16 years

Global warming stopped [insert random number of years] ago is probably the most common and mainstream of all the climate denier arguments out there.  It is shallow and wrong and there are many refutations of it out there.  I think this video from Skeptical Science is about as clear and straightforward as it gets.

If someone watches that and still thinks the argument holds water, then they can not be reached with reason.

If attribution arguments are too complicated, there is always this excellent graphic:

(click to enlarge)

207 thoughts on “16 years

  1. Marco, thank you for disclosing some information on your professional background. Impressive! I have no reason at all to doubt whar are were saying.

    With me it’s similar. I worked for nearly 13 years in two different universities as scientist and lecturer, produced every year with my peers or alone approx. 1 to 4 original articles per year, and also guided a number a students to their doctorates as supervisor. the second part of my scientific career took place in the industry where I was part of the global research unit of a world-wide acting company (not in the oil industry). I have no connections to the Heartland Institute and also not to WUWT.

    Your assumption was wrong that I were not aware of v2 or v3 versions of the GHCN database, as I am downloading from time to time new versions of the whole GHCN dataset from the ftp site of NOAA of import all data in MS SQL Server databases to do data evaluations. Of course do I read all change informations from version to version by the homgenization team at NOAA (Menne, Williams et al.) and their original articles on data homogenization (2005, 2007, 2009, etc.) are very familiar to me. Same story with the GIStemp database and all relevant documentation which I download and evaluate also from time to time.

    Therefore your assumption that I am devoid of any information is totally wrong. By contrast, I am tempted to maintain here, that I dispose by far of the broadest data basis and knowledge about global temperature data coverage compared to anybody else on this blog.

    Like

  2. Marco #148, no you are wrong, it’s not as easy as you assume. If you carefully examine the data I have posted above you can recognize that the difference of GISS data 2010 for the years 1881 to 1889 to GISS data 2012 is minus 2.5degC. You will not find this difference in the GHCN versions before and after any homigenizations. So your conclusion is wrong. The truth is that did something extra to the data which is not documented and reproducible. That’s what I am talking about! As a professor you should do your enquiries more diligently and not so lala in a matter of a few minutes.

    Like

  3. Wow, utterly primitive, as always, you are THE shame of this blog and coby cannot be proud to have such a uncivilized person on board. Please abstain from addressing me in the future as your contributions don’t contain any substance, just repeat my words and are only primitive ad hominem attacks on me.

    Like

  4. Of course do I read all change informations from version to version by the homgenization team at NOAA (Menne, Williams et al.) and their original articles on data homogenization (2005, 2007, 2009, etc.) are very familiar to me.

    Except it wasn’t. Remember this?

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2013/01/16-years/#comment-21596

    “Therefore your assumption that I am devoid of any information is totally wrong.”

    Nope, it was totally on the button.

    Like

  5. Freddie, utterly primitive, as always, you are THE shame of this blog and coby cannot be proud to have such a uncivilized person on board. Please abstain from addressing me in the future as your contributions don’t contain any substance, just repeat my words and are only primitive ad hominem attacks on everyone on this thread who DARES disagree with you.

    Like

  6. “If you carefully examine the data I have posted above you can recognize that the difference of GISS data 2010 for the years 1881 to 1889 to GISS data 2012 is minus 2.5degC.”

    If you carefully do the science, you’ll realise

    a) that is complete nonsense

    b) that the words are all confused

    c) not supported by the data

    d) are not proof of malfeasance

    e) show you are incompetent

    Like

  7. “sorry I will miss the coming retraction and apology.”

    Only because you’re not immortal, coby. Freddie will DIE before he gives up one whit of his cries of persecution and fraud.

    Like

  8. Freddy, you have suddenly altered your complaint. You said, and I quote:

    “After GISS has changed the Palma de Mallorca data in the 2012 download you can see in a plot you can easily do that now the graph shows a cooling trend of approx. 1degC, so the net difference between the two series is a change of approx 2degC. So GISS changed the station data in a way which makes look the past of Palma cooler than it was in the 2010 dataset, hence a contribution to a greater warming trend for the annual temperature calculation.”

    It is difficult to read this in any other way than that you assigned the WHOLE change in the dataset to some nefarious actions by GISS in order to get a warming trend. Now you have suddenly changed it to the data in the beginning only.

    But that clearly is not true. Well, it’s fair enough to state that GISS also includes a further change of the data compared to the GHCN data, but it would be false to say that it made those further changes without documentation (you can run GISTEMP itself, which contains all the steps it performs, so you can see where the changes occur). What would be even more false is to claim the changes are there to inflate the warming.

