Wednesday, June 01, 2011

Don Boudreaux Channels Julian Simon in the Wall Street Journal With a New Bet for the Doomsayers

Don Boudreaux's masterfully continues the Julian Simon tradition in this WSJ article "More Weather Deaths? Wanna Bet?":

"Writing recently in the Washington Post, environmental guru Bill McKibben asserted that the number and severity of recent weather events, such as the tornado in Joplin, Mo., are too great not to be the result of fossil-fuel induced climate change. He suggested that government's failure to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will result in more violent weather and weather-related deaths in the future. And pointing to the tragedy in Joplin, Mr. McKibben summarily dismissed the idea that, if climate change really is occurring, human beings can successfully adapt to it.

There's one problem with this global-warming chicken little-ism. It has little to do with reality. National Weather Service data on weather-related fatalities since 1940 show that the risks of Americans being killed by violent weather have fallen significantly over the past 70 years.

The annual number of deaths caused by tornadoes, floods and hurricanes, of course, varies. For example, the number of persons killed by these weather events in 1972 was 703 while the number killed in 1988 was 72. But amid this variance is a clear trend: The number of weather-related fatalities, especially since 1980, has dropped dramatically (see chart above, data here).

For the 30-year span of 1980-2009, the average annual number of Americans killed by tornadoes, floods and hurricanes was 194—fully one-third fewer deaths each year than during the 1940-1979 period. The average annual number of deaths for the years 1980-2009 falls even further, to 160 from 194, if we exclude the deaths attributed to Hurricane Katrina, most of which were caused by a levee that breached on the day after the storm struck land.

This decline in the absolute number of deaths caused by tornadoes, floods and hurricanes is even more impressive considering that the population of the United States more than doubled over these years—to 308 million in 2010 from 132 million in 1940 (see bottom chart above).

Here's the Boudreaux Bet: So confident am I that the number of deaths from violent storms will continue to decline that I challenge Mr. McKibben—or Al Gore, Paul Krugman, or any other climate-change doomsayer—to put his wealth where his words are. I'll bet $10,000 that the average annual number of Americans killed by tornadoes, floods and hurricanes will fall over the next 20 years. Specifically, I'll bet that the average annual number of Americans killed by these violent weather events from 2011 through 2030 will be lower than it was from 1991 through 2010.

If environmentalists really are convinced that climate change inevitably makes life on Earth more lethal, this bet for them is a no-brainer. They can position themselves to earn a cool 10 grand while demonstrating to a still-skeptical American public the seriousness of their convictions. But if no one accepts my bet, what would that fact say about how seriously Americans should treat climate-change doomsaying? Do I have any takers?"

MP: Excluding the year 2005 for Katrina, the trend lines in the two graphs above are statistically significant at the 1% level. Adjusted for the U.S. population, the average American was more than 2.5 times more likely to get killed in a flood, hurricane or tornado between 1940 and 1979 than in the period between 1980-2009. The bottom chart shows that 2009 was the safest year ever since 1940, with fewer than 0.25 deaths per 1 million population.

85 Comments:

At 6/01/2011 10:59 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

what effect has better warning systems have had?

Now days, people have far more warning than they used to - to get out of the way.

Perhaps metrics to INCLUDE would be the number and classification of storms and tornadoes ... 100/500 year floods...

and the property/economic damages....

and why would Katrina be excluded if it represents the KIND of storm that is represented to be caused by more intense weather exemplified by GW?

what does it mean if we actually DO see more Joplins and more Katrinas even if the death toll is lower than in the past but the the property and economic damage is significantly higher?

I'm not taking the environmentalist position here but rather asking if we are really objectively looking at the appropriate metrics.

 
At 6/02/2011 7:03 AM, Blogger Kraut said...

Larry G, it's not accurate to compare the number of tornadoes we can count today versus what we could even count 20 years ago because of the improvement in technology - doppler radar, etc. Even the number of hurricanes really can't be compared pre-satellite technology because we really don't know how many hurricanes there were before we could see them from above.

I agree that it would be interesting to compare property damage, though of course adjusted for inflation/GDP growth and population growth.

 
At 6/02/2011 7:58 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

I would agree.. that modern technology in addition to providing better warnings ALSO, as you say, has gotten better at "counting" adverse weather.

but the bigger more deadly storms - might be more comparable as they would be more easily observed in the past.

As an aside. Many of the GW folks believe that more frequent and more intense and destructive weather will result - and it might well be more a gradual - accelerating, longer term trend - rather than a quick overnight (in earth time) change.

I think counting deaths, especially short-term and throwing out the "Katrinas" is cooking the books a bit.

:-)

 
At 6/02/2011 8:28 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

a question about this data:

what happened in the mid 70'
s?

the number of deaths suddenly dropped enormously as did the volatility of the series.

it's possible that some new system was put in place, but this seems like too dramatic a change even for that.

i suspect that there may have been a methodology change in how deaths are counted. little else could explain so dramatic a change so. abruptly.

that said, i have no idea if that in fact happened.

anyone have an explanation for the abrupt change?

 
At 6/02/2011 8:37 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

kraut-

i agree that comparisons are tricky with the pre-satellite era, bu i think we can agree that we see a larger % of storms now.

this makes the fact that tropical cyclonic activity is right near 50 year lows all the more striking.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/global-tropical-cyclone-activity-is-at-33-year-lows/

i have also seen some data trying to sift observational ability out of the tornado data by only looking at 4's and 5's (which you tend not to miss as they are so severe). there was no increase in big storms. hell if i can find the study just now though.

 
At 6/02/2011 9:31 AM, Blogger Matthew said...

morganovich,

1973 was the very first year that Doppler radar was used to capture the entire life cycle of a tornado. In addition, it was the first time storm chasers were used to monitor, track, and record the storm. Human observation and useful, recorded data on the inner workings of the storm led to a rapid increase in understanding that allowed similar weather patterns to be identified and used as warning.

The 70's experienced a weather breakthrough using technology.

 
At 6/02/2011 10:34 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

mathew-

thanks.

that's an interesting potential explanation. it seems like the major shift took place a bit later (maybe 1977).

was there some sort of significant program then or deployment or integration?

this may just be a coincidence, but it also coincides with the 1976 "great climate shift" in which the world suddenly warmed a great deal due to the shift of the PDO to its warm mode.

that might be another potential contributor.

contrary to common global warming hype, warm weather was fewer, not more hurricanes and tornadoes.

 
At 6/02/2011 10:48 AM, Blogger BP said...

What I have never understood about the threat of more storms with global warming is this:

I have been told that the poles will warm faster than the equator. This should reduce the degree of temperature difference between the pole and the equator.

I have also been told that storms arise from the differentials in temperatures, with warm air and cold air being pushed to interact.

So if the differential between the equator and the pole shrinks, shouldnt the frequency of large storms shrink?

I bet if a historian looked at the Roman warming period you would see a decrease in storm activity.

 
At 6/02/2011 10:59 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" So if the differential between the equator and the pole shrinks, shouldnt the frequency of large storms shrink?"

yes... I would agree...

but how long for that to happen.... what are the impacts as it occurs?

and what does the world look like when "balance" is achieved?

Will we live and farm the same?

Will all animal species including those that are vectors for disease stay the same?

these are things we simply don't know the outcome but we do suspect changes...

It may well be too late for us to do anything about it.

The only proof we have otherwise is that we were(arguably)able to affect the outcome of ozone holes by altering our use of ozone-producing substances - not without economic costs

 
At 6/02/2011 11:33 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

larry-

we do in fact have a great deal of evidence about what happens.

the medieval, roman, and minoan warmings were periods of prosperity and benign weather.

growing seasons were long and civilization prospered.

the dark ages and the little ice age were times of famine and great social stress.

it's still not nearly so warm as the medieval period, much less the other two.

incremental warming will increase arable land and crop yields.

the reason this last harvest has been so poor is because of how cold it has been.

additional warming is a benefit, not a cost.

there is no credible evidence at all for "run away warming" on earth. the world is currently very cold (bottom 10% of temps for 500 million years). we are in an ice age (though an interglacial within it). with a polar continent and a closed isthmus of panama preventing equatorial mingling of the great oceans, that's not going to change. in fact, looked at in long terms, this ice age is intensifying.

it is cooling we need fear far more than warming.

