I’m not equating the two – I’m acknowledging that you and I live in local weather, not global climate. We don’t live in average conditions, we live in continuously varying conditions. We are not impacted by 0.7ºC drift in an annual natural variation of 10′s of degrees. The global temperature shift is happening in polar latitudes after the sun goes down, last I looked. How is that affecting your world?

In the vein of what leads a non climate scientist to question the bible of climate science. I am definitely not a Republican and fact probably to the left of most Democrats. I fear the demagogues of the right make it far easier to dismiss legitimate skepticism than all the Gavin Schmidts of this world. Anyway I had spent some 12 years doing post graduate work in Social Psychology and do to my fathers death was forced to take on the family oil business, this being in 1979. Though long before Hanson’s speech in congress or Al Gore, I was familiar with the theory of global warming and gave it enough credence that I thought going into the oil business I was a bit uncomfortable with its implications. I felt I needed to be familiar with its findings. After some consideration, I deemed that “Science” was the journal that was presenting the best and most varied publication of articles of interest. This was during the era of Philip Abelson’s editorship. There were already quite a few articles in “Science” concerning global warming. While some assumed it to be a fact and extrapolated as to its effects, many were attempting to refine the theory. In fact of those examining the basic science, while most were arguments for, a healthy number were critical. Moreover the ones that were critical tended to be more empirically based while the others theoretical. My conclusion during those years was that there was definitely something going on here that warranted any concerned citizens attention, but the basic definition of variables, their weighting and the interaction was far from settled. In fact it looked like science was doing a good job of what science does best, namely carefully examining the logical and the empirical basis of the theory. It was obviously an extremely complex subject and judiciously would take many years, probably decades to get a firm grasp of the problem. I felt comfortable that things were moving along as they should. Suddenly “Science” took a screeching right turn and the articles being published were all supportive of global warming. What to a social science trained mind had seemed to be a realistic and rational progress normal to the development of any discipline, in particularly a scientific one, had been short circuited in an unnatural and disturbing way. A few months after I witnessed the change in “Science” I found that Abelson was no longer the editor. I read a report that he had claimed his lack of unquestioning support for the theories of global warming had much to do with his stepping down. Remember this was in 1984 long before global warming was more that a very occasional curiosity in the medium. I found this quite disturbing and it certainly encouraged me to look for other examples of bias in scientific reporting and in the main stream media over the years. An important example for me was the disconnect between the first IPCC report for scientists and the one for policy makers. Climate gate was only the latest in a long string. I wonder how many others have had this experience.
The questioning here initially arose out of noticing that the process itself seemed askew and was not such that would support the development of a fair hearing and balanced discussion of the theory. Such a discussion would, at least in my case, necessitate its acceptance whatever the outcome. My questioning most definitely was not the feeling that my knowledge was sufficient to question the conclusions. I continue to read articles, listen to reasonable voices such as Dr. Curry’s, and hope.

Very perceptive studies Martha. Do you have one that shows why the attempt by the President of the US to pass laws promoting your position failed, even with super majorities in both houses? And another one showing why the US Government failed to support Kyoto and subsequent events attempting to get world agreement to laws restricting CO2?

Of course recent events in the US to remove funding from the Government scientists who promote your favorite “science” and related laws are not in any way related to lack of trust in these “scientists”. These will likely be accompanied by hearings that will give even broader exposure to the phony science being promoted by your friends and associates.

All the studies you quote are somewhat like the IPCC reports and the Hockey Stick itself. They appear to be desperate attempts to promote policies that are going nowhere. My own prediction is that the European Governments who bought into the phony science will reverse their punitive taxes as they also begin to realize that they were duped by phony science dressed up by PR firms and scientists who long ago abandoned any pretense of doing ethical work.

It wasn’t just the CRU emails and it wasn’t just the Hockey Stick. It was the whole load of manure that just cannot be dressed up and promoted as something other than the garbage that it is.

Judy and many others appear to believe that carefully done science may justify policies about CO2 someday. My expectation is that it will be many years before such science could overcome the well justified lack of trust in those promoting CAGW now. And the time when that work could begin to achieve credibility likely won’t start until there is a general house cleaning at the institutions that promoted the phony science.

