Anthony Watts reports at the Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union that temperature trends reported by 
NOAA are too high due to contamination of temperature stations by urbanization.
From the press release:
“Using NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network, which comprises 1218 weather stations in the CONUS, the researchers were able to identify a 410 station subset of “unperturbed” stations that have not been moved, had equipment changes, or changes in time of observations, and thus require no “adjustments” to their temperature record to account for these problems. The study focuses on finding trend differences between well sited and poorly sited weather stations, based on a WMO approved metric Leroy (2010)1 for classification and assessment of the quality of the measurements based on proximity to artificial heat sources and heat sinks which affect temperature measurement. An example is shown in Figure 2 below, showing the NOAA USHCN temperature sensor for Ardmore, OK.
Following up on a paper published by the authors in 2010, Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends2 which concluded:
Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends
…this new study is presented at AGU session A43G-0396 on Thursday Dec. 17th at 13:40PST and is titled Comparison of Temperature Trends Using an Unperturbed Subset of The U.S. Historical Climatology Network”
“Key findings:
1. Comprehensive and detailed evaluation of station metadata, on-site station photography, satellite and aerial imaging, street level Google Earth imagery, and curator interviews have yielded a well-distributed 410 station subset of the 1218 station USHCN network that is unperturbed by Time of Observation changes, station moves, or rating changes, and a complete or mostly complete 30-year dataset. It must be emphasized that the perturbed stations dropped from the USHCN set show significantly lower trends than those retained in the sample, both for well and poorly sited station sets.
2. Bias at the microsite level (the immediate environment of the sensor) in the unperturbed subset of USHCN stations has a significant effect on the mean temperature (Tmean) trend. Well sited stations show significantly less warming from 1979 – 2008. These differences are significant in Tmean, and most pronounced in the minimum temperature data (Tmin). (Figure 3 and Table 1)
3. Equipment bias (CRS v. MMTS stations) in the unperturbed subset of USHCN stations has a significant effect on the mean temperature (Tmean) trend when CRS stations are compared with MMTS stations. MMTS stations show significantly less warming than CRS stations from 1979 – 2008. (Table 1) These differences are significant in Tmean (even after upward adjustment for MMTS conversion) and most pronounced in the maximum temperature data (Tmax).
4. The 30-year Tmean temperature trend of unperturbed, well sited stations is significantly lower than the Tmean temperature trend of NOAA/NCDC official adjusted homogenized surface temperature record for all 1218 USHCN stations.
5. We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations.
6. The data suggests that the divergence between well and poorly sited stations is gradual, not a result of spurious step change due to poor metadata.
The study is authored by Anthony Watts and Evan Jones of surfacestations.org , John Nielsen-Gammon of Texas A&M , John R. Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville and represents years of work in studying the quality of the temperature measurement system of the United States.
Lead author Anthony Watts said of the study: “The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts. This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” He added: “We also see evidence of this same sort of siting problem around the world at many other official weather stations, suggesting that the same upward bias on trend also manifests itself in the global temperature record”.
The full AGU presentation can be downloaded here: https://goo.gl/7NcvT2
[1] Leroy, M. (2010): Siting Classification for Surface Observing Stations on Land, Climate, and Upper-air Observations JMA/WMO Workshop on Quality Management in Surface, Tokyo, Japan, 27-30 July 2010
[2] Fall et al. (2010) Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf
Nov 29, 2015 Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge!
Do you believe in the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? Want to help the IPCC with an embarrassing little statistical problem in their latest report? Want to win $100,000? Today James introduces you to Douglas J. Keenan’s $100,000 contest to identify trend-driven time series. Details are in the show notes. Good luck!
https://youtu.be/hKl2ksAERS0
Again, did the authors who did this analysis and refute this premise get paid?
Best.
D
You just need to start barking your thermodynamically stepped,
point by point religious belief
the frigid fluid self refrigerating atmospheric envelope that’s many degrees cooler than the objects immersed in it,
becomes a magical heater because because you’re too stupid to analyze what happens when more, and less light, get to a thermometer.
Hick. Tony and you belong to the SAME CHURCH.
HE BELIEVES in your CHURCH.