 
At 6/02/2011 11:53 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

@ morganovich

I follow your rationale and I even agree with it somewhat in the whole but we don't know how that world works compared to this one.

In fact, a warmer world could - lead to LESS fossil fuel use (for heating) OR it MIGHT if much of the world ends up like Panama... we'd use MORE for air conditioning.

and tropical diseases - spread over the entire earth....

we just don't know.....

what we do know is that we have a record of underestimating impacts of our activities.

I know of very few things we decided we needed to regulate that later we decided we had jumped the gun on and needed to backtrack.

maybe the number is on the fingers of one hand... compared to the things we screwed up by underestimating impacts.

I just feel we don't know and when you don't know - the risks are enormous.

 
At 6/02/2011 12:50 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Larry,

I don't know if this is why they excluded Katrina, but I have 2 ideas:

Most important, a big portion of the problem with that storm (in NOLA) was the levee break.
Normally, I'd say that was storm-related and should be counted, but that levee was a government/construction problem and everybody who paid attention knew it was going to go one day. My wife's family is from NOLA and used to talk about it all the time...BEFORE Katrina.

Secondly, even Kanye West would have to admit that the people who did nothing to prepare after the warnings were issued were absolutely ridiculous.

So maybe it falls under 'comedy of errors' that shouldn't have happened..?

 
At 6/02/2011 3:44 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

@ mike -

1. - we're guilty of things like that - you know... like putting Nukes where there can be Tsunamis on the premise we've never actually seen one that size in that location.

2. N/O was a CF on a number of levels but building below sea level was mistake one.

 
At 6/02/2011 4:13 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

what does it mean if we actually DO see more Joplins and more Katrinas even if the death toll is lower than in the past but the the property and economic damage is significantly higher?

But you don't see more Katrinas. And what you do see has nothing to do with CO2 emissions and everything to do with ENSO conditions.

 
At 6/02/2011 4:28 PM, Blogger BE said...

Hey guy, before we were around there were 7 ice ages

Check it : http://1.usa.gov/dfsO8

this article is a bunch of crap.

The only thing this article proves is that better forecasting and communication from the rise in technology has allowed people to be safer from the increase in damaging storms.

This has little to do with actual climate change.

Why don't you find the statistics on how many named hurricanes are increasing every year, or the increaseed spread of tornadic activity or the rise in ocean temperature levels. This is all relative to a global increase in surface temperature.

The hotter it is ( caused by increased co2 in the atmosphere) the more moisture there is going to be in the air. This has dramatic effects. Ie, trapping heat ( green house effect ) and increased risk and creation of violent storms. This also compounds the melting of surface ice, which helps deflect light and decrease heat - and since every year there is less ice, there is less deflection, and more and more heat.

HEAT.

 
At 6/02/2011 4:57 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"...nothing to do with CO2 emissions and everything to do with ENSO conditions. "...

that COULD conceivably be affected by ocean currents which might be affected by ice melt.....etc, etc, etc

Can we rule out that absolutely nothing we do, in any way, might affect ENSO?

some folks are not so sure:

" ENSO and global warming

During the last several decades the number of El Niño events increased, and the number of La Niña events decreased.[51] The question is whether this is a random fluctuation or a normal instance of variation for that phenomenon, or the result of global climate changes towards global warming."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation#ENSO_and_global_warming

not arguing the truth or falsity - just pointing out that the idea that it cannot possibly have any connection - is ...not universally accepted in the scientific community.

there is, however, no conclusive connection either...

the jury is still out...

what do we do in the meantime - assume no effect and proceed as if there is no possibility of a connection?

seems kind of risky to me....

driving at night with the headlights off ... risky?

 
At 6/02/2011 5:00 PM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

Larry G: " why would Katrina be excluded if it represents the KIND of storm that is represented to be caused"

Not sure that Mark really meant to "exclude" Katrina. Perhaps Mark was simply segregating Katrina as a special case where many people died due to government incentives - incentives encouraged people to live in a very risky environment.

The Lower 9th Ward of New Orleans was depopulating after a similar hurricane in the 1960's. Democrats in Louisiana were alarmed by the potential loss of a large voting bloc. So LBJ "flooded" that area's economy with housing projects and community development grants.

Don Boudreaux did not exclude Katrina-like deaths from the bet he offerred. In other words, Don acknowledges that central planners will continue to do outrageously stupid things which will put people in harm's way. But he is arguing that technological and economic progress will find ways to rescue humankind from adverse weather in spite of government stupidity and ignorance.

 
At 6/02/2011 6:13 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" incentives encouraged people to live in a very risky environment."

so.. each disaster would be checked first to see if someone thinks the government was involved?

should we send the investigators to Joplin to determine whether or not we should count it as a "legitimate" disaster?

How about other disasters?

If we are going to throw out Katrina why not ones that occurred back in the 1940, 1950, 1960?

well.. here's the top ten:


The Ten Worst Hurricanes Worldwide

November 13, 1970 East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) 500,000 deaths

October 7, 1737 Bengal, India This hurricane killed at least 300,000

1881 Haiphong, Vietnam killed approximately 300,000

1876 Bengal, India 200,000 casualties.

June 6, 1882 Bombay, India 100,000

May 3, 2008 Burma (Myannmar) 100,000

October 5, 1864 Calcutta, India 50,000 to 70,000

June, 1965 East Pakistan 35,000 to 40,000

October 16, 1942 Bengal, India 35,000

May 28 - 29, 196 East Pakistan22,000


how would you determine how much govt was responsible for these?

 
At 6/02/2011 7:54 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Why don't you find the statistics on how many named hurricanes are increasing every year, or the increaseed spread of tornadic activity or the rise in ocean temperature levels. This is all relative to a global increase in surface temperature.

Here you go. If you actually paid attention to the data you would know that more than doubled since 2008

I really wish that people would actually pay attention to the empirical evidence rather than fall for all of the hype.

 
At 6/02/2011 7:55 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

The hotter it is ( caused by increased co2 in the atmosphere) the more moisture there is going to be in the air. This has dramatic effects. Ie, trapping heat ( green house effect ) and increased risk and creation of violent storms.

You have one big problem with the words above. There is no empirical evidence to link hurricane activity to warming. Even the theory does not work in the way that you think. Weather is driven by the flow of energy. If the colder regions warm up faster than tropical regions you would get less hurricanes, not more.

This also compounds the melting of surface ice, which helps deflect light and decrease heat - and since every year there is less ice, there is less deflection, and more and more heat.

Come now. Even the AGW alarmists have admitted that soot is three times more effective than carbon dioxide at melting polar snow and ice.

And if the supposed warming was supposed to be global, why is it that the ice melting has not been noticed in the Southern Hemisphere? And why is area of thicker Arctic ice more than twice as large as it was in 2008

 
At 6/02/2011 7:59 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"but we don't know how that world works compared to this one."

that's a bit of a tautology, no? we can never fully anticipate the effects of ANY change.

we do know a great deal about what will happen because we've seen it before. sure, electricity consumption is anybody's guess, but keep in mind that we are talking about TINY changes here. do you really notice .3 of s degree?

"Will we live and farm the same?

Will all animal species including those that are vectors for disease stay the same?"

we'll live and farm better just like we did before. polar bears will be fine, just like they were before.

this small a climate change is just not a major disease driver.

i think you are really overestimating the severity of what's going on.

 
At 6/02/2011 7:59 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

OOPS...

My posting of 6/02/2011 7:54 PM was made in error before it could be completed properly. The point was that if we look at the landings data we find that hurricane activity has not gone up. The reason we have more named storms has to do with our ability to detect them when they are out in the open ocean using satellites and planes that were unavailable in the past.

And if we look at the ACE Index we find that accumulated energy has been very low in the past few years compared to the 1990s.

 
At 6/02/2011 8:07 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

BE-

thank you for that ridiculous kindergarten level assessment.

more moisture in the air is a self correcting issue. you get more precipitation. the convention of precipitation causes cooling.

read lindzen's work on adaptive heat irises.

more clouds also cause more sunlight to be reflected back into space.

more snow makes winters colder.

you talk about CO2 and heat like it is some simple relationship.

it's not.

we slid into an ice age with 5 times this much CO2 in the atmosphere.

there is literally NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that Co2 drive warming on earth. it's just a spurious assumption bases on oversimplification and too coarse a look at the vostok ice cores.

when they were first analyzed, they used about 1000 year granularity. this made CO2 and temperature look correlated over the last several glaciations.

but, when they used decadal scale readings, they discovered that the warming came first every time. co2 began to rise 1000-1500 years later.