Paul, are you thinking of the Doran and Kendall Zimmerman (2009) questionnaire survey (Climate Change, 90, pp. 21-22)? That survey did have the figure 97% among its results. The final sample size was not very large, tho’: only 79 respondents were considered suitable for inclusion in the final count. Among the final criteria for inclusion were (1) that they “…listed climate science as their area of expertise…” and (2) that they had published “…more than 50% of their recent peer reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” The original sample size had been much larger. Of the 79, 76 (96.2%) answered ‘Risen’ to Question 1 “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen or remained constant?”, while 75 of 77 (97.4%) respondents answered ‘Yes’ to Question 2 ” Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Those seem to be the only two questions listed in the Climate Change paper, although it is not clear whether other questions were asked in the original survey.
The ‘Risen’ and ‘Yes’ responses indeed average out to around 97%. It suggests that most people who regard themselves as climate scientists and who have been recently publishing mainly in the field of climate change think that global temperatures have been rising recently and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in global temperature change. I don’t find those results too surprising. Neither question mentions carbon dioxide. So perhaps Paul was thinking of another survey. Apologies if so.
Personally (and I’m happy to announce that I am not a climate scientist) I don’t understand Q 1 as it stands. Before answering it, I would need to establish how far back before 1800 is meant: is it 50 years, 400 years, 1500 years, 10,000 years, 20,000 years? In some cases the answer would be ‘Yes’, in others ‘No’, in others again ‘Don’t know’.
Regarding Q2, (which incidentally would include anthropogenic cooling as well as warming), it depends for me on what one means by ‘significant’. Certainly if one left out either the word ‘significant’ or the word ‘global’ I would answer ‘Yes’ to Q2. So, I suspect, would most (or at least many) scientists, including climate sceptics, climate deniers and whatever. As the question stands I would probably answer ‘Don’t know’.
The Climate Change paper was written up from a Master’s degree dissertation by the second named author (M. Kendall Zimmerman).
Apologies if this comment is O/T, but so are many of the other comments on this particular post.

“if the hockey stick wasn’t in the data to begin with”

If there were no series with hockey-stick shapes in the data to begin with, then there would be no hockey-stick shaped PC regardless of which centering method was used.

“All the rest just seems to be nitpicking about semantics.”

Wrong.

“And your dislike for the conclusion and/or the author.”

And you can’t read my mind.

If I understand this fully, I am gratified that the greenhouse effect is being laid aside, finally.

But lest we forget:

It is not just A greenhouse effect we are talking about, but a “Runaway Greenhouse Effect,” that one invented by Carl Sagan to explain the 800-900°F surface temperature on Venus (with its 96% carbon dioxide atmosphere) and then applied for well over a decade by people who claimed it also applied to the Earth (with its 0.03% carbon dioxide). Sagan invented it to spare astronomers the anguish of having Immanuel Velikovsky be right in his exactly correct prediction of that surface temp of Venus. It was, in fact, nothing more than a speculation, but it was seized upon by science – because they had no other aces up their sleeves. It would not do to let the infamous Velikovsky have the last word.

So, the speculation of Sagan about one planet was applied to a planet with a massively different atmosphere. All of the Nitrogen and all of the Oxygen (not to mention the Argon) in Earth’s atmosphere was conveniently overlooked.

In the haste to scare people into seeing CO2 as an imminent threat, we we the public were bombarded with images of melting glaciers and icecaps, and everything up to boiling oceans. And, the global warming community may or may not currently use what they now call merely “the greenhouse effect,” but we all remember it as “the runaway greenhouse effect.” The climate warming community still uses the greenhouse arguments when they talk about climate “sensitivity,” though without calling on the tainted term “greenhouse effect” so much anymore. “Sensitivity” as they use it still means “runaway,” whether they run from “greenhouse effect” or not.

It was a speculation, not a fact, when Sagan conjured it up out of the mists in the 1970s and it remains a speculation. In fact, no one knows why Venus’ surface temperature is so hot. There are hypotheses and little more. In the 1970s there weren’t even good hypotheses, only a guess. When it was used in the 1980s and 1990s as a foundation for the threatened (“runaway”) global warming, it was still a speculation. Being revisionists about the AGW history will not let the (runaway) global warming community soft-pedal their past; we can remember what they tried to sell the world on. And the biggest term was “greenhouse effect”, preceded by “runaway.”

I do recall a couple of years ago on WUWT when this greenhouse was discussed and it was agreed on that “greenhouse effect” was an unfortunate and incorrect choice of terms. Since then – amazingly, and maybe merely coincidentally – the AGW folks stopped using it, forsaking it for “re-radiation.”

