their quality. He has now photographed 1/3 of USHCN weather stations and found that only 15% of them meet the minimum requirements of the NOAA. The remaining 85% have a significant warm bias.
http://surfacestations.org/

See Watts presentation to climate scientists here:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html

Steve McIntyre, a leading statistician in climate science, did a reconstruction of US temps using only good quality stations identified by Watta. McIntyre learned that the warmest years in the US were 1934, then 1921, then 1998 and then 2006.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2145

If natural climate variation in the 1920s and 1930s caused warmer temperatures than we have experienced in the last 20 years, why is there any reason to be scared of global warming?

Why are the alarmists so slow to learn the facts?

Enraged Parrot, thank you for contributing but I am afraid you have old data. In Comment 86, John V makes a good contribution in pointing out the need for geographic distribution. His comment was dated Sept 14, 2007. I linked to McIntyre's latest reconstruction that includes the geographic distribution (which includes more stations with better distribution) dated October 4, 2007. The most recent data confirms that better quality stations get less warming. Too bad John V has not updated his work. Let me ask this question: Just on a common sense level, can you not see how stations located on top of parking lots would have a warm bias? I do not understand this flailing around to try to save a temp record that is obviously flawed?

Dana, I am sorry you do not understand the issue yet. First, poorly sited stations occur all over, in rural and urban locations. Second, the UHI does have an impact on the temp record. You are referring to the Peterson and Parker papers. Both of these papers have been refuted.

Parker's 2006 paper http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3730.1
was refuted by Pielke here
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-302.pdf

Peterson's 2006 paper (no link handy, sorry) was refuted by Pielke here
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/6/pdf/i1520-0477-88-6-913.pdf

Peterson's 2003 paper was refuted by McIntyre here
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859

Bob, you are making the same mistake made by Dana above. Poorly sited stations are not the same as UHI. They occur in both rural and urban locations. Plus UHI does have an affect on temps. The Peterson and Parker studies have been refuted by Pielke and his co-authors. If UHI really made no difference, why would GISTEMP adjust for UHI? Read the link provided to Tamino provided by Dana and he talks about the GISTEMP UHI adjustment. I just do not understand why you are so loyal to obviously flawed data set. The science is not on your side.

Bob, you asked why I am impressed with the work of Anthony Watts even though he has not published in peer-reviewed literature? Because he is doing real science. Watts will eventually publish and his results will be completely transparent. Watts' research is very impressive to many people, including Roger Pielke, the most prolific and respected climatologist in the field. Anyone who looks closely at Watts' work will be impressed.

Thermoguy, you are on the right track. Roger Pielke has written extensively on man-made warming from land use/land cover changes. He believes these add to warming more than CO2 does. While this warming only affects the local climate (and for that reason will never be catastrophic), it can certainly a warm bias in the temperature record.

Thor, thank you for responding. Your answer certainly proves the premise of my question. You are misinformed regarding the Northwest Passage. It was open in 1905 and again in 1944. During those years more than 60 vessels made the trip from one ocean to another. So far, no ship has made the trip this century.
http://www.allthingsarctic.com/exploration/amundsen.aspx
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,801448,00.html
http://www.allthingsarctic.com/exploration/nwpassage.aspx

Enraged Parrot, the page I posted originally - http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2145 - is McIntyre's response to John V's Comment 86. John V is John Vliet. CRN1-2 refers to the best quality stations, those rated either CRN1 (excellent) or CRN2 (good). If you scroll down, you will see a graph titled "Vliet minus CRN1-2 TOBS (SM)." The (SM) on the end means it was calculated by Steve McIntyre and that Steve is comparing Vliet's graph to his reconstruction of US temps after Time of Observation Bias adjustments (TOBS). The final image is McIntyre's reconstruction. Looking at the graph, you can see what years are warmest and you do not see a strong warming trend in the US. When other weather networks around the world go through this process, we will probably see a similar result. So, as I said, you were looking at old data. Regarding satellite temps, John Christy keeps one of the satellite records and he does not see anything approaching a catastrophe.