CO2 is also a symptom of warming. warm water holds less gas in suspension. this means oceans outgas as they warm.

there's your CO2 driver. it's happened in ever intergalcial, long before man even knew how to draw buffalo on cave walls.

agenda driven activists like al gore and the IPCC have done everyhting in their power to try and put forward precisely the oversimplified view you seem to have swallowed, but the reality is nothing like so simple.

 
At 6/02/2011 8:09 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Why don't you find the statistics on how many named hurricanes are increasing every year, or the increaseed spread of tornadic activity or the rise in ocean temperature levels. This is all relative to a global increase in surface temperature."

Why don't you provide those statistics. Everything I can find seems to contradict your claim.

 
At 6/02/2011 8:11 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" While another Katrina-sized storm arriving on the US coastline in the near future is quite probable, there are few places where people need to fear another storm with the strength of the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane. The authors of this study believe such an intense storm would only make landfall on the two southernmost shores of the country: the Florida Keys or near Brownsville Texas."

http://www.currentresults.com/Natural-Hazards/Storms/hurricane-802011.php

huh? any one have that study and/or know the rationale for the statement?

 
At 6/02/2011 8:13 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Can we rule out that absolutely nothing we do, in any way, might affect ENSO?

What we can rule out is that human emissions of CO2 are material. After $100 billion spent by the US and a similar amount by the EU we have yet to see any empirical evidence that human emissions of CO2 are making the planet warmer. In the US the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Data from New Zealand and Australia show that the unadjusted temperature measurements show no material warming over the past century. CRU claims that its adjusted 'value-added' set shows warming but it claims to have lost some of the original data, which makes its value-added set useless for scientific purposes.

And when you read in a GISS sponsored paper, "The analysis by Hansen et al. (2005), as well as other recent studies...indicates that the current uncertainties in the TSI and aerosol forcings are so large that they preclude meaningful climate model evaluation by comparison with observed global temperature change," it is hard to take the warming claims and the models seriously. If warmers like Mischenko, Cairns, Kopp, Travis, Schueler, Hansen, Fafaul Hooker, Itchkawich, and Maring admit that the uncertainties are so large that they can't do a proper evaluation why should we listen to all of the narratives that they are trying to sell?

As usual yo do very little research and have trouble analyzing what you read.

 
At 6/02/2011 8:15 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

oh, and before you go off on some foolish gore inspired tale of positive feedbacks and warming driving co2 driving warming etc, stop and think.

there are virtually no naturally occurring processes driven by positive feedback.

earths climate has varied quite a bit over the eons, but it has always stayed in a range of about 20C. that is an AMAZINGLY tight range. it's less that the difference in temperature between day and night or winter and spring.

we have had CO2 levels over 25 times this high.

climate has never, ever run away.

that's the beauty of having a planet in the temperature belt that allows liquid state water.

CO2 levels are currently VERY low by erath standards.

if 9000 ppm didn't cause runaway warming, 380 sure as hell isn't going to.

 
At 6/02/2011 8:19 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

what do we do in the meantime - assume no effect and proceed as if there is no possibility of a connection?

seems kind of risky to me....


It seems to me that it is much more risky to waste scarce resources on any claims that are not supported by empirical evidence and are contrary to real world observations. Why the hell do we want to fight global warming when we see frozen lizards falling from Florida trees, cold water bleaching and fish kills, frosts that destroy Mexican produce, and cold temperatures that are killing cows in Vietnam and children in Peru?

It seems to me that the far bigger threat is cooling, not warming. After all, the so-called warming was accompanied by a huge increase in agricultural productivity which showed how ridiculous the predictions of mass starvation and doom made by many of the very same people who are now warning us about AGW. Of course, when most of the previous predictions were made we were supposed to suffer from cooling, not warming so it is perfectly understandable why the predicted outcomes turned out to be so wrong.

Why the hell should we waste our time and money by reacting to fools who do not know what they think that they know?

 
At 6/02/2011 8:52 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"this small a climate change is just not a major disease driver."

Besides that, poverty, including lack of clean drinking water and poor sanitation, are more important to the spread of disease than temperature.

 
At 6/03/2011 7:03 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

"It seems to me that it is much more risky to waste scarce resources on any claims that are not supported by empirical evidence and are contrary to real world observations"

i agree completely. the precautionary principle warns against itself.

how cab you take as a default position "we're not sure about climate, but we ought to wipe out 25% of global GDP and plunge billion into poverty just to be safe".

you'd be safer sitting at your desk right now if you were wearing a helmet. are you doing so? why not?

because in the real world be make choices based on cost/benefit.

you do not see enough benefit to a desk helmet to make it worth wearing. if you got on a motorcycle, you might feel differently.

the cost in the case of eliminating CO2 production is very, very real and staggering in size. the benefit is uncertain (and might well be a detriment is warmer is better).

the correct policy in such a situation is to become sure. when someone creates a climate model with even rudimentary predictive ability (and there are none even close right now) then maybe we can start paying attention.

but to sacrifice the well being of billions on the altar of pseudoscience, agenda driven lies and fraud, and precaution in the face of complete uncertainty would be perhaps the first economic act on earth more reprehensible that the forced collectivism of communism.

 
At 6/03/2011 7:07 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

so... NASA and NOAA and USGS and National Academy of Science, DOD, CIA are all in cahoots with the GW liars?

international conspiracy?

are there any govt agencies that reject GW?

so this is, a massive worldwide conspiracy between all govts and all academia?

these charts from NASA are a lie?

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

 
At 6/03/2011 9:14 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

i agree completely. the precautionary principle warns against itself.

It seems to me that the precautionary principle is always the default position of those who elevate faith above science. I also find it amusing when they make up arguments like the spreading of disease without looking at the real world data. Sixty years ago thousands of Russians were dying from malaria in Siberia and the northern USSR even though there was no warming to spread the disease. They have done the same and claimed both more drought and more floods, as well as both warmer and colder winters. It seems that for those that take a faith-based approach to global warming there is no need for data or logic.

 
At 6/03/2011 9:23 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

so... NASA and NOAA and USGS and National Academy of Science, DOD, CIA are all in cahoots with the GW liars?

Well, none have ever produced empirical evidence that human emissions of CO2 have a material effect on temperature. The data shows that in the US the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s (how is that for an inconvenient truth) and that the uncertainties are too high and that all of the 'global' warming signal comes from adjustments made to the raw data.

Here is the difference between the raw and 'adjusted' temperature data.

And here is the difference between raw and final USHCN data sets. The warming has mainly come from the UHI effect, which has nothing to do with CO2 emissions and from data manipulation.

The agencies that you cite have received the better part of $100 billion over the past two decades to promote AGW. The incentive is to keep going after the money and to keep promoting the agenda. The only way to be credible is to provide objective evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. So far no such evidence has appeared.

 
At 6/03/2011 9:29 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" The agencies that you cite have received the better part of $100 billion over the past two decades to promote AGW."

that's like saying that agencies have received gazillions of dollar over decades to prove what causes cancer and they still have not.

it also presumes that these agencies are lying to the public and part of a global conspiracy to lie about the science.

I suspect a case of Sovereign Citizen in play here.

right?

 
At 6/03/2011 1:27 PM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

Larry G: "so.. each disaster would be checked first to see if someone thinks the government was involved?"

No need to, Larry. The government is involved in just about every disaster, and screws each one up someow.

As I pointed out, though, whether the government is involved is irrelevant. The bet offerred by Professor Boudreaux was that U.S. deaths from hurricanes, tornados, and floods would decline, despite all the screw-ups caused by government involvement.

Did you read my previous comment all the way through before responding, Larry?

 
At 6/03/2011 3:43 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"it also presumes that these agencies are lying to the public and part of a global conspiracy to lie about the science."

um, they are. did you not see the whole climategate issue? hide the decline baby.

mann's repeated lies about the fully debunked hockey stick? (check into the bristlecone pine records and weightings)

al gore's preposterous misstatements and oversimplifications?

the massive scandal at the IPCC over editing, false citations and circular peer review?

the horrendous issues with nasa's giss database and the whole terrestrial temperature monitoring system and in's inability to correct for UHI?

the similar issues at hadley and the failure to release unadjusted data?

the blanket stonewalling of these "scientists" against an and all data requests?

i could go on and on.

this whole science is built on fraud.