I just wonder if we will hear of “runaway re-radiation ” sometimes soon. If so, they don’t have Sagan to be their Galahad. It would have been his kind of exaggeration. (No, I am not a Sagan fan. I thought he was the most boring, most posturing scientist on the face of the planet…)

“It was, in fact, nothing more than a speculation, but it was seized upon by science – because they had no other aces up their sleeves.” should have been:
“Sagan’s speculation was, in fact, nothing more than a speculation, but it was seized upon by science – because they had no other aces up their sleeves.”

I’ve scanned the emails briefly. The point that stuck in my mind is that the warming from 1910-1940 is of equal magnitude to the warming of 1970-2000.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
This suggests the possibility that the two events have a similar cause. The IPCC agrees the first warming was not AGW. Is there absolutely zero chance that the second warming was also not AGW? Not even the IPCC claims that.
Thus, the first step in reconciliation is for the parties to admit what is already known. That there is a possibility that the second warming is not due to AGW. What is in dispute is the degree of certainty.

Latitude, my understanding is that most of the tree ring data was calibrated on temperature data from 1881 to 1940 (Briffa, 1998) or 1881 to 1960 (Briffa, 2001). I’m not sure about the validation periods used, though, and I think this is a key point. Perhaps the only validation performed is on the error for the calibration period? But maybe someone with a better understanding of the methods could comment, since I’m not sure.

A little more cognitive dissonance for the climategate conspiracy theorists:

Inspector General’s Review of Stolen Emails Confirms No Evidence of Wrong-Doing by NOAA Climate Scientists
Report is the latest independent analysis to clear climate scientists of allegations of mishandling of climate information

February 24, 2011

At the request of U.S. Sen. Inhofe, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails stolen in November 2009 from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and found no evidence of impropriety or reason to doubt NOAA’s handling of its climate data. The Inspector General was asked to look into how NOAA reacted to the leak and to determine if there was evidence of improper manipulation of data, failure to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures, or failure to comply with Information Quality Act and Freedom of Information Act guidelines.

“We welcome the Inspector General’s report, which is the latest independent analysis to clear climate scientists of allegations of mishandling of climate information,” said Mary Glackin, NOAA’s deputy under secretary for operations. “None of the investigations have found any evidence to question the ethics of our scientists or raise doubts about NOAA’s understanding of climate change science.”

The Inspector General’s report states specifically:

•“We found no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network – monthly] GHCN-M dataset.” (Page 11)
•“We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA failed to adhere to its peer review procedures prior to its dissemination of information.” (Page 11)
•“We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the IQA.” (Page 12)
•“We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the Shelby Amendment.” (Page 16)
The report notes a careful review of eight e-mails that it said “warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity of particular NOAA scientists or NOAA’s data,” that was completed and did not reveal reason to doubt the scientific integrity of NOAA scientists or data.

The report questions the way NOAA handled a response to four FOIA requests in 2007. The FOIA requests sought documents related to the review and comments of part of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. NOAA scientists were given legal advice that IPCC work done by scientists were records of the IPCC, not NOAA. The requesters were directed to the IPCC, which subsequently made available the review, comments and responses which are online at IPCC and http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/exit.html?http%3A%2F%2Fhcl.harvard.edu%2Fcollections%2Fipcc%2Findex.html.

“The NOAA scientists responded in good faith to the FOIA requests based on their understanding of the request and in accordance with the legal guidance provided in 2007,” Glackin said. “NOAA’s policies, practices, and the integrity and commitment of our scientists have resulted in NOAA’s climate records being the gold-standard that our nation and the world has come to rely on for authoritative information about the climate.”

The findings in the Inspector General’s investigation are similar to the conclusions reached in a number of other independent investigations into climate data stewardship and research that were conducted by the UK House of Commons, Penn State University, the InterAcademy Council, and the National Research Council, after the release of the stolen emails All of the reports exonerated climate scientists from allegations of wrong-doing.

The report also asks NOAA to review two instances in which it transferred funds to CRU. NOAA is conducting a review of funding to the University of East Anglia and as recommended by Mr. Zinser’s letter, will be providing a report to his office. NOAA’s review to date indicates that the funding supported workshops in 2002 and 2003 that helped the governments of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam improve their climate forecasting abilities.

The report further provides information about the review NOAA undertook of the emails, and notes that NOAA did not conduct a review of its data set as a result of the emails because it too determined that the emails did not indicated any impropriety and because its data sets and techniques are already regularly reviewed as part of ongoing quality control measures and are subject to formal peer review.

NOAA’s national and global climate data are available to the public in raw and adjusted form. The algorithms used to adjust the data sets to ensure high quality, useful records, are peer-reviewed and available to the public.