    You see, I did the analysis on the GISTEMP data you provided, and the 2012 data shows a trend of 0.71 degrees per century. Now let’s take a look at that GHCNv3 with the quality controlled adjusted data. It’s a little bit tricky because of the extra data before 1880, but since that is above the trendline, we can safely say that trendline is an underestimate of the trend from 1880 onwards. Here it comes: that trend is higher than that of GISTEMP. Much higher. As in close to TWICE as high, or about 1.3 degrees per century. That is, the further changes of GISTEMP compared to GHCNv3 DECREASE the trend. Which is rather contradictory to part of your claim of GISS fraudulently changing data to inflate the trend.

    Of course, you may still disagree with the data, but you have failed to show:

    a) that those changes were made without documentation (again, the various changes have been described, and the homogenisation procedure is also described. Obviously, when station data changes, including that of surrounding stations, the homogenisation procedure will give different results)

    b) that those changes are fraudulent (a change for which you cannot find the reasons, and even *if* undocumented, does NOT by definition make it fraudulent)

    c) that those changes are made to inflate the trend. In fact, here I have shown that if GISTEMP had wanted to inflate the trend of Palma de Mallorca, they shouldn’t have done any homogenisation, but just use the quality controlled adjusted data from GHCNv3. Much higher trend!

    Like

  9. If the research team actually existed in real life, I would despair for them if their efforts managed as big a failure as that fred has demonstrated here.

    If it were merely a hobby, or someone else’s statements they were repeating (which is actually the case: that team is a fiction, just like the complaints of freddy here), then to have so badly failed at their entire reason for being paid is rather soul destroying, isn’t it.

    Like

  10. Wow, Freddy is likely one of the EIKE people, of that I am quite sure. They have been going on and on and on about supposed data fraud in GISS, proving it by…errrr…errr…showing that the data was different in 2010 versus 2012.

    “FRAUD! FRAUD! CAN’T YOU SEE?!

    What? There may be reasons to perform adjustments? Well, maybe, but as long as we don’t understand them, it’s fraud. There!”

    Like

  11. Coby: “Marco has convincingly shown (here is the link again: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/64308306000.gif)”

    No, he has not, since the graphs in the linked image show a comparison of quality-adjusted vs. non-adjusted temperature values from Palma de Mallorca from the current version of the GHCNv3 database as downloaded from the NOAA webpage. By contrast, I was talking about T differences between Q-adjusted data 2010 vs. those from 2012 from the GISS webpages. A completely dfferent stuff.

    Why can’t you understand this difference (same question to Marco).

    You should learn to improve the precision of your arguments. It’s difficult to discuss with people who compare bananas with fishes.

    Like

  12. Wow, Freddy is likely one of the EIKE people, of that I am quite sure

    Ah, right, they’re not paid to investigate what the facts are, they’re paid to rake mud.

    They’re doing that.

    Just very very badly.

    And fred here is the best they can get for a front-man???

    Like

  13. Coby: “Marco has convincingly shown (here is the link again: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/64308306000.gif)”

    No, he has not

    Yes, he has.

    Why can’t you understand this difference (same question to Marco).

    It is understood.

    What is not understood is how this is malfeasance or fraud.

    You should learn to improve the precision of your arguments. It’s difficult to discuss with people who compare bananas with fishes.

    Like

  14. “Well, maybe, but as long as we don’t understand them, it’s fraud. There!”

    And there is why fraudulent freddy here refuses to read anything or see anything in the evidence given him: it’s his job to not understand.

    As long as he doesn’t understand, it’s “fraud”.

    Like

  15. wow, excellent argumenation from you as learned from AGW church argumentation schools: I grant you the mark “excellent”: maximum partizanship, maximum hostility, maximum incivility, maximum distance to substance on case, maximum self-complacency with oneself and the AGW church. Well done. Al Gore will reward you with profits from sold CO2 certificates. Your isolated mental world seems okay. Congratulations again!

    A little bit about YOUR background, as you are the only one here who is afraid of disclosing a little bit about himself?

    Like

  16. learned from AGW church

    Unlike the church of denialism, we learn facts and use them to inform ourselves. This doesn’t work for denial.

    Well done. Al Gore will reward you with profits from sold CO2 certificates.

    Yup, denier trope #1.

    Sad.

    Like

  17. Freddy, how can we be sure you downloaded the “Q-adjusted” data from Palma de Mallorca in 2010? From my analysis, the 2010 data look suspiciously much like the quality-*un*adjusted data of the GHCNv3.