 
At 6/03/2011 4:22 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"that's like saying that agencies have received gazillions of dollar over decades to prove what causes cancer and they still have not."

No, Larry, it's nothing like that. No one doing cancer research is recommending returning the developed world to a pre-industrial level to prevent further cancer.

"it also presumes that these agencies are lying to the public and part of a global conspiracy to lie about the science."

They ARE lying, Larry. It has little to do with science, and much to do with control and continued funding.

The simplistic pronouncements you have made on this subject are those AGW promoters were making 5 or 6 years ago. a lot has happened since then.

I know you suffer from poor reading comprehension as well as an inability to think logically, but you should really try harder to keep up.

 
At 6/03/2011 4:31 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Larry, I will recommend an excellent source of information on this subject, but only because I feel it is the right thing to do. I don't hold out much hope that you will read it, or if you did, that you would understand what you had read, but here is is, just in case.

Maybe someone else, not as ignorant as you, will see this reference and benefit from it.

 
At 6/03/2011 4:36 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

so NASA fabricated this data?

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

 
At 6/03/2011 6:58 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"so NASA fabricated this data?"

Some of the data is questionable, and most of the conclusions are false.

Keep in mind that NASA GISS is the domain of James Hansen, the king of all AGW alarmists. He has sounded the alarm since 1988 and believes, among other things, that those who question AGW should face Nuremberg style trials. He gets arrested for protesting at coal fired electric plants in other countries, and appeared to be more & more unhinged as years go by.

I would draw your attention to this picture and it's caption, at your favorite site, which is demonstrably wrong.

I'll explain, but don't take my word for it, check with someone who understands thermodynamics.

The infrared energy that heats CO2 in the atmosphere originated from the Earth's surface. as even you probably know, heat energy flows from warmer to cooler, so the atmosphere, warmed by the Earth's surface, CANNOT rewarm the surface of the Earth, from which the IR energy originated, any more than your frying pan can heat the burner of your stove.

So, all those down pointing arrows and their description are wrong. ALMOST everyone admits that now, except apparently those at NASA, who haven't yet caught up with reality.

When you see pictures like this in the future, you should recognize that what you are reading is probably wrong.

 
At 6/03/2011 7:17 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I simply asked if the charts shown on the NASA site are fabricated.

NASA is a large organization and they have their name and reputation behind this site - not
James Hansen.

I'm quite sure if these charts were fabricated that Congress would be involved.

NOAA also provides similar data.

Is it also fabricated?

Are you saying that the U.S. Govt is using it's agencies like NSAS and NOAA to lie about the data?

The charts:

1. Carbon Dioxide - shows a steady rise from 2005 until now.

2. Global surface temperature - a steady rise from 1880 to now.

3. Artic Sea Ice - a steady decrease

4. land ice - a precipitous decline from 2002

5. Sea level - a steady rise since 1870

so I'm asking - is this data fabricated?

yes or no.

are you saying that NASA has fabricated this data?

 
At 6/04/2011 3:48 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"NOAA also provides similar data."

If you knew what you were talking about, you would already know that NASA GISS uses date obtained from NOAA. NASA collects no data itself. So, it's similar? You bet!

"1. Carbon Dioxide - shows a steady rise from 2005 until now."

Yes - so what?

"2. Global surface temperature - a steady rise from 1880 to now."

Steady?, No. about 1 degree in the past 130 years, with a margin of error of about 1 degree - maybe.

"3. Artic Sea Ice - a steady decrease"

Steady? No. see this. for arctic ice information. Note that there is only reasonable data for this in the last 30 years, and it is incomplete.

"4. land ice - a precipitous decline from 2002"

Precipitous? No. What about the Anarctic ice pack that is increasing? Why don't we hear more about that?

"5. Sea level - a steady rise since 1870

Steady? No. Sea level rises and falls unevenly throughout the world. It has risen 8 inches in the last century. Is this worrisome for some reason? Most alarming stories are actually caused by something other than sea level rise, including those about Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Venice, Italy.

"so I'm asking - is this data fabricated?"

I've already answered that question. Temperature data has been "adjusted" frequently over the years by GISS - this means Hansen & his gang. Always in a direction that makes the past appear to be colder. This has been explained to you already. And, most of the original temperature data has been "lost". There's no way to reconstruct anything meaningful from what's available prior to 1980. The obviously fraudulent tree ring data is even worse.

It's likely, in my opinion, that the Earth has warmed some small amount in the last 100 years. This has no significance in the larger scheme of things, and despite massive efforts by alarmists, there has been no connection made to CO2, except that higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are likely the result of warmer ocean surface temps.

Before we continue, you need to address my comment about the incorrect IR radiation picture.

 
At 6/04/2011 5:52 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

if you bother to read - you'll see that NASA itself collects some of the data.

These ARE MEASUREMENTS not "interpretation"

example: ....Data source: Ice mass measurement by NASA’s Grace satellites.

Are you saying that NASA is falsifying these measurements?

a simple yes or not - not the editorial blather that evades this question.

you did not answer the essential simple question.

Is NASA Falsifying data?

once you answer that question - truthfully with equivocation then I might consider some of yours.

 
At 6/04/2011 6:23 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

oops - "truthfully withOUT equivocation"

if it is such that you feel NASA IS Falsifying the data, we really don't have anything else to discuss/debate.

I won't try to convince you that they are not and I'm believe they are not falsifying data.

if those are the two views, they won't reconcile...

If you ALSO do not believe NASA is falsifying data then we may have a starting point about what follows that.

 
At 6/04/2011 8:19 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

so NASA fabricated this data?

No, not all of it.

It is clear that CO2 concentrations have gone up in the past 50 years or so.

But it is also clear that current temperatures are not as high as what we experienced during the Medieval Warm Period or the Holocene Optimum. That is a fact that NASA conveniently leaves out. Also, the reconstructed temperature comes from data that has not been made available for independent verification. That data has been adjusted as an artificial warming signature has been added. It also includes a UHI bias that overstates the increase in some areas and hides a flat or declining trend in others.

Hansen has admitted in a 2005 paper that the uncertainties are too high to allow for useful analysis. He has also admitted that for the US the 1930s were the warmest decade and that 1934 was warmer than 1998.

Some of the data came from NZ, which has admitted in court that it has no official temperature record because it could not explain to the court how a flat trend that is evident in the actual temperature readings can be turned into a 1C per century warming trend. The numbers that you cite on the NASA site still use the 1C per century trend. There are similar problems in Australia. Use the right trends and most of the 20th century warming goes away. The 1930s are warmer and since then we have had one cooling trend followed by a warming trend that gets us to the same levels as 80 years ago.

 
At 6/04/2011 8:35 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" No, not all of it. "

the essential point - that the govt is fabricating data - correct?

 
At 6/04/2011 8:36 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

I would draw your attention to this picture and it's caption, at your favorite site, which is demonstrably wrong.

There is something even more wrong on the site. And that has to do with the solar activity that GISS tries to dismiss. Hansen conveniently tries to paper over the link between solar activity and changes in cloud cover, a factor that is far more powerful than any effect that can be attributed to CO2. But that is beginning to change as Hansen and company admit in a recent paperM that they can't figure out what is going on with cloud changes.

I guess that some of the alarmists are finally beginning to see that they are running out of time as new findings, see here, here and here, provide a much simple, more convincing, and entirely explanation for climate change. This explanation does not require data manipulation, undefendable computer algorithms, unrealistic model assumptions, or plug-in fudge factors.

The game is almost over and the alarmists are in full retreat. As voters in Australia, UK, Spain, and elsewhere rise against the idiot politicians who drove up energy prices while they enriched the alternative energy industry we are likely to see a backlash that will go after the discredited frauds.

 
At 6/04/2011 9:38 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

I simply asked if the charts shown on the NASA site are fabricated.

The temperature data is fabricated. NASA admits that the US data shows that the 1930s were the warmest decade in the US. It simply accepts the adjusted 'value-added' set from CRU as fact even though that set has never been independently verified and was put together with the help of an individual who got fired in New Zealand for fiddling with the temperature record there and came up with a 1C increase over the past century from the adjusted data while the actual measurements showed no warming.