HE REGULARLY TELLS ME at his WEB SITE:
STOP DISCUSSING the LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS,
WE
DON’T
BELIEVE in THAT HERE.’
wE bulieve in GOOD old fashioned, Magic Gais! We just don’t believe balmy weather is HARMful.
Oh yeah: YOU and TONY are two drunks at the same bar, slumped over the same intellectual vomit you both spit onto your shirts when you drank too much authority worship tea.
Good for Anthony for presenting his findings at the American Geophysical Union’s fall meeting. I’m sure it will provoke some healthy discussion. Also of interest is this December 12/15 statement from the 60,000 member AGU, made in response to the recent COP 21 meeting in Paris:
“Today, we congratulate global leaders for taking a historic step to combat climate change by finalizing the Paris Agreement. AGU’s community of scientists called for action on climate change in 2003 and reiterated in 2013 that ‘human-induced climate change requires urgent action’. Today, the world’s /negotiators universally recognized that climate change and its effects are real and serious, and also that collective action can and will make a difference to lessen the most severe impacts on people’s lives and society at large”.
http://news.agu.org/press-release/international-scientific-society-responds-to-paris-agreement/
“that ‘human-induced climate change requires urgent action’.”
Mindless drivel from a small handful of AGU groupthink climate alarmist zealots, not the entire 60,000 member AGU.
In the last ~19 years, humans have added an unprecedented amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, 570 billion tons, which is 1/3 of the human CO2 which has been added to the atmosphere since 1750, and it has caused no increase in the mean temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere:
What you’re suggesting is that the 60,000 member American Geophysical Union produces “mindless drivel” and has been arrogated by “a small handful of AGU groupthink climate alarmist zealots”. You are welcome to submit your ridiculous assertions to the AGU Board and lodge a complaint. Or run for Board of Directors; you’ll need to become a member and be professionally engaged in the geophysical sciences and also abide by its code of ethics.
You don’t know any more about groupthink than you do about empirical science. So sad.
Yes, when you can increase the amount of anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere by 50% and it causes NO increase in global atmospheric temperature, then you know that you’ve found a variable that is insignificant in causing climate warming, and to delusionally and ignorantly claim that “urgent action” is required to limit anthropogenic CO2, that IS mindless drivel as well as utter stupidity.
The AGU’s climate change position statement was first adopted in December 2003, revised and reaffirmed in December 2007, again in February 2012 and further reiterated in August 2013. You don’t understand how position papers are developed and are out in the cold on AGW.
LOL. How long they have been groupthinkers is irrelevant Ian.
“and are out in the cold on AGW.”
No, Ian, I hold the accepted null climate hypothesis of natural climate variability, which has been shown to be true by the entire history of the planet, and is shown to be the position which is consistent with the real world empirical evidence.
You hold the CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 alternative climate hypothesis, which has never been validated by empirical science. Face reality, and stop being duped by the groupthink climate cult madness.
Instead of complaining to me, distill your ridiculous, unsubstantiated notions into an abstract and submit it to the 60,000-member American Geophysical Union’s next general meeting. Let us know how it goes.
http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/sessionproposals/#abstract
LOL
Notice how this hapless disinformer didn’t give the results of more recent AMS work.
Why are you so easily exposed?
Best,
D
Interesting that you cite the older 2009 survey of AMS weathercasters and omit the results of more recent surveys of the AMS.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
“Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence. The two groups least likely to be convinced of this were the nonpublishing scientists and nonpublishing meteorologists/ atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%, respectively”.
The AMS has a strong position statement on climate change:
https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/
Also interesting that the AMS itself had to sternly rebuke the Heartland Institute for its lack of integrity in reporting study results. Yes that’s the Heartland Institute– sponsor of the so-called “comprehensive” NIPCC climate change report — caught intentionally misrepresenting the results of this 2014 study.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
“A difference between the AMS and some organizations is the transparency and scientific integrity with which we operate.”
http://blog.ametsoc.org/columnists/going-to-the-source-for-accurate-information/
1) In the survey you reference only 52% of the respondents responded that global warming was mostly human-caused. Thanks for yet more evidence that the ‘97%’ talking point of your climate cult is pure rubbish propaganda.