Enraged Parrot, regarding your claim that adjustments can correct the errors of poorly sited stations, I beg to differ. GISS and NOAA do not even know what stations are poorly sited. Changes to the local site many times happen slowly as local businesses or other buildings encroach on the weather station. There is no way to know the station history of the poorly sited stations. The only possible course of action is to remove the station from the record, as McIntyre has done.

Bob, you misunderstand the work Watts is doing. He is not reconstructing a temp record. He is only determining which stations meet the minimum requirements of the NOAA. McIntyre is doing the temp reconstructions. I accept the work of Watts because his work is completely transparent. Anyone can see the photographs and determine if his station ratings are fair and accurate. This is the only subjective area in his study. McIntyre's reconstruction is just pure statistics. Also, you are completely wrong when you think the science supports the temp record. Pielke and about 25 of his co-authors have written extensively on the problems with the temp record. This is the reason Pielke proposed using ocean heat content as a better metric for measuring global warming. Did you happen to read the links I provided where Pielke refuted the Peterson and Parker papers?

Enraged Parrot, you think the proxy data shows recent warming? One of the big problems with dendroclimatology is "The Divergence Problem." Rob Wilson has done some work in this area to try to salvage dendroclimatology, but it is an uphill battle. McIntyre just took some tree ring core in Colorado recently and more facts are coming out. There are problems with satellite data also, but I am not so familiar with them because I trust the work of John Christy much more than most climatologists. Christy is very transparent, which is what science is supposed to be. Most of the alarmists (Mann, Hanson, Jones, Briffa, Juckes, Hughes) rarely archive or share their data so their conclusions can be tested.

Thermoguy, your links do not work for me. Too bad.

Answer 1

As it happens, a member of Steve McIntyre's ClimateAudit Blog took it upon himself to build a program to calculate surface temperatures (a novel idea!). He used it to compare the trends for the station data Watt et al. classified as good (CNR12), bad (CNR5), and the GISTemp series. Guess what he found? Well, I think the results pretty much speak for themselves:

http://www.inturnsoftware.com/downloads/crn12_crn5_giss.gif

So... so much for SurfaceStations.org eh?

Also, the US doth not the planet Earth make. The infamous "Y2K bug" found by Steve McIntyre, as he said himself, is statistically insignificant. It doesn't affect the global trend a bit. The warmest year for the entire world is still 1998.

But by all means, please ingore this post and go on believing whatever you wish. It's what most of the people in this section do best, after all. (That goes for both skeptics and theory proponents.)

----------------
Umm... we must be on different pages, Ron C. The link I posted wasn't relevant to the one you posted. It had nothing to do with showing that 1934 was the hottest recorded year in the US.

To answer your question, yes, I can very easily see how placing a station on top of an asphalt parking lot might introduce a bias. I can also see how GISS takes great pains to eliminate this bias.

Also, if the instrumental temperature data is flawed, why are the satellite and proxy data in such good agreement with it? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious to know.

----------------
Edit:
Ah, I see now. Thanks for the info. I don't agree that there's been no strong warming trend is the US though. A graph isn't a very accurate way to look at data, but from just eyeballing it there appears to be a very distinct warming trend.

And actually, removing a station from the record due to some sort of bias isn't the only solution. There is no such thing as perfect data, and throwing any that we suspect may be flawed out isn't going to get us anywhere. A much better solution is to understand the bias and correct it in the data, such as GISS has done with the UHI effect.

Also, I didn't mean that the satellite data show impending catastrophe, I meant that the satellite and proxy data are in good agreement with the instrumental data.

--------------
Edit: Dendrochronology is not the only proxy for temperature available to scientists. And whilst you may not trust climate scientists, I so. So you'll have to give me something other than John Christy's word if you want to convince me of anything.

Answer 2

Because they're not facts. Watts has a big problem. He can take all the pictures he wants. But he can't show a difference in the data from stations which are indisputably well situated and those which are arguably not.

In fact, study after study shows there is no difference.

Parker, D.E., Large-Scale Warming is not Urban, Nature 432, 290

Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found THOMAS C. PETERSON, J. Cimate, 2003

Brohan, P., Kennedy, J., Harris, I., Tett, S.F.B. and Jones, P.D., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res. 111, D12106

etc, etc.