It is easy to see a warming if you add an artificial warming signature to the data or do not adjust for a warming bias due to siting and sensor change issues. It is also easy to make a claim if you do not have to disclose the actual uncertainty created by the errors in measurements or the introduction of bias.

So yes, what you see is a fabrication. But it is deniable because the sources come from so many different organizations, so many algorithms, so many assumptions, and so many data gate keepers that it is hard to pin the source of the fraud on any one individual or institution.

But as an American you need to concern yourself with the temperature changes that your country has experienced and the effect of those changes on your own people. Well, if you look at the data you see no material warming since the 1920s and you see that the periods of warming were better for agriculture and Americans in general. You see that most of the extreme high temperature record were set in the 1920s, which means that the so-called higher average temperatures did not mean higher extreme temperatures. You see that the greatest period of drought over the last century came in the 1930s, not during the AGW panic after 1980.

Well, you might argue that it would be selfish to only think about the effect of change on your own country and that you should be concerned about the world. But that is total nonsense if you use a made up number like average global temperature, which has no meaning. Would it be so bad if the Arctic warmed greatly in the winter and temperatures went from -50 in January evenings to -35? Or if we had a longer growing season and fewer killing frosts in Norway, Canada, or Mexico? Or if fewer children died in Peru because of a reduced exposure to excess cold?

This entire debate is a con game. The biggest part of the fraud is not only the 'adjusted' data and computer algorithms that add artificial trends. It is the notion that small changes in the calculated average annual global temperature has a significant meaning that can tell us anything important. And the notion that a warmer period is somehow less preferable to a cooler period.

As usual, you demonstrate your inability to think logically or independently. Time to post a lot less and learn a lot more.

 
At 6/04/2011 9:43 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Are you saying that NASA is falsifying these measurements?

The ice data? Yes. I would say that NASA has serious problems with accuracy and uncertainty that does not show up in the reporting. In the absence of error bars and validation statistics any reported trend is a fabrication. If you did in your science labs what NASA is doing you would fail for being an incompetent.

Is NASA Falsifying data?

Yes.

 
At 6/04/2011 11:54 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

okay. Thank you!

Have you seen this:

" The NCPA carries the following statement on its web site regarding global warming:

While the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius and carbon dioxide (CO2), has increased more than 30 percent over the last 150 years, scientists still debate the extent to which human activity is the cause of global warming. NCPA scholars believe that while the causes and consequences of the earth’s current warming trend is still unknown, the cost of actions to substantially reduce CO2 emissions would be quite high and result in economic decline, accelerated environmental destruction, and do little or nothing to prevent global warming regardless of its cause."

now it sounds like they are not asserting fabrication but they disagree with interpretation.

agree?

can you point me to a major organization (regardless of politics), academic institution or govt - domestic or foreign (as opposed to individuals, blogs, etc) that states that the data is fabricated?

is there an organization or agency - here or overseas that says the data is fabricated?
thanks.

 
At 6/04/2011 12:48 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Well, it seems I'll have to get up earlier. My work has already been done for me. Thanks, VangelV :-)

 
At 6/04/2011 12:54 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

logically - it would seem that IF ... notice the word "IF", NASA is NOT fabricating data but is "incompetent" that other organizations would call them out on it via Peer Reviews

and that's what I am trying to understand from those who disagree with organizations like NASA and NOAA.

it would seem if both are falsifying data or incompetent in collecting it - that other scientists around the world would find out and there would be other scientific, govt and NGOs that would say that they believe NASA/NOAA are fabricating data or incompetently collecting it and so that's why I ask what organizations - have that as their position - as opposed to individuals who take that stance.

but if all these other organizations AGREE that NASA/NOAA is not fabricating data and that they are competently collecting and reporting it.. then one that does not believe NASA/NOAA would also have to believe that all these other organizations KNOW that NASA/NOAA are fabricating data but they are themselves part of the deception - a conspiracy.

Again - I'm not talking about individuals within the organizations - I'm talking about the collective view and management of the organizations.

If one is a person who subscribes to a conspiracy among the AGENCIES then the debate about interpreting the results is perfunctory anyhow, right?

I just note once again that NCPA apparently accepts the data, does not think there is a conspiracy, but disagrees on the interpretation and the economic consequences of making changes.

is your position similar to NCPA or do you believe there is a conspiracy among the agencies?

 
At 6/04/2011 2:57 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"The NCPA carries the following statement on its web site regarding global warming:"

No they don't, Larry, if you are referring to the National Center for Policy Analysis, that Wiki link doesn't work. Try again.

I'm surprised that you would quote a right wing blather-butt site like NCPA, that advocates free market approaches to public policy, but let me interpret that statement on the Wiki page for you, no matter where it came from.

"The Earth has warmed some small amount and atmospheric CO2 levels have increased over the last 150 years, but the cause of this warming is unknown. Policy recommendations to reduce this warming by reducing CO2 emissions would have disastrous consequences for humanity, while doing nothing to affect the temperature, no matter what causes it to change."

It doesn't address data at all.

If you like the NCPA site, and regard it as a reliable source, however, I DID find some interesting articles on AGW here and here.

You are going off the rails here when you ask about organizations that question NASA or NOAA data. This isn't about counting and comparing the official positions of political bodies, and as you are aware, NOAA, NASA, and IPCC are political bodies.

To appreciate the problems with available temperature data, you should begin with an understanding of how data is collected by NOAA USHCN weather stations themselves, which is a network of 1221 stations in the US.

First of all, consider that this represents almost half of the stations in the world, located on 2% of the earths surface. I see a problem already, don't you?

A volunteer organization, surfacestations.org, has surveyed most of these, and found that based on NOAA's guidelines for weather station siting, nearly 2/3 don't meet requirements, and have a CRN error rating of greater than or equal to 2 degrees C.

Is that the kind of data you want to use when claiming a temperature rise of 1 degree C?

This questionable data has then been adjusted and "corrected" by Hansen's organization until it can't possibly have any meaning.

You can call this "fabrication", or "incompetence", or whatever suits you, but what you CAN'T call it is "accurate".

 
At 6/04/2011 4:09 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"It doesn't address data at all."

when it says that the Earth HAS warmed a specific value and CO2 levels have increased a specific amount so what data is it assuming as fact in making those statements?

"If you like the NCPA site, ..."

I read a wide variety trying to get some context for the controversy - trying to understand what is driving the skeptics.

"You are going off the rails here when you ask about organizations that question NASA or NOAA data."

I'm asking if there are bodies - not individuals - who have taken positions about the data being fabricated or wrongly interpreted.

I know some individuals have.

I'm asking about organizations that consists of many individuals.

are there any BODIES - private, govt, NGOs that have taken such positions?

If a body takes that position - it's pretty significant IMHO - huge, in fact, but I know of none - just individuals.

"To appreciate the problems with available temperature data, you should begin with an understanding of how data is collected by NOAA USHCN weather stations themselves, which is a network of 1221 stations in the US."

"A volunteer organization, surfacestations.org, has "

LORD RON.

who operates, maintains and calibrates these stations and how do the "volunteers" get to the data to assess it?

you would think that if they thought these stations wrong that they would have their own stations showing different data and from that - demonstrate differences.

ANYONE can look at any data collected by another organization and make ANY Statement about these stations.

How do we know that THEY know what they are doing? Who are they? what are their credentials?

Do they also operate their own stations that are better, more accurate, etc?

Are they submitting their results other organizations to peer-review it?

so basically you're saying that they don't trust the govt stations... right?

it 'sounds' like people who don't like or trust the govt.

 
At 6/04/2011 5:06 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"who operates, maintains and calibrates these stations and how do the "volunteers" get to the data to assess it?"

Two things are obvious from this this and, and the questions that follow:

First, you didn't do any reading at the link I provided to surfacestations.org , and second,
you have no clue about how US or world surface temperatures are measured and collected.

How can you talk about data, when you don't know what the data is, or how it's collected?

Do some learning, then see if you still want to pose such clueless questions.