    Also, it is obvious for anyone that the change from v2 to v3, and the inclusion of quality-adjusted data in GHCNv3 into GISTEMP will have an impact on the station data if that quality adjusted data is significantly different from the original data. You can even check what happens with the two different data sets by simply downloading and running the GISTEMP code. If that’s too much, I already pointed you to clearclimatecode.org, which has a ‘simpler’ version of the GISTEMP code (old code to which stuff is added tends to become cluttered).

    Also, you have disastrously failed to substantiate your claims of data fraud. All you have documented is that because you do not really understand where the changes come from, you decide to claim fraud.

    And then you decide to scold wow for incivility?? You’ve got some nerve, Freddy!

    Like

  18. No, I don’t get paid. But you don’t believe me anyway, since you think I am a crook from the oil industry. So yeah, you are right as always. You have got me, I am the idiot from Heartland

    Like

  19. wow, yes you are right on all accounts.

    sorry to have bothered and disappointed you. yes, I am a benefits scrounger and have taken too many hallucinogens today. will try to improve everything tomorrow.

    Like

  20. “This is pure incivility by you. Why should I take you seriously when you start behaving in an uncivilized way like Wow?

    I don’t give a flying fuck whether you think I am uncivilised or not. But I would rather be uncivilised than act in a thoroughly unprofessional and unethical way as you are doing.

    You have made claims of fraud – with no evidence.

    You have stated without evidence that there was data manipulation by one organisation, and therefore concluded that there is no global warming, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    You have stated that something occurred secretly, despite the information being made freely available on a public website.

    You claimed to represent a ‘research organisation’, when no such organisation exists.

    You claim to be a professional scientist – but refuse to disclose your qualifications, continue to misrepresent science and act in an unscientific manner, and make basic mistakes in subjects like statistics that no-one with an undergraduate degree in science would make.

    You ask for evidence of a claim of early spring, but when shown the evidence you refuse to read it.

    You demand peer reviewed science as evidence for our claims, but fail to produce any for yours.

    You claim that you are going to expose NASA for fraud – but all you are doing is big noting yourself in an attempt to impress the gullible.

    And finally, there is this post to wow at #167:

    “…wow, excellent argumenation from you as learned from AGW church argumentation schools: I grant you the mark “excellent”: maximum partizanship, maximum hostility, maximum incivility, maximum distance to substance on case, maximum self-complacency with oneself and the AGW church. Well done. Al Gore will reward you with profits from sold CO2 certificates. Your isolated mental world seems okay. Congratulations again!…”

    Thanks Freddy. As soon as people like you start talking about AGW churches and Al Gore, then we know without any doubt what they really are. You are not a scientist, and any claims to the contrary are obviously a lie. You may have studied for an undergraduate degree in science, but you are no scientist.

    You are just a sad troll living in your mother’s basement. You have a spreadsheet, and have plugged in some numbers from a couple of met stations, down some basic linear regressions, and think that your findings overturn years of work by real scientists. You haven’t. You should meet a former troll at this site known as Dick Wakefield – you share similar delusions.

    Like

  21. mandas, congrats also to you. You are completely right, and I apologize to have disappointed you.

    However, our team has meanwhile investigated over 100 T series from GISS with all the clandestine data manipulations which I have presented to you for the case of Palma de Mallorca. I will update you on the results. We compile now a report which will be submitted to critical and objective addresses (unlike you in your partizanhip) and also to the offices of a US congressmen to which we have excellent contacts (e.g. Rep. Joe Barton, Rep. Steve Scalisle, Louisiana, Rep. Michael Burgess, Texas, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee, Rep. Newt Gingrich, etc.)

    Like

  22. mandas, your argument is again false: reproaching somebody of not agreeing to AGW consensus topics does somebody not disqualify to be a scientist. There are thousands of scientists who do not believe in AGW climatology assertions and are nevertheless scientists, of course.

    BTW, I define a scientist a person who works as scientist to make money for a living. By this definition you are no scientist, according to the information you have given here, since you are a manager.

    Like

  23. our team has meanwhile investigated over 100 T series from GISS with all the clandestine data manipulations

    Which weren’t clandestine.

    And you didn’t even notice that the dataset you got was the raw data.

    “your team” is incompetent. But you’re in the lead on that, fraudulent freddie.

    Like

  24. mandas, why are you ALWAYS wrong and don’t appear able to read. You maintain that I have refused to read literature about the early spring stuff from coby. You are a liar and have committed injustice because I have started reading the literature and given already feedback on one of the studies. what drives you so to lie? Is this a major part of your character?