Note that Watts, the noted "broadcast journalist" has never published any of this in a peer reviewed journal. This is another argument which assumes that thousands of climatologists don't understand how to evaluate data, and one "skeptic" does. Watts is just a tourist with a boring slide show.

Also see:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/15216/865

The real question is why anyone (much less a smart guy like Ron C) would support one "broadcast meteorologist" with no real data and no publications over thousands of Ph.D. climatologists with tons of data and many publications. It's beyond understanding.

EDIT - Ron C says "I just do not understand why you are so loyal to obviously flawed data set."

We're even. I'm completely baffled why you reject thousands of climatologists with tons of actual data which proves the temperature data is fine and support a "broadcast journalist" who has nothing but pictures. His dubious sites are overwhelmingly urban, which is why the urban v rural comparison is on point.

Answer 3

The facts are not important to people with an agenda. And those who insist on being miserable will demand to be miserable no matter what happens. Right now, global warming is the latest fad to catch the attention of the miserable class. And it is fed by people like Al Gore who laugh all the way to the bank at the gullibility of these chicken littles. Of course global warming is only caused by the developed countries. The pollution of China and India and Russia ect, has no effect on global warming. That is one of the hints that this so called crisis is a fake.

Answer 4

With all due respect to the professionals working on surface station data, they are missing critical data that affects the accuracy of their measurement. That flawed data is the science missing for the governments to get more excited about global warming. It is the science Gore, Clinton, every state, province, country, presidential hopeful, UN and the entire world is missing.

I appreciate the intent but even the garbage can is capable of having an impact on temperature measurement.

They need to put the surface temperature devices on buildings, pavement, green areas and everywhere to get better temperature influences.

The methods being used for measurment are very limited and old. Hydrologists and forestry management use the same idea for fish management, they put data loggers in the water to record stream temperature.

Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/groundwater to see an advanced temperature application to give biologists a visual from the air.

In regards to the surface temperate measurement, we are missing critical data. Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h... and see the actual temperature performance of buildings.

Other very important information is missing on Urban Heat Islands because we are generating extreme heat before they become UHI.

Why do we cover our skin from UV? It burns us because it is a fast moving wavelength causing excitation. Go to the link above and see UV causing absorbent building material to generate heat close to boiling temperature. Is todays surface measurment even discussing this?

They couldn't see it. I participated in 17,000 hours of work advancing temperature measurment by taking it outside the calculator that every university uses.

Buildings are generating extreme heat close to boiling temperature and we are treating the symptoms with air conditioning which is refrigeration that causes ozone depletion. The electrical waste is in the gigawatts and we aren't discussing EVERY new building is performing like this.....because we couldn't see it in our calculator.

Go to the link and see what functional landscaping does or lighter colors. This proble can be addressed, we couldn't see it.

I would look forward to any surface measurment professionals contacting me so we can help them expand on the application. When we generate heat close to boiling temperature it means one thing. We are warming the globe while we react to symptoms.

Imaging this, all that needs to be done is to ask a builder what finishes they have used to ensure no heat generation, Low e finishes and coatings, functional landscaping. This is the developers responsibility, we couldn't see it.

Answer 5

Who or what constitutes an alarmist? The problem with your use of the word is that you don't know that yet. And given the fact that the future of the world as we know it is at stake, I'm not going to rely on a "broadcast meteorologist" to get my information. Anymore than I'd rely on the National Inquirerer for current events.

At any rate, I'm not a slow learner, just a late bloomer.

I've got a few sites, too, and the data may be alarming, but I prefer not to shoot the messenger. And Squishy, you are full of it. I love this country with a passion, and you don't have a clue or you wouldn't lump all environmentalists together, anymore than I'd lump all the Squishies together. Some of the Squishies will march in place, others will move on when they get tired of spewing hate.