 
At 6/04/2011 5:21 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

".... visiting each station, doing a photographic survey, and determining if the climate monitoring station temperature and rainfall measurement been compromised by any local influences."

from their FAQs

Now.. HOW would you go about doing this without setting up your own station in that area and essentially proving that a better located station generates higher quality readings?

talk about re-creating the wheel!

stations get moved - all the time..also... and re-calibrated all the time.

let me provide a real example:

Rivers have monitoring stations on them also... with the same site location/calibration issues...

take a look at this river gage chart:

http://goo.gl/X91hZ

notice the phrase "provisional data then
notice the red asterisks that say "measured" which means field measured since at other times - the reading is simply a radio-transmitted data packet to a central office - much like many of the weather stations work.

rivers change... channels move... gages lose calibration... and even individual gages may prove to have been inaccurate for days .. but on the whole across all of the gages for a majority of the time - they are within overall accuracy goals.

they have multiple gages for this reason.

if one gage is off by more than the expected amount relative to a nearby gage - they usually field check it.

but how you'd go back in time to figure how on what dates bad readings occurred is not possible. Over years worth of data...how would you know what days were wrong?

All you can really do is show how on the day that you personally went there and measured that there was a variance.

but that does not prove that all the days before that for as long as the gage was there it was off by that same amount.

You'd just be ASSUMING that because it's wrong the day you measured it was wrong in the past and that's not "science".

and how would you do this for worldwide sites in remote places like Baffin Island or Greenland?

Are you going to "recruit" whoever you can find at those remote places to "check up" on the weather station?

it's silly. this is basically people who don't trust the govt taken to paranoid extremes.

 
At 6/04/2011 6:54 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"but on the whole across all of the gages for a majority of the time - they are within overall accuracy goals."

You should read and understand your own references better.

What is the accuracy goal of this measurement system? I doubt that anyone is claiming that the Rappahannock River has risen 2 inches in the last 150 years, and that "we must act now! or fredricksburg will soon be under water. Please slap yourself for making such an absurd comparison.


In case you're still having trouble, here's what SS.org says about their purpose. Notice that the NRC had serious misgivings about the weather station network, and commissioned a panel co-chaired by Hansen, that concluded:

"The...[conference]...concludes that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating."

As you can see, the USHCN is the responsibility of NOAA. Here is the Site Information Handbook published by NOAA. Notice section 2.2 that explains ideal siting for instruments, and 2.2.1 that assigns error margins for stations that are not sited ideally. As I noted before, 2/3 of US weather stations are CRN Class 4, wich gives them a margin of greater than or equal to 2 degrees C. Volunteers located stations near them and took pictures to determine their siting adequacy. When possible, they also acquired copies of the historical records associated with that station. Remember, these siting requirements are what NOAA sets for themselves to assure accurate measurements, then they fail, for the most part, to meet their own requirements.

To claim, as NASA does, that this data can indicate a trend of 1 degree or less is ridiculous.

 
At 6/04/2011 7:12 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"All you can really do is show how on the day that you personally went there and measured that there was a variance."

No, Larry, on the day I personally went there and took pictures that indicated siting problems, I would know that the data from that station had a CRN class of 1 thru 5, depending on the siting problem. That would tell me what the margin of error was. If it was located next to a building on blacktop near an air conditioner, I would know that data from that station was basically useless ever since the time the building and parking lot were built.

"but that does not prove that all the days before that for as long as the gage was there it was off by that same amount."

No, it just proves that you can't trust the accuracy of that gauge.

"You'd just be ASSUMING that because it's wrong the day you measured it was wrong in the past and that's not "science"."

I'm not assuming anything, Larry, I just know that I can't trust past data from that station. It certainly wouldn't be "science" to assume that it was accurate in the past either.

Learn to think logically.

 
At 6/04/2011 7:18 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"What is the accuracy goal of this measurement system? I doubt that anyone is claiming that the Rappahannock River has risen 2 inches in the last 150 years, and that "we must act now! or fredricksburg will soon be under water. Please slap yourself for making such an absurd comparison."

it's a valid comparison.

there are 3 issues:

1. - measuring, observations,calibration

2. - analysis including data validation

3. - what actions you might take as a result of trend data from 1 and 2.

In case you're still having trouble, here's what SS.org says about their purpose. Notice that the NRC had serious misgivings about the weather station network, and commissioned a panel co-chaired by Hansen, that concluded:

"The...[conference]...concludes that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating."

who said that and compared to what?

"As you can see, the USHCN is the responsibility of NOAA. Here is the Site Information Handbook published by NOAA. Notice section 2.2 that explains ideal siting for instruments, and 2.2.1 that assigns error margins for stations that are not sited ideally. As I noted before, 2/3 of US weather stations are CRN Class 4, wich gives them a margin of greater than or equal to 2 degrees C. Volunteers located stations near them and took pictures to determine their siting adequacy. When possible, they also acquired copies of the historical records associated with that station. Remember, these siting requirements are what NOAA sets for themselves to assure accurate measurements, then they fail, for the most part, to meet their own requirements."

Ron - you don't know shit from shinola unless this is YOUR field of expertise.

are you saying that ALL of their sites are wrong - around the world?

WTF?

how would you know anyhow about the PAST measurements at ANY SITE if you were not around to see those sites or check them at the time they were measuring?

Lord guy.

 
At 6/04/2011 7:24 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

No, Larry, on the day I personally went there and took pictures that indicated siting problems, I would know that the data from that station had a CRN class of 1 thru 5, depending on the siting problem. That would tell me what the margin of error was. If it was located next to a building on blacktop near an air conditioner, I would know that data from that station was basically useless ever since the time the building and parking lot were built."

how would you know the past history of that site if all you know is what you see right now?

how would you know what the variance is unless you took your own measurements and then went and checked the historical data?

"No, it just proves that you can't trust the accuracy of that gauge."

that gage - that day - not that gage on prior days or other gages nearby or other means of cross-checking suspicious readings.

"I'm not assuming anything, Larry, I just know that I can't trust past data from that station. It certainly wouldn't be "science" to assume that it was accurate in the past either."

no station is 100% accurate 100% of the time.

they know that.

if you look at a lot of data like that it will have a quality indicator as a metric.

basically you're saying that you cannot trust the historical data from ANY station.

right?

 
At 6/04/2011 7:42 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"who said that and compared to what"

Follow the links I provide you, Lame Larry, or there's no point in my providing them.

"Ron - you don't know shit from shinola unless this is YOUR field of expertise."

Read, Larry. Reread what you just quoted, with comprehension turned on. The only "expertise" I need is the ability to take pictures of a weather station from several angles, hopefully with something in the picture that provides scale. Even you would know that a thermometer at the end of an airport runway where every plane blows hot air on it, or a station in the shade of a tree all day won't provide accurate temperature reading.

"are you saying that ALL of their sites are wrong - around the world?"

Read those comments & links, Larry.

"WTF?

how would you know anyhow about the PAST measurements at ANY SITE if you were not around to see those sites or check them at the time they were measuring?
"

You have heard this before, but let me repeat it. 'Even you can't be this stupid."

 
At 6/04/2011 7:50 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

the only way you can prove their data wrong is to have your own measurement at that same site.

attacking their methods and methodology doesn't do that.

all you are really saying here is that you don't trust the govt - nothing more.

 
At 6/04/2011 8:34 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

" The NCPA carries the following statement on its web site regarding global warming:

While the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius and carbon dioxide (CO2), has increased more than 30 percent over the last 150 years, scientists still debate the extent to which human activity is the cause of global warming. NCPA scholars believe that while the causes and consequences of the earth’s current warming trend is still unknown, the cost of actions to substantially reduce CO2 emissions would be quite high and result in economic decline, accelerated environmental destruction, and do little or nothing to prevent global warming regardless of its cause."

now it sounds like they are not asserting fabrication but they disagree with interpretation.

agree?


Not exactly. First of all, in a scientific debate omission of relevant information is not very different than outright fraud.

The fact is that the most of the warming took place before the 1950s, which is when the IPCC says human influence began to dominate. But the trend has not changed. That would require us to believe that the natural causes that began the warming during the depths of the Maunder Minimum would have had to been replaced by human effects after 1950. But there is no evidence or narrative that can support such a conclusion.

And as I pointed out, the US data shows no warming since the 1930s. Neither does the New Zealand data or the Arctic Data. And if any reported trend that does not show the error bars or the validation statistics is a fraud.