    Regarding the GISS data fraud you have never given feedback on the unexplainable differences which I have documented between the 2010 and 2012 values of a single station. IT CANNOT BE THAT THE TRENDLINE FOR ONE STATION CHANGES BY 2DEGREES CELSIUS TOWARDS WARMING FOR TEMPERATURE RECORDS MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO. HOW BLINDED MUST ONE BE TO OVERLOOK THAT THIS IS INTENTIONAL BETRAYAL ON SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY. WE WILL STRIVE FOR JURIDICAL PROSECUTION OF SUCH UNBELIEVABLE DATA FRAUD.

    Like

  25. wow, NO RAW DATA, you polemic warming partizan. that’s what does not go into your brain. you cannot check the nature of any data since you are totally uncapable to deal with computerized data, have no clue on data homogenization and no skills regarding scientific work. you repeat only what others tell you. in addition you are highly uncivilized and plainly hostile to somebody who wants to provide the objective truth to you.

    Like

  26. “NO RAW DATA,”

    Yes, that’s what you thought you had.

    But you’re such a colossal incompetent you didn’t and still don’t know it.

    You just don’t want to know, hence it’s completely irrelevant what you say.

    Go somewhere where they care what the terminally insane say.

    Here?

    Nobody gives a shit about your paranoia.

    Like

  27. @Richard Simons

    I have answered your question in #47 and now it’s your turn to answer my questions, as you promised. Why do you hide away?

    Like

  28. Wow, am I here on a psychiatric ward. I have listed downloaded qc data from you beloved GISS and maintain that they are RAW DATA? Are you really intellectually reduced? Please download the data yourself from GISS, analyse the data and then publicly admit here that you are a big idiot. Are you completely able to download station data from GISS the way I have now x times explained to you and do the same analysis OR are you uncapable of everything except expressing nasty phrases?

    Like

  29. Complete system breakdown at GISS since days:

    The error message says:

    “— Please Note —

    Due to technical problems with the GISS webserver, much of our site content is currently not available.

    No interactive content, such as creating scientific plots using web forms, is currently enabled.

    Hence since days it is completely impossible to download a major part of GISS temperature data. I therefore strongly assume that GISS is aware that data fraud has been detected and Hansen and his employees are aware that manipulations have been detected and they now try to escape somehow the compromising situation. For god’s sake have we downloaded all manipulated temperature already some time ago and will be able again to examine what GISS will have changed this time without any announcements towards a mythical warmer world which pleases so the environmentalists and Al Gore.

    Like

  30. Freddy, I already showed you that the quality controlled adjusted data from GHCNv3 for Palma de Mallorca has a trend that is MUCH LARGER than the trend for the same station in GISTEMP. As in TWICE as high. The trend in the quality-unadjusted data is about the same.

    What you are thus accusing GISS of is the deliberate data manipulation to REDUCE the trend!

    Are you sure you want to go there? Now, Barton will take anything that fits his ideology, but even he will be careful in accusing an organisation of fraud when the facts show that those who make the accusations do not have any evidence of fraud. All they have is evidence they do not understand what has happened, which is more likely to be due to incompetence (or even more like, due to ideological blindness) than due to any nefarious data handling by GISS.

    I look forward to you guys submitting your report, but I look forward even more to the epic slapdown you will get.

    Like

  31. Marco, yes we want to go there, because we feel to be on save grounds with our allegations. And, you are wrong with your conclusion that GISS has reduced the warmng trend.

    Question A to you:

    Have you been able to verify that the series of annual mean temperature values of quality-adjusted data from 1881 to 2010 for the station 64308306000 (Palma de Mallorca) as downloaded from the GISTemp database in March 2010 (left column values in post #96 here) is correct?

    Question B to you:

    Have you been able to verify that the series of annual mean temperature values of quality-adjusted data from 1881 to 2010 for the station 64308306000 (Palma de Mallorca) as downloaded from the GISTemp database in March 2012 (right column values in post #96 here) is correct?

    Question C to you:

    In case you confirm the validity of the data as asked for in question A and B, would you kindly be willing to plot the 2010 data series from #96 and add a trendline, and do the same with the 2012 series with a trendline, and draw a conclusion on the differences of the two trendlines achieved?

    I would be curious to know whether you would then insist that GISS has reduced the warming trend as compared to the GHCN values, as you have maintained in your previous post.

    Like

  32. Freddy, I can answer yes to questions A and B. As to question C, -0.7 vs +0.7 per century (approximately).

    Having done that, I still insist that GISS has *reduced* the warming trend as compared to the GHCN values. I recommend you once again look at the quality controlled adjusted data in the GHCNv3 database and determine its trend. You don’t need the ‘raw’ data, it can be done by eye. It’s about +1.3 degrees per century. I therefore maintain that the GHCNv3 database has a warming trend for Palma de Mallorca (in the quality controlled adjusted data) that is TWICE that of the warming trend in the GISTEMP data you provide.