NOAA is committed to quality, scientific excellence and transparency and strives to provide the most authoritative and accurate information about the Earth’s climate, oceanic and atmospheric conditions. In the face of ongoing climate variability and climate change, this information is critical to businesses and people in all industries and communities as they plan for the future. NOAA is working to provide ever-improving regional and industry-specific climate information to meet the growing demand for this information.

The Inspector General report is available online.

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Visit us on Facebook.

JC…OK, now I get it…JC…..it all fits together now.

She is the Denialist’s Saviour!

When does the beatification occur?

AR5 is already in the making. A good start for restoring credibility would be that their report (and also the SPM) includes something like the following:
1. In TAR it was suggested that recent warming was unprecedented in the latest millennium, based on paleo proxy reconstructions. These results have been the object of intense debate, not yet resolved, and we no longer can say that recent warming is likely to be unprecedented.
2. The instrumental series of mean global temperature since 1850 seems to have been affected by several problems concerning the choice of stations, especially in China, and the fact that many stations have grown increasingly surrounded by heat-retaining materials such as tin roofs, concrete, asphalt and others, and by heat-emitting devices such as cars, factories and airplanes. Even if consensus appears to exist that some warming has existed in the second half of the 20th century, the global mean temperature series is now under revision. This would mandate new calibration of Global Circulation Models, which will affect future projections of future climate.
3. Since the role of clouds is not yet properly understood, the estimated value for climate sensitivity is affected by higher uncertainty than thout at the time of TAR and AR4

Eh? Like the one you play with in your bath?

Correction to my latest:
“…than thought at the time of TAR and AR4.”
Other suggestions welcome.

Ianash, for the Inspector General report, it is best to read the IG report, rather than the summary prepared by NOAA for press release. At Climate Audit, in a post this Wednesday or Thursday, several discrepancies have been noted. Interesting discrepancies, should I add.

That’s not accurate. Anthropogenic GHG emissions certainly weren’t nearly as large in the early 20th century as they are now, but they weren’t zero, either. The early 20th century warming was partly ‘natural’ (most of ‘natural’ being solar), and partly anthropogenic.

The warming over the last half-century has been almost entirely anthropogenic. Is there a possibility that the majority of this warming was from a non-anthropogenic source? Sure, but the probability is extremely slim. Realistically, well under 5%.

To wit:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/24/noaa-misrepresents-inspector-general-report/.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/24/solomons-divergence-problem/.

Photosynthesis requires both CO2 and H2O to work. The H2O comes from the rainfall via the soil and roots. I would expect increased CO2 use, and plant growth, since it is considered a fertilizer, would also imply increased water use.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Jeff, you seem to imply that weather events are evidence of AGW. How often in past years have we heard that weather is not climate by alarmists when it behaves in ways that does not support AGW but then when it does, all of the sudden it is exactly what AGW models predicted? With the recent harsh winters here in the NE USA (and many other places in the NH), most common folk who do not follow the details of climate science are forming opinions that AGW is more hype than reality. This, of course, is cause for great concern among the alarmists who see their agenda losing traction. So now stories begin to appear that snowier, colder winters are also exactly what AGW models predicted and are in complete alignment with the theory!

Herein lies a big problem for AGW. If every type of weather event that may occur in the future has been predicted by GCMs (coincidently all the same weather events that have occurred regularly in the past) and are thus considered further evidence that AGW is real, what type of weather should we expect that could falsify the theory? If the theory cannot be falsified, it is not legitimate, is it not? How would Dr. Hanson square with that question as you seem to be student of his theories?

Dr. Curry, et al:

A number of years ago, at Slashdot, I wrote that as scientists we had better be right about global warming because if we are wrong, science will be the ultimate casualty. I still believe that. “Science” as seen by those who are not scientists, has told us that the world is warming quickly, that we are the cause and that drastic action is needed. “Science” has told us that this is an absolute certainty. “Science” has made an absolute statement about a field that is inherently uncertain. Indeed the very definition of chaos.

I will repeat this again, particularly to Gavin.

You’d better be right.

Because if you are wrong, some idiot will point to you and demand creationism be taught as equal to evolution, that homeopathy is real medicine, that plate tectonics is a conspiracy theory, that any number of idiocies be equated to science. And I for one will hold you accountable. And a hundred years from now, if science recovers from the damage done, scientists will look at this period in history in shame.

If sea levels start to decline, there will be hell to pay in “Science”. Because that is one thing that has NEVER been posited as an outcome of global warming. That is Trenberth’s reverse falsification.

JE