2) The position paper by a few rabid alarmists is irrelevant and proves nothing. It was not approved or voted on by the entire membership.
3) The bloviating by the executive director was notable by its absence of pointing out any inaccuracies in the Heartland email on the AMS report. That’s because there were no inaccuracies in the Heartland email. The director exposed his own lack of integrity by not contacting Heartland directly, but just by whining and complaining that Heartland dared to accurately point out that only 52% answered that global warming was human-caused.
Heartland exposed that the AMS survey report lacked scientific integrity because it did not reveal the responses to the survey, only the ones which the authors could put the ‘spin’ they wanted. A sham report which exposed the lack of integrity of its authors.
This is all revealed in Heartland’s rebuttal of the AMS director’s whininig: https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/ams_survey_shows_no_consensus_on_global_warming.pdf
You have nothing Ian. You have been exposed as a dishontest misrepresenter who makes baseless, evidence-free allegations that you can’t back up here: http://www.cfact.org/2015/12/12/read-the-un-paris-climate-agreement-text-here/#comment-2418502447
and here: http://www.cfact.org/2015/12/12/read-the-un-paris-climate-agreement-text-here/#comment-2417954494
1) You were duped by James Taylor. What is wrong with you that you are so easily duped?
2) You were duped that this is a position paper. What is wrong with you that you are so easily duped?
3) there were no inaccuracies in the Heartland email. You are being purposely dishonest, since you read the author’s and Director’s statement. Why are you so transparently dishonest?
And why are you so inept at dishonesty? You’re one of the worst fibbers on this or any other board.
Best,
D
I don’t think ROO2 has been duped. Seems likely that he actually works for HI or one of its affiliates. Mandate is to mislead and misinform. And call people ridiculous names, a technique of propagandists. Good comedy though.
It’s a slightly different pattern for a disinformer, but I see where you are coming from.
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cfb60a6931189805701de6c01c1d5e1b4063a9ea9b4010c9627bc5455bbcadac.jpg
“I don’t think ROO2 has been duped”
You are correct, I haven’t been. I’ve just studied the science and there is no empirical evidence to show that the same natural climate variables which have been causing the climate to change for 4.5 billion years are no longer causing the climate to change. The last ~19 years during which humans have added 570,0000,000,000 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, which is over 1/3 of all the anthropogenic CO2 added since 1750 and it has caused no increase in the global atmospheric temperature shows that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate.
Natural climate variables still drive the climate. Here are some of those natural climate variables:
The Earth’s natural climate is incredibly complex. I think Prof. Philip Stott summarized it well when he stated: “As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by managing at the margins, one politically selected variable, CO2, is as misguided as it gets.”
With that in mind, natural climate forcing is anything that has not been empirically shown to be directly attributable to humans, and phenomenon which have some impact on climate and that have varied naturally in the past.
The primary ones are:
– Variations in solar activity, not just the direct TSI at the TOA, but also amplification mechanisms that are apparent in the data as found by Shaviv(2008) “We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variation is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism” – Shaviv(2008) ‘Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing’.