    I also really look forward to your report. You think you are on solid ground, but so far everything you have shown here shows that you do not have the ability to properly digest scientific information. I can only hope the other members of your “team” have a slightly more functional brain and realize that you need a little bit more than “A =/B, therefore fraud”. Especially when the one data set you keep on using as THE example actually shows that the warming trend for that station in GISTEMP is lower than that of the input data…

    Like

  33. Are you sure you want to go there? Now, Barton will take anything that fits his ideology, but even he will be careful in accusing an organisation of fraud when the facts show that those who make the accusations do not have any evidence of fraud.

    Let the frothing little retard do it.

    Fred, why the hell should we care what you think?

    Go ahead and go to court and accuse NASA of fraud.

    This isn’t the place to make your accusations. Because we’ll require that you provide your proofs.

    Like

  34. Are you really intellectually reduced?

    Every time I read one of your raving posts I feel intellectually reduced by the drag of such insane comments.

    NOBODY CARES.

    And this isn’t the place to make your accusations either.

    Go and take NASA to court.

    This isn’t a court.

    Go away and do something.

    Like

  35. Hey guys here, whatever the truth is on the case presented here, you don’t appear to bother whether temperature data have been “upgraded” towards warming by 2degC in a specific example, regardloss by whom, your main thing is that temperatures go up by whatever reason. You don’t care about the reason. Artificially changed temperatures into the desired direction, that is what makes you so proud of your wisdom.

    Like

  36. whatever the truth is on the case presented here, you don’t appear to bother whether temperature data have been “upgraded”

    You don’t seem to know what true or false means, fred.

    What makes you say that we don’t care IF IT HAD BEEN?

    You haven’t shown the case.

    Therefore we don’t care ABOUT A FALSE CLAIM.

    Your complaints mean nothing. If you DID manage to find proof, why the hell are you bringing it here? WE can’t do anything about it.

    So you’re wasting your time, our time and society’s time.

    The fact that you are here instead of making a claim to a court indicates that you KNOW you have nothing, else you’d be pursuing this case.

    Or that you don’t care if temperature data has been “upgraded” to warming.

    Like

  37. Your problem is also that you don’t know what “increasing” means.

    Since the trend was REDUCED, it is a solid stone-cold FACT that you don’t care about evidence, only the claim.

    Like

  38. Freddy, since you claim to know the relevant literature, you should also know that the raw data needs to be corrected for a variety of factors. That these changes are sometimes significant should not surprise anyone.

    Of course, you do *know* that, but based on your prior comments (such as on the CO2 increase in the atmosphere and your inability to even acknowledge that the trend in the GHCNv3 data is *larger* than that in GISTEMP for Palma de Mallorca) it is obvious you have ideological problems accepting this.

    This is quite different from me: I have no problem accepting scientific information, even if I do not *like* that information. In my opinion it would be great if adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere had little to no impact on anything. Unfortunately, science shows it does.

    You guys are exactly like the evolution deniers, afraid of what it means to you if you accept the theory of evolution as the best available scientific explanation as to how life has evolved on earth.

    Like

  39. Unbelievable, the GISS download server for station data is still out of function.

    Error message:

    — Please Note —

    Due to technical problems with the GISS webserver, no interactive content, such as creating scientific plots using web forms or searching the publications database, is currently enabled.

    ———-

    Very strange! Fixing a web server or a database is normally easy stuff. What’s going on at GISS?

    Like

  40. Freddy, don’t act like you suddenly are just an honest concerned citizen. You already linked it to your claims of fraud.

    Perhaps you realized you could not sustain that claim either? After all, EIKE has been trying to create noise about the 2010-2012 difference since early last year!

    Also, why not send an e-mail to Reto Ruedy, if you really ARE so concerned? Reto doesn’t mind answering e-mails with honest requests for information.

    Like

  41. Marco, please don’t waste genuine people’s time.

    If fraudulent freddy here knows he has a case, then he should bring it to the courts.

    Let him waste the time of people who can do something about it.

    Like

  42. Why not? He’d pastebomb the poor man and then whine and complain (and insist he’s part of the conspiracy against him) because he won’t immediately agree with him.

    Much better, he should go to a courthouse and talk with a judge and get this into court.

    Because when he wastes the courts time, he’s going to have to pay or be incarcerated. Probably to a loony-bin. Poor inmates…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s