Answer 6

We all suffer from a lack of knowledge. Then we have to believe in something. Most GW alarmists are set to blame. Here are some facts. What we know: Blacktop (roads and parking lots) and buildings heat cities; Air pollution causes lung (And other) diseases, deforestation (causing more destruction -duststorms, hurricanes/cyclones all increasing deforestation) and destroys the ozone layer while heating earth surface; fires cause mud slides, deforestation and pollution-more heating surface temperatures; CFC's destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates and killing off endanger species and increased surface temperatures; lighting produces ozone near the surface and raises air pollution levels-more heating, the suns increased magnetic field are causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow), sun spots and more heating. Cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production causes pollution, warmer temperatures and destruction...But most of this is in our control outside of the sun (Volcanoes and earthquakes are part of the sun magnetic strength): We need to fix it! That is why I founded CoolingEarth.org an geoengineering web sight.

Answer 7

Well I aint pushin no numbers just reminded that the 30's had probably the worst draught in recorded history I believe. The "dust bowl" days. When all the "Okies" moved to Californication to work odd jobs and pick fruit.

Answer 8

Considering the ridiculous number of times we've had to explain that the urban heat island effect doesn't make a difference in the surface temperature record and the large amount of evidence we've provided to support this claim (as opposed to you, who simply says 'look, this station is next to a trash can! That must be bad!')...

Considering that, plus the fact that you still think the USA = the world, I think you need to direct this question at yourself.

For yet more evidence regarding this subject, peruse the link below. I doubt you will.

Answer 9

I find it interesting that Yahoo found it necessary to do a Password Check and conveniently erase my whole answer in the process. Sure a strange coincidence!! Redo!!

The GW alarmists do not consider what you say as being factual. In fact, it alarms them further. They believe their computers, and their agendae, and those who supply them with money and influence and even adulation. Why should they learn? They have it good and life for them is cushy as-is.

And they have the power now to shut down anyone who disagrees with them. They have the power to publish and prevent publication. They have the power to promote and deny promotions. They have the power to put out deceptive "Public Service" ads and not be called down for them.

Why should they allow a few facts to stand in their way. It is often inconvenient to learn a little truth. Or respect!

And of course they do not see any problems with raping the rain-forests for Carbon Credits..."necessary," and preventing needy Africans from having hospital and good medical care...keep them from polluting the Earth using their own resources.

I think there is some veiled ideas, too, that we can kinda extract tribute from them as we use their resources to prop up our faltering Western economies we have taxed and regulated into the ground.

The secular religion of Global Warming is now comparable to the alliance between the "scientists" and the "state" and the "church" in the Dark Ages. An idea supported by the "Consensus" back then, and enforced by torture back then, or even death.

May be coming soon here too! In a Theater near you!

But it worked well for those on the inside, and terrible for the rest!! And who cares for the rest when you are on the inside. safe and oh! sooo politically correct?

Now-a-days, we are much more humane about those who disagree with the "Consensus of the enlightened 25000". We do not torture and kill to enforce compliance, we just cut off grants to the dissidents, destroy their data, and pretend they no longer exist! And split the proceeds of no competition, thrust them out of publication, deny their research, even their livelihood; yet still they mutter "But it DOES move."

I recall reading some of the dissident papers on how the computer models were not ready, were not accurate, but these people are no long making a living as scientists, and as it turns out, the computer models were only off by about 90% But those who cried out about it are NOT restored to their jobs! Punished for being right.

Like in the Dark Ages!

Ask the alarmists to look back into the previous two warmings before this, and identify what is BAD about global warming? Did all the polar bears die in each of the last two? Did people undergo massive starvation, terrible epidemics or new disease, inability to function intellectually, scientifically, socially, or artistically?

Did titanic storms blow out of the Mediterranean destroying cities and farms, and washing away the common folk in droves?

I think History reads that the warming periods were times of plenty, general happiness, and growth in the arts and sciences. It was in the cooling periods that we had epidemics, starvation, wild animal attacks, diseases, and large bitter cold storms, etc.

But the Global Warming convert stops his ears at History!! That was then, this is NOW...we must stop the new looming evil disaster now! The "Consensus" said so!!

I would ask, has the computer input data of the Hockey Stick Guesstimates to make it come out 'right', rather than reality, been taken care of, or are we still predicting the future from a stick and not from past reality and truth? Sounds kinda like witchcraft, predicting the future from a stick-shaped icon.