– Variability in solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth
– Variability in clouds
– Variability in water vapor
– Variability in ocean cycles, ENSO, El Nino, La Nina, AMO, PDO,
Other natural variables that impact the climate are:
– SOI variability (Southern Oscillation Index) , http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/southern-oscillation-soi
– MJO variability (Madden-Julian Oscillation) , https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/what-mjo-and-why-do-we-care
– AO variability (Arctic Oscillation) , http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/climate-ao.shtml
– AAO variability (Antarctic Oscillation) , http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index_mrf.shtml
– NAO variability (North Atlantic Oscillation) , https://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/NAO.html
– PNA variability (Pacific North American Pattern) , http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/pna.shtml
– NAM variability (Northern Annular Mode) , https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/hurrell-wintertime-slp-based-northern-annular-mode-nam-index
– IPO variability (Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation) , http://climatology.co.uk/interdecadal-pacific-oscillation#.VnxKClI8vTo
– IOD variability (Indian Ocean Dipole) , http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/IOD-what.shtml
– EPO variability (Eastern Pacific Oscillation) , http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/timeseries/daily/EPO/
– EP/NP teleconnection variability (Eastern Pacific/Northern Pacific) , http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/ep.shtml
– WPO variability (Western Pacific Oscillation) , http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/ep.shtml
– SAM variability (Southern Annular Mode) , http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/SAM-what.shtml
– SBNL variability (Stable Nocturnal Boundary Layer) , http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/pbl/ABLActivities.pdf
– AMOC variability (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) , http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/150290/
– MOC variability (Meridional Overturning Circulation) , http://people.oregonstate.edu/~schmita2/pdf/S/schmittner07agu_intro.pdf
– THC variability (Thermohaline Circulation) , http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/thc_fact_sheet.html
– Blocking variability , http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/block.shtml
– Ocean salinity variability , http://science1.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/physical-ocean/salinity/
– Heinrich events , http://sokocalo.engr.ucdavis.edu/~jeremic/ECI284/TermProjects/2003/NickolasRocco.pdf
– Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles , http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Dokken.ea.2013.merged.pdf
– Bond events , http://everything.explained.today/Bond_event/
– Solar wind density variability , http://utd500.utdallas.edu/sunandclimate.htm
– Solar wind velocity variability , https://books.google.com/books?id=okfCqYFfCdYC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=solar+wind+velocity+climate&source=bl&ots=cFfC7pBJVA&sig=fGLMb7EF9hb8iw7nbj23d-Qh8GE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz0KyRt_XJAhWGbSYKHblcCAYQ6AEIPjAF#v=onepage&q=solar%20wind%20velocity%20climate&f=false
– Solar proton event variability , https://books.google.com/books?id=ZhKTjpYCn-0C&pg=PA343&lpg=PA343&dq=solar+proton+events+climate&source=bl&ots=YoPYo3F2-N&sig=6bq48_2hB5YbkNNTMvFuC7m5-lQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit176_t_XJAhXI6iYKHXp0CeEQ6AEILTAC#v=onepage&q=solar%20proton%20events%20climate&f=false
– Solar magnetic field variability , http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/5/5.9.full
– Earth’s magnetic field variability , http://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-magnetic-field-important-climate.html
– CME variability (Coronal Mass Ejections) , http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/cmes.html
– EUV & FUV variability (Extreme Ultraviolet & Far Ultraviolet) , http://www8.nationalacademies.org/SSBSurvey/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=685&parm_type-HDS
– GEC variability (Earth’s Global Electric Circuit) , http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0506077
– water vapor natural variability , http://eu.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/egec/pdf/GB085-W.PDF
– Earth’s core natural variability , http://www.pnas.org/content/99/suppl_1/2546.full.pdf
– ITCZ variability (Intertropical Convergence Zone) , http://www.weatherwise.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2009/Nov-Dec%202009/full-Intertropical-Converge.html
– cosmic rays variability , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ (excellent documentary)
Then consider the interactions of all of those.
As Prof. Stott said, to think we can manage the climate by managing at the margins (annual human CO2 added to the atmosphere is only ~4% of the total CO2 added to the atmosphere) is as misguided as it gets.
And to claim that all of the above factors which have been varying throughout the 4.5 billion year history of the planet and causing the climate to change are now no longer causing the climate to change is patently absurd and a denial of reality caused by confirmation bias and ideological blindness. Which is why Lindzen & Happer call the groupthink CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 movement a cult religion, not science:
– “Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism] : Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT. Source: ( jpands. org/vol18no3/lindzen. pdf )
– “This is propaganda. This is really a religious cult. And it’s a complete falsehood to say that it’s science.” – Prof. William Happer, Physics Professor Emeritus, Princeton Univ. Source: ( youtube. com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko#t=48 )
And a Merry Christmas to you!
Lather, rinse, clown:
The last ~19 years …increase in the global atmospheric temperature shows that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate
Clowntastic.