 
At 6/04/2011 8:43 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

logically - it would seem that IF ... notice the word "IF", NASA is NOT fabricating data but is "incompetent" that other organizations would call them out on it via Peer Reviews

First, it is the same people. NASA, CRU, NIWA and other organizations work together and massage the data together. The people working to set up the adjustments in one data set also work to adjust the others. They use the same assumption of the effect of the UHI based on the same paper even when that paper does not reflect what is in the mainstream literature. And they all feed at the same 'public funding' troughs.

As I said, the US data shows no warming, particularly the raw data. To get global warming GISS has to rely on the 'value-added' data set from CRU, which has not been audited or verified independently. It also has to use the temperature profile provided by NIWA, which could not explain in court how it turned a flat trend in the actual measurements into a 1C per century warming trend.

And none of the sets are very good at showing uncertainties. In many cases the errors at each station are several times higher than the global trend. Include the error bars and no trend is evident over the past 80 years or so.

And then there is the warming prior to the period where human emissions of CO2 became material. What caused the warming prior to the 1950s? If most of that warming was natural and the trend is the same why can't we argue that the same factors are in play? And why do we need to impute Arctic temperatures when we have actual measurements that could be used to tell us what is going on? Why does NASA, a space agency, use a terrible surface station network when accurate satellite data is available?

 
At 6/04/2011 8:44 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" agree?

Not exactly. First of all, in a scientific debate omission of relevant information is not very different than outright fraud. "

but I am asking you about what NCPA is saying not your view.

have you read their Primer?

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

it seems to me that the data they are showing is consistent with what NASA and NOAA are saying and I don't see them saying in the primer that they believe that NASA and NOAA are fabricating data nor are they saying that NASA/NOAA data is unreliable or wrong.

It seems to me that they are concentrating on the interpretation of the data rather than saying it's fabricate or wrong.

 
At 6/04/2011 8:47 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

when it says that the Earth HAS warmed a specific value and CO2 levels have increased a specific amount so what data is it assuming as fact in making those statements?

Your ignorance is showing. First, correlation does not mean causation. (And the correlation is actually much poorer than the AGW advocates like to claim.) Second, even if the correlation were valid and meaningful it is easy to mistake cause and effect. For example, one can see that people that used to carry matches in the 1950s were more likely to die of lung cancer in the 1970s and 1980s. That did not mean that lung cancer caused them to carry matches or that carrying matches causes lung cancer.

 
At 6/04/2011 8:49 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

We have another ignorance alert boys and girls. When stations are moved there is no adjustment made for the effect on the temperature that comes from the move. Calibrating a sensor to make sure that is accurate does not change the fact that if it is moved closer to a wall or an A/C exhaust it will read a higher temperature that is biased by the move.

Thins are not as simple as you try to make them out to be. It helps to try thinking about the issue in a less superficial manner.

 
At 6/04/2011 8:52 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

You have heard this before, but let me repeat it. 'Even you can't be this stupid."

Sorry but the evidence is against you. He can be that stupid.

 
At 6/04/2011 9:01 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"how would you know the past history of that site if all you know is what you see right now?"

LMAO You're a lot of fun.

I wouldn't know for sure, but if the station is in a parking lot today, it was probably in a parking lot yesterday also. The temperature reading is likely too high as a result. I don't need to know what the error amount is, I just know it's wrong. Keep in mind that the siting requirements are NOAA's, and if their weather station is wrong, they decide what the margin of error is based on those guidelines. They provide temperature data to .01 degree when their margin of error is as much as 5 degrees. Hansen at NASA GISS then tortures this data into a form that shows warming if 1 degree over the last 150 years.


"how would you know what the variance is unless you took your own measurements and then went and checked the historical data?"

I wouldn't know that, Lame Larry, and I don't need to know. I just know that NOAA says their thermometer is inaccurate by up to 5 degrees, depending on any problems with citing.

Before SurfaceStations.org started visiting stations in 2007, NOAA had no idea how accurate their readings were, yet their data was used by those who say an alarming warming trend is happening.

"that gage - that day - not that gage on prior days or other gages nearby or other means of cross-checking suspicious readings."

That's my point, Larry, we just don't know. The data in the past has been reported with no attempt at verification. A "suspicious" reading is usually discarded by GISS, and an average from nearby stations is used instead. Nearby, can mean 100 miles. This may be a permanent fix, by the way, as there may be no one to run right out to look at it. Do you want to believe a trend of 1 degree from data like this?

"if you look at a lot of data like that it will have a quality indicator as a metric."

Do you mean error bars? Eighty percent of the readings may be off by at least 2 degrees. What does that do for your error bars? Show me an example of what you mean, if you even know.

"basically you're saying that you cannot trust the historical data from ANY station."

Read the links. By NOAA's own guidelines, as many as 8% of their weather stations may be reporting with an error of less than 1 degree. The rest are worse.

Larry, this is all down in the weeds in detail. I'm trying to show you that the available temperature data isn't good enough to make outrageous predictions with.

Here's the bottom line: The "global temperature", which is a meaningless statistic, not a real measure of anything, may have risen in the past 100-150 years by a small amount. We don't know for sure, and we don't know how much, as our measurements until 1980 weren't accurate enough to tell us much., but we aren't troubled by it, as people have prospered in warmer periods in the past, and suffered in cold periods.

We sure don't want to do anything stupid that would endanger our future well being, like turning off the lights and parking our cars, and returning the developed world to an 18th century economic level.

Reread the comments on this thread, read the links provided for you, and if you learn anything new, come back to discuss it. Don't just regurgitate the same nonsense you have so far.

And, learn to think logically. You are really a mess.

 
At 6/04/2011 9:11 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

it seems to me that the data they are showing is consistent with what NASA and NOAA are saying and I don't see them saying in the primer that they believe that NASA and NOAA are fabricating data nor are they saying that NASA/NOAA data is unreliable or wrong.

It seems to me that they are concentrating on the interpretation of the data rather than saying it's fabricate or wrong.


So what? It does not even need to question the data because it is actually looking at what is presented and says that there is nothing there that would warrant taking action that will be meaningless but expensive.

But that does not change that there is fraud or academic misconduct involved.

 
At 6/04/2011 9:13 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

when NOAA gives you regional and national temperatures do you think they are fabricating that data or that is is wrong?

When they tell you that radar is showing approaching bad weather do you think they are fabricating the data or incompetently observing it?

how about hurricanes? tsunamis? tornadoes?

so why do you think they fabricate data or are incompetently collecting it?

where do you get your daily weather info from?

do you think NOAA fabricates that data or is incompetent in how they provide it?

you guys are nutso.

you're so bound up in the climate deal and conspiracy theories that you've lost all contact with simple rational perspective of the larger picture.

Ya'll think that some of NOAA is "okay" but that other parts of NOAA has rogue employees and entire rogue agencies.

they are aware of the siting issues:

http://www.weather.gov/om/coop/standard.htm

they know they have bias at some sites:

http://www.weather.gov/om/coop/rooftop.htm

they know they have to have a data quality assurance process:

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/030/030.htm

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd03013001curr.pdf

NOAA is a large operation with a lot of pieces and parts and everyone from ships to towns to airlines RELY on the ACCURACY and VERACITY of their data products.

but you guys apparently think the rogue folks fabricate data.... especially those ones talking about climate change.

then of course.. then you'd also have to believe that NASA and other govt agencies that also collect data - they've also got rouge people running around AND they are in cahoots with each other running a world wide shadow conspiracy because of course you've got all these other countries involved in weather and climate data also so they're all in it.

so ALL of them.. around the entire world.. are engaged in a worldwide massive conspiracy to deceive and lie to people about weather and climate.

wow.

 
At 6/04/2011 9:15 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

when NOAA gives you regional and national temperatures do you think they are fabricating that data or that is is wrong?

As I pointed out their data has the 1930s as the warmest decade and 1934 as the warmest year.

 
At 6/04/2011 9:20 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

so you trust their weather forecasts and hurricane warnings but you don't trust how they site their stations and gather observations?

how much sense does that make?

do you wear rain gear when NOAA says sunshine?

do you not prepare for rain when they say - rain?

lord o'mighty

 
At 6/04/2011 9:40 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

so you trust their weather forecasts and hurricane warnings but you don't trust how they site their stations and gather observations?

how much sense does that make?