Two more items, and I'll be quiet a while.

First, we HAVE a way to set the global temperature already, and it is cheap. Both Nature and man's experiments have proven this in the real world!! Best experiments I can think of...full scale, natural world, decisive proof, etc.!!

Krakatoa, for example, showed us how in nature back at the end of the 1800s. Go look up the "Year without a summer," snow in the US farmlands in August, depressed temperatures for years, and funny that all the graphs shown in most GW dissertations start at 1900, and ignore the 1890's!!! Hmmm???

Any of you GW alarmists want to add that 10 or 20 years to your charts?? And add it onto your Hockey Stick?

Not so easy to wipe out the 1950's through the 70's...a dip in the curve, and then a sudden much faster rise, different slope entirely. Any ideas, any links between the two? Two historical big dips in the steady rises. Anybody interested in why and how, what was common, and if we could control the climate that same way?

Well, common factor is dust content of the atmosphere. Krakatoa blew enormous amounts of dust high into the stratosphere, and the dust reflected the heat back out into space. 1950 curve dated back to the war efforts, and the increase in manufacturing, with the belching smokestacks of The Gorey Movie. Those were emitting much dust, and that was reflecting the heat away before it could be trapped.

What comes to mind? I can see all the airplanes flying in the stratosphere...attach a few bags of some innocuous very fine dust to each commercial or military flight, to drop at altitude, and we do not have to launch satellites, or take everybody's cars away, or have huge new energy taxes. Just a strategic bit of dust, even out over the oceans, and we can set the temperature anywhere we want to! And the sunsets will be magnificent...artistic bonus, at no extra charge!!

And we can get out from under Gore's crooked thumb.

The fast rise after 1975 was when the Environmentalists had the atmosphere so freed of dust the heat could ALL make it down to the ground and really making Global Warming happen!! So it is all the Environmentalists' fault!!

And secondly, anybody here note that the astronomers have found, I hear, three asteroids that are on orbits that will intersect with the earth's, it appears, in 20-30 years.

What will it profit the GW converts, let alone Humanity in general, if they save the whole world and an asteroid hits us head on because we knew it was coming but put our money into GW rstrictions and not into learning how to deflect a huge hunk of rock aiming at us. So it can hit us smack in the middle of a perfect climate and a happy and wealthy "Consensus".

We also need to preserve our moon to keep the tides going to aerate the oceans so they support lots of life.

I submit I disagree with the "Consensus" that it is more important for them to make money and garner power now than it is for the whole world, even the underdeveloped nations, to be ready in a few years to start deflecting the asteroids that might otherwise hit us and stop all progress no matter what the Global Temperature is!!.

Just remember, to them Facts are Inconvenient, and they are making lot of money and getting lots of prestige and getting rid of competition and arguments now. Facts, or the slower march of real science, would get in the way of their wealth and prestige.

Like spoilt kids, they want ALL their cookies now, for them, no sharing, and don't even think about tummy aches later on!

Answer 10

the global warming and envirnmentalist wackos, have a hidden ajenda. They hate america, they are socialists who want america to be turned over to the control of the united nations, and surrender our sovernity as a country.
They are out to intentionally cause problems. Was it global warming that caused the fires in california, or was it in fact the envirnmentialist wackos. It was the wackos. They refuse to let the dead wood be taken out of the forest, so it just sits there drying out, and when a spark flies, it hits the dead wood that wasn't cleared out, and you have the worst fires in history.

The global warming croud and the envirnmentalists wont let us drill for oil, why?? Is it the cariboo that they wanna protect, or do they want america to not be able to provide for it's oil needs. they want us to depend on forign sources of oil, which hurts the american economy, and forces us to be dependant on terrorist organizations for our oil.

Everything the envirnmentalists do is calculated to hurt america. Hurt our economy, hurt our ability to defend ourselves, and to have the usa surrender it's sovernity to the un. All of those things are not good, if your a freedom loving american.
These people are guilty of treason. And someday when their movement gains strength, will have to be dealt with as the treasonous traiters that they are.