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f722a34330eaffb0e9a467364ccc1fec3adf738a5602665fe9ec9ab36c6ed570.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8d5f5415b57b758aab82205a2e23df2d24e3b4f7cce43949db7b630b319d4535.png
Nope, you are comparing apples to oranges and referencing a
now out-of-date survey to purposefully mislead. Your outdated reference to the 52% refers to the opinions of a subset of the AMS membership some of whom had no background in climate science. It’s a survey of opinion not a survey of what the science says. The more current AMS survey 2014 results suggests that 93% of climate scientists who publish and responded to the survey are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. But of course you didn’t mention that…you and Heartland cherry picked the old because it more conveniently supports your ideology.
Seitter’s rebuke of Heartland for mischaracterizing his study results and Heartland’s misleading email was completely appropriate. As a co-author of the study Seitter was entirely qualified to make that assertion. Heartland Executive Director and misinforming tobacco lobbyist Joe Bast’s “rebuttal” is disingenuous and nothing more than damage control. The organization and its leadership have no credibility in climate science circles.
Blather, blather, blather.
You are spewing more male bovine excrement again.
You have been exposed as a dishonest peddler of your global warming cult religion who is simply NOT credible!
The irrefutable evidence of your dishonesty is found here: http://www.cfact.org/2015/12/12/read-the-un-paris-climate-agreement-text-here/#comment-2418502447
and here: http://www.cfact.org/2015/12/12/read-the-un-paris-climate-agreement-text-here/#comment-2417954494
Sidestepping questions with more name-calling. That’s all you seem to be able to do. A known technique of propagandists.
I’ve exposed the propaganda of the AMS survey. So sad that you can’t face reality.
‘The
irrefutable evidence of your dishonesty is found here:
http://www.cfact.org/2015/12/12/read-the-un-paris-climate-agreement-text-here/#comment-2418502447
and here: http://www.cfact.org/2015/12/12/read-the-un-paris-climate-agreement-text-here/#comment-2417954494
I see, now it’s propaganda. You first cherry-pick from it to mislead then once you’re exposed you reject it outright as propaganda. I see a pattern here. Unbelieveable.
Give it up. You have NO credibility. You have been caught out on your lies and misrepresentations and have not been able to support any of them with evidence.
The irrefutable evidence of your dishonesty is found here:
http://www.cfact.org/2015/12/12/read-the-un-paris-climate-agreement-text-here/#comment-2418502447
and here: http://www.cfact.org/2015/12/12/read-the-un-paris-climate-agreement-text-here/#comment-2417954494
Nope, another fabrication. But here’s some evidence: You cherry-pick a statistic in an out-of-date AMS survey to support your ideological views. Once exposed, you reject the survey outright as propaganda and lash out calling people names. Yep, one of the worst fibbers on this or any other board. Unbelievable.
“The position paper by a few rabid alarmists is irrelevant and proves nothing. It was not approved or voted on by the entire membership.”
You clearly don’t understand the position paper process used by the AMS and other professional organizations. You don’t like the position because it doesn’t fit with your ideology.
LOL @ your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation!
You have been exposed as a dishonest peddler of your global warming cult religion who is simply NOT credible!
The irrefutable evidence of your dishonesty is found here: http://www.cfact.org/2015/12/12/read-the-un-paris-climate-agreement-text-here/#comment-2418502447
and here: http://www.cfact.org/2015/12/12/read-the-un-paris-climate-agreement-text-here/#comment-2417954494
Clowntastic: the accepted null climate hypothesis of natural climate variability
*snicker*
You’re a hoot!
best,
D
Dishonest disinformer dissembles. Again.
We know this dishonesty is on purpose. Munchhausen Syndrome?
Best,
D
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f722a34330eaffb0e9a467364ccc1fec3adf738a5602665fe9ec9ab36c6ed570.png
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8d5f5415b57b758aab82205a2e23df2d24e3b4f7cce43949db7b630b319d4535.png
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/182c7c526aab159d16be77294b67de0813033c7f42a312f61fa2693ecdfa3fef.png
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Did anyone actually attend his session?
Best,
D
My understanding is that the presentation was a poster that was submitted to the conference poster session. At AGU sessions there are typically thousands of posters — posters are an effective vehicle for sharing research highlights and connecting one on one with other authors.
Right – a poster, no paper published (like that German guy CFACT liked so much), the favorite stations showing a current warming of 2C/century.