A lot. It does not matter if the temperature is 22.5C or 25.3C at the station location because most people know that their own temperature will be different depending on their location. But the bias certainly makes a difference if the measurements, which could have a 5C or more bias, are used to try and find a 0.6C per century trend, particularly if the bias was not there when the record began.

 
At 6/04/2011 9:51 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" But the bias certainly makes a difference if the measurements, which could have a 5C or more bias, are used to try and find a 0.6C per century trend, particularly if the bias was not there when the record began. "

so when you see a weather map with current NOAA temperature observations - it's wrong?

 
At 6/04/2011 10:01 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"how would you know the past history of that site if all you know is what you see right now?"

LMAO You're a lot of fun.

I wouldn't know for sure, but if the station is in a parking lot today, it was probably in a parking lot yesterday also. The temperature reading is likely too high as a result. I don't need to know what the error amount is, I just know it's wrong. Keep in mind that the siting requirements are NOAA's, and if their weather station is wrong, they decide what the margin of error is based on those guidelines. They provide temperature data to .01 degree when their margin of error is as much as 5 degrees. Hansen at NASA GISS then tortures this data into a form that shows warming if 1 degree over the last 150 years.


"how would you know what the variance is unless you took your own measurements and then went and checked the historical data?"

I wouldn't know that, Lame Larry, and I don't need to know. I just know that NOAA says their thermometer is inaccurate by up to 5 degrees, depending on any problems with citing.

Before SurfaceStations.org started visiting stations in 2007, NOAA had no idea how accurate their readings were, yet their data was used by those who say an alarming warming trend is happening.

"that gage - that day - not that gage on prior days or other gages nearby or other means of cross-checking suspicious readings."

That's my point, Larry, we just don't know. The data in the past has been reported with no attempt at verification. A "suspicious" reading is usually discarded by GISS, and an average from nearby stations is used instead. Nearby, can mean 100 miles. This may be a permanent fix, by the way, as there may be no one to run right out to look at it. Do you want to believe a trend of 1 degree from data like this?

"if you look at a lot of data like that it will have a quality indicator as a metric."

Do you mean error bars? Eighty percent of the readings may be off by at least 2 degrees. What does that do for your error bars? Show me an example of what you mean, if you even know.

"basically you're saying that you cannot trust the historical data from ANY station."

Read the links. By NOAA's own guidelines, as many as 8% of their weather stations may be reporting with an error of less than 1 degree. The rest are worse.

Larry, this is all down in the weeds in detail. I'm trying to show you that the available temperature data isn't good enough to make outrageous predictions with.

Here's the bottom line: The "global temperature", which is a meaningless statistic, not a real measure of anything, may have risen in the past 100-150 years by a small amount. We don't know for sure, and we don't know how much, as our measurements until 1980 weren't accurate enough to tell us much., but we aren't troubled by it, as people have prospered in warmer periods in the past, and suffered in cold periods.

We sure don't want to do anything stupid that would endanger our future well being, like turning off the lights and parking our cars, and returning the developed world to an 18th century economic level.

Reread the comments on this thread, read the links provided for you, and if you learn anything new, come back to discuss it. Don't just regurgitate the same nonsense you have so far.

And, learn to think logically. You are really a mess.

 
At 6/04/2011 10:10 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

you know what is funny.

ya'll would not know of the observation places, their locations nor their observation data if the govt had chosen to not release the information.

what's also funny is that there are lots of other types of observation sites, hydrological, ozone, particulates, nitrate deposition, surface and upper level winds, humidity, etc.

but the one you want to focus on is ....of course the ones that are collect CO2 and temperature, ...

gee.....

 
At 6/04/2011 11:40 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Sorry but the evidence is against you. He can be that stupid."

The mind boggles. It's just so hard to fathom. It almost seems intentional.

 
At 6/05/2011 7:40 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

mystery solved!

" United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN)

" Long-Term Daily and Monthly Climate Records from
Stations Across the Contiguous United States"

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/access.html

CDIAC = Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center

clearly CDIAC is a rogue operation knowingly siting observation stations in areas to purposely produce higher temperatures so they can claim that temperatures are going up

(but stupidly provide the locations of the stations and their observation data so even marginally smart people can figure out their evil plan"

:-0 ....

and of course they are in cahoots with these folks:

Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce and National Institute of Standards and Technology
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Energy
National Institutes of Health, United States Department of Health and Human Services
United States Department of State
United States Department of Transportation
United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior
Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution

who, in turn, are in cahoots with these folks:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

which have that infamous sleeper cell of "posers", the

Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
at the University of East Anglia who were caught red-handed in the conspiracy.

an International CABAL of rouge "elites" and agencies fabricating and manipulating data to spook the stupid and unwary to take actions that will devastate the economies of those foolish enough to believe the lies that these rogue groups are promoting.

so obviously they need to be "outed" and one way is to show just how badly their observation stations are sited to purposely generate higher than normal temperature observations.

an international conspiracy of gargantuan proportions!

Common Men UNITE!

We need to take our world back from these lying cretins who pose as scientists!

don't trust ANY govt sites and don't believe anything that NOAA or NASA tells you because they're all in this up to their slimy little necks....

yikes!

 
At 6/05/2011 9:30 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

so when you see a weather map with current NOAA temperature observations - it's wrong?

No. The sensor at the airport is actually measuring the effect of hot exhaust from the planes that are taxiing near it. The sensor on top of that asphalt is really measuring the heat coming off of it. Nobody who is listening or watching the forecasts confuses the reported temperature at the sensor with their own temperature, which is different because of local conditions.

 
At 6/05/2011 9:36 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

ya'll would not know of the observation places, their locations nor their observation data if the govt had chosen to not release the information.

But that is the 'problem' that you fail to acknowledge. A scientific debate requires full disclosure. When the sites that generate the data are biased by several times the claimed trend change there is no way to really figure out exactly what happened from the use of that data.

what's also funny is that there are lots of other types of observation sites, hydrological, ozone, particulates, nitrate deposition, surface and upper level winds, humidity, etc.

These are not used to come up with conclusions that are not supported by the data.

but the one you want to focus on is ....of course the ones that are collect CO2 and temperature, ...

We want to focus on the sites that provide us with temperature data because we want to know if the data can support the conclusions. It can't.

 
At 6/05/2011 9:38 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

The mind boggles. It's just so hard to fathom. It almost seems intentional.

I think that it may be our friend Benny using another name playing a game. Since I have the time I am more than willing to continue to play because someone out there who is just as confused as our friend is or pretends to be may actually learn something. Larry does a great service to those that have exposed the AGW scam because he reveals just how weak the faith based system that is used by the IPCC really is and just how many contradictions exist in the pro-AGW argument.

 
At 6/05/2011 10:06 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

clearly CDIAC is a rogue operation knowingly siting observation stations in areas to purposely produce higher temperatures so they can claim that temperatures are going up

Here you go. There are hundreds more like these stations.

http://tinyurl.com/4bupcld
http://tinyurl.com/3lqg8nd
http://tinyurl.com/ykbutkm
http://tinyurl.com/6xm3gm9
http://tinyurl.com/5rrttn2
http://tinyurl.com/6yeysuu
http://tinyurl.com/3f2jewp
http://tinyurl.com/3z5g7tx
http://tinyurl.com/3asnln2
http://tinyurl.com/2uodtw5
http://tinyurl.com/6g7dh2h
http://tinyurl.com/6hrtq9s
http://tinyurl.com/68ukutj
http://tinyurl.com/5swq5nn
http://tinyurl.com/6fa5wkm
http://tinyurl.com/3rbkvqo

 
At 6/05/2011 10:41 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

yup - conspiracy central for sure.

 
At 6/05/2011 12:00 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I think that it may be our friend Benny using another name playing a game..."

I've thought it might be Hydra, but if so he has improved his game, and appears even more ignorant, if that's possible.

"Since I have the time I am more than willing to continue to play because someone out there who is just as confused as our friend is or pretends to be may actually learn something."

I've had the same thought.

"Larry does a great service to those that have exposed the AGW scam because he reveals just how weak the faith based system that is used by the IPCC really is and just how many contradictions exist in the pro-AGW argument.ce to those that have exposed the AGW scam because he reveals just how weak the faith based system that is used by the IPCC really is and just how many contradictions exist in the pro-AGW argument."

Indeed! This is good practice. sometimes I forget that there are still many faithful out there drinking the coolaid.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home