Best,
D
Study: NOAA’s U.S. temperature data too warm
Not a study.
Best,
D
LOL it’s not peer-reviewed…… Just like the paper Watts wrote a few years back on UHI in response to the BEST study and promised to get peer-reviewed but never did. So why didn’t he get it peer-reviewed? Because his UHI paper was a joke.
One Third of literature used by the IPCC is not peer reviewed. But in any case when peer review only means that a bunch of your buddies say it’s ok there isn’t much significance to it any how is there? When it is used to keep out alternative hypotheses that can’t be good can it? Climategate emails reveal that warmist scientists conspired to do just that by preventing them from being published in major scientific journals.
You cannot show 1/3 is not peer-reviewed. You made that up.
Best,
D
The former chairman of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri said this—“We carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer reviewed literature, so everything we look at and take account of has to carry the credibility of peer reviewed publications. We don’t settle for anything less than that”. It turns out that this is not the case. A citizens audit co-ordinated by Donna Laframboise found that nearly one third of the references in the IPCC’s 2007 report cite non peer reviewed sources.————So at this point at least we can agree that I did not “make that up”.———-The Inter Academy Council Committee that investigated the IPCC had this to say in their section on Sources of Data and Literature. —–“An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the 3rd assessment report found that peer reviewed journal articles comprised 84% of refernces in Working group one, but comprised only 59% of references in working group two and only 36% of references in working group three. Infact information that is relevant and appropriate for inclusion in IPCC assessments often appears in the so called “gray literature”. ——————-They then go on to state that “The extent to which such information has been peer reviewed varies a great deal ,as does it’s quality.” ——– This “gray literature” often comes from activist sources like WWF Greenpeace ,newspaper and magazine articles etc etc, and you may or may not recall the controversy over Himalayan glaciers which the IPCC copied from a piece in a magazine by someone who later admitted he knew nothing about science or indeed glaciers.——So if anyone was making things up it was the Chairman of the IPCC and not me.
Best
Ag
A citizens audit co-ordinated by Donna Laframboise comedy aside, I can find no such notation in the IAC report, so
[citation needed]
Best,
D
You can’t find it? How convenient. How did I manage to find it in a about one minute? ——-You don’t have a long neck and feathers do you? Are you an Ostrich?—————–Since you are an Ostrich take your head out of the sand and type this into your browser or can’t you find your browser either?——-http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter2-Evaluation off IPCC’s processes.pdf.
It seems the Telegraph won’t print the whole link because of some rules or other they might have but all you have to do is type “Evaluation of the IPCC’s processes” into your search engine and lo and behold the very first entry is the very document I mentioned above. Simply scroll down to the part titled “sources of data and literature”. I take it even an Ostrich like you will be competent enough to navigate this.
Got it, thank you.
Best,
D
Your very welcome. We are now in full agreement that when you said —-“You cannot show 1/3 is not peer-reviewed. You made that up.” , you were indeed wrong.—-Don’t worry though being wrong is not so bad. I remember even I was wrong once. …….best Ag
We are now in full agreement that when you said —-“You cannot show 1/3 is not peer-reviewed. You made that up.” , you were indeed wrong.-
Hardly. You still haven’t shown it.
Your assertion was One Third of literature used by the IPCC is not peer reviewed. You showed that in the TAR, one WG used 84%, another WG used 59% and another used 36%.
Not even close to 1/3, unless you are trying to tell us that the weighted average is tilted because WGIII used so many more references than the other two.
Do you have something else, maybe, that backs your claim? Or did you make it up?
Best,
D
I can’t show that 33% is the correct number for every point in time no, as this figure will no doubt vary over time. But you can hardly claim that I made anything up. I gave you the information you asked for which contradicts the claim by the IPCC that they only use peer reviewed literature.. Clearly they don’t just use peer reviewed literature in their assessments. All you are doing is squirming by insisting that my numbers are bang on the money. I don’t suppose you squirm in the same fashion when numbers like “97% of all scientists ” or “we are 95% certain” are used do you?
You claimed 1/3. You were incorrect, thanks!
Best,
D
The IPCC don’t just use peer reviewed literature in their assessments so I was correct. To claim that you are correct is akin to saying the Yorkshire ripper wasn’t a murderer because I didn’t get the amount of people he murdered correct. ——–This ofcourse reveals you to be nothing but a squirming eco fundamentalist defending his faith in his predetermined junk science
Thanks so much – one WG used 36% – which is in the social science and political sciences so no surprise.
Everyone can see your assertion was incorrect, thanks.
Best,
D
The IPCC claimed they only use peer reviewed literature. I said they don’t. I t turns out they don’t. I was correct. You confirmed that yourself above “—one working group used 36%” . To continue arguing would indicate you are a moron. —-Are you a moron?
Don’t lash out me cuz I pointed out your error.
Best,
D
The error was in the exact figures not in the basic facts. All you did was try to make capital out of that. If I said black you would say white purely for ideological reasons. So your an imposter just like(realoldone) warned me. A troll I think is the term———–Bye bye troll
You can’t hide the fact you made an untrue statement upthread. Everyone can see it.
Best,
D
I have admitted that the numbers are not exact. It is a moving target. Your reasoning isn’t really reasoning at all, it’s just pantomime. According to your silly type of argument I can’t call Jack the Ripper a murderer unless I state exactly how many people he killed. He is a murder as long as he killed people. The IPCC don’t only use peer reviewed literature in their assessments. They lied..—-By how much they lied is irrelevant
You were refuted. Man up and admit it, then let it go.
Best,
D
Like I said Dano is a scientifically illiterate troll. Best to not feed him.
The audit of IPCC’s AR4 report shows that 5,587 of the 18.531 references were NOT from peer reviewed literature, http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/17/citizen-audit-anniversary/ , totally exposing the dishonest climate of the IPCC chairman that they were ALL from peer reviewed literature. That works out to be over 30% NON-peer reviewed, very close to your 1/3 figure. Closer to 1/3 than 1/4. By using ~1/3 you can avoid the spurious, obfuscation nit picking by ignorant climate cult trolls like Dano2.
Says the always-wrong disinformer linking to a disinformation site for support.
Best,
D
Yes I don’t make these comments though to convince the eco fascists. It is important to not let the eco fascist have the stage all to themselves though, like what happens on most of the main stream media, where the usual assortment of political activists masquerading as planet savers like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF etc are given a platform by the BBC ,Sky News and the rest all to themselves to preach their settled junk science. But as we all know no science is ever settled. Anyone who claims it is, is an imposter.
No need to entertain us with your harrumphin. All you have to do is point out where the passage is per my request; I realize there is no distracting away from Donna Laframboise though.
I have the chapters now, thank you. I backed off the URL extensions until I got to the main page, then found Ch 2. Thank you.
Best,
D
I’d suggest ignoring Dano2. He’s a dishonest, reality-denying, scientifically illiterate climate cult zealot troll who plays silly games and just tells lies. I don’t feed trolls like him.
His either dishonesty or incompetence is found in his denial of your IAC quote, which is easily found on p.16 of the report: http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Climate%20Change%20Assessments,%20Review%20of%20the%20Processes%20&%20Procedures%20of%20the%20IPCC.pdf
The IPCC reports are biased, alarmist propaganda based on activists an the flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models which can’t accurately project future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level. “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections, even at the 2% confidence level.” – vonStorch(2013)
Says the disinformer who can’t even cite properly (likely for our entertainment).
Best,
D
Here’s an example of how the land/ocean automated computer algorithms that “homogenize” temperature data corrupts the actual measured temperatures, and fabricates false pseudo-data.
Shown below are the simultaneous measured temps throughout Oklahoma. Note that the actual measured temp for Seiling, OK was 7F. Surrounding temps at just 20 miles away such as Putnam the temp was 20F. The automated “homogenization” routines would wrongly recognize the Seiling temperature as an erroneous ‘outlier’ and smear the warmer ~20-30F temperatures to replace the actual correct measured value of 7F. These automated algorithms falsely assume temperatures are uniform over large areas. They ignore the real world phenomenon of fronts and pockets of different temperature. They corrupt the real measured temperatures and replace them with fabricated made up values.
You are unable to show your description is how the algorithms actually work.
You made that up.
Best,
D