This reveals...just how wrong it is to claim that “global warming stopped in 1998.” Temperatures since then have been perfectly consistent with the preceding trend. In fact they really have been a little warmer, although the extra warmth post-2000 is not yet statistically significant.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
The Hockey Stick In Full Effect
From Tamino's place, with 2007 data added:This reveals...just how wrong it is to claim that “global warming stopped in 1998.” Temperatures since then have been perfectly consistent with the preceding trend. In fact they really have been a little warmer, although the extra warmth post-2000 is not yet statistically significant.
This reveals...just how wrong it is to claim that “global warming stopped in 1998.” Temperatures since then have been perfectly consistent with the preceding trend. In fact they really have been a little warmer, although the extra warmth post-2000 is not yet statistically significant.
Bring on the mass hysteria, The End of the World is Near, the sky is falling run, run, run.
ReplyDeleteMy family has been recording the weather for over 100 years in our area. The warmest time period here, was the 1930's not the late 1990's or now.
Accepting man made global warming without skepticism is stupid.
Your families little piece of the planet is NOT representative of the entire planet. You have a localized climate only. Some areas are obviously going to get hotter and some colder. Patterns will shift. How do you know that your climate is the same now but due to different factors?
ReplyDeletePost your data or is it just passed on verbally (rhetoric and relative)?
Skepticism is one thing but denial disguised as skepticism is another. You seem to be projecting what your community has experienced with that of the rest of the world.
My experince has been extremely different than yours. I grew up on the coast of Newfoundland. Pack ice that arrived every year at the same time has not appeared since the mid 1990's and my hometown that was once blanketed in snow yearly now has only frozen water puddles throughout the winter.
My family has been recording the weather for over 100 years in our area.
ReplyDeleteWhere's the data, Wayne?
Ahhh the NASA GISTemp data again.
ReplyDeleteSame old .. garbage in, garbage out
How many surface stations have corrupt data and why doesn't Hansen reveal how he "adjusts" his data ??
Too busy counting the $750,000 that Soros gave him to promote Climate Change Hysteria.
"My family has been recording the weather for over 100 years in our area. The warmest time period here, was the 1930's not the late 1990's or now."
ReplyDeleteUnder which rock is "your" area Wayne? Can you see a sour gas well from your back porch?
That graph is re-inforced by today's release.
I was going to enquire whether that was the original NASA figures or the corrected ones, but the perceptive and lightening quick "Anon" beat me to it.
ReplyDeleteSo instead, I shall ask if the USA stats which must form a huge part of the global figures were produced by the sort of, er, quaint temperature stations that Anthony Watts illustrates so regularly on his site? You know the ones, they started on green field sites and ended up surrounded by car-parks, air-conditioning units, glass office blocks and, heavens to Betsy (is that authentic North American?) they indicated rising temperatures over the last few decades - I can't imaging why!
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/california-ushcn-station-surveys-are-complete/
Let's all repeat after me . . .
ReplyDeleteTemperature changes in and of themselves are NOT proof that it has been caused by CO2. Period. Anybody who says it is, is stupid.
God I hate graphs with averaging and smoothing in them. Just plot the yearly data. Human beings are perfectly capable of seeing the long term trends without all of this "help".
ReplyDeletewayne's anecdotal evidence is more valid than having Al Gore show a polar bear resting on ice during summer breakup.
ReplyDeleteTemperature changes in and of themselves are NOT proof that it has been caused by CO2. Period.
ReplyDeleteProofs are for mathematics. Science can only examine the data and extract reasonable - but always provisional - conclusions from it.
Anyone that says "there is no way science can absolutely prove this" is absolutely correct. And doesn't know much about science.
But on the other side of the GHG coin, anyone that says there is no longer any question whatsoever about AGW is also abusing the science.
We aren't talking about Al Gore or polar bears here. We are talking about hard data. Stay on topic. anecdotal evidence is bullshit without any shred of evidence except failing memories.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we no longer see what happened before 1880? What are they trying to hide? What exactly is their hidden agenda?
ReplyDeleteGood for you jay. How long a climate record are you relating - 5 years, 10 years, 15 years? But I guess YOUR little piece of the earth IS representative of the entire planet, right?
ReplyDeleteIn great big blue hand written journals for enviroment canada ti-guy.
ReplyDeleteI will see if I can get the data, digital.
ReplyDeletewayne, at what time of day did they record the temperature? Same time every day? And when you say the 1930s had higher temperatures are you talking about one time record highs for a day or a week or a month or a year, higher averages over the whole year, monthly averages, weekly averages, daily averages or what? We need more information to decide what exact value to put on your family's data.
ReplyDeleteAnd about the 1930s having high temperatures... do you not realise that in the Canadian prairies and the US plains during the 1930s we had a major drought for years, with dust blizzards, plagues of grasshoppers, crop failures, etc.? In other words a warming climate which may have been responsible for a climate catastrophe. Now that the temperature is higher than in the 1930s, should we not expect a worse climate catastrophe? A drought which is worse and which will last for decades or centuries?
That was me
ReplyDeleteThe damned screen keeps jumping up just when I am about to hit Nickname, so I hit publish instead.
ReplyDelete1936
ReplyDeleteMay 32.8 C
June 33.9
July 41.7
August 37.8
2007
May 30.8
June 32.3
July 37.1
August 30.8
This will give you an idea of where I am coming from.
wayne, at what time of day did they record the temperature?
ReplyDeleteMorning, Noon, and Evening
Same time every day? Yes.
And when you say the 1930s had higher temperatures are you talking about one time record highs for a day or a week or a month or a year, higher averages over the whole year, monthly averages, weekly averages, daily averages or what?
They kept tack of all of the above, I took over from my mother in 1981 and stopped in 1991 when an automated weather station was installed.
My family were the local offical weather observers, with government equipment.
We need more information to decide what exact value to put on your family's data.
Enviroment Canada has all my data, but they only go back to 1914, for my area, we started in 1898.
David,
ReplyDeleteWatts classified all those surface stations as good bad or indifferent, and the lads at Climate Audit ran the numbers again with various subsets of the stations included and excluded. Guess what? The results all came out the same; they vindicated Hansen. I've written about this before, and you've read it here before, I'm sure. Why the silly games?
Arrrrrg. I can't download the data and I am not going to type it all in.
ReplyDeleteIn my area the 1930's were hotter than the 1990's or 2000's so far.
So when I dig out the musty old journals and do not see what I am being told in the MSM, I am skeptical.
1936
ReplyDeleteMay 32.8 C
June 33.9
July 41.7
August 37.8
2007
May 30.8
June 32.3
July 37.1
August 30.8
Those look like record temperatures to me, not averages for each month. Is that correct? I think the scientists work more with averages, like BCL's graph which is based on five-year averages.
It's nice that you have that historic information in your family. My grandmother, who lived on farms for much of her life, noted the weather in her diary every day.
Mann's Hockey Stick? Don't you mean what it's called now?
ReplyDeleteMann's Fraudulent and Manipulated Curve To Fit UN Agenda?
I can't believe that anybody can seriously quote or refer to that discredited garbage.
Enviroment Canada
ReplyDeleteCall up the data from your own area in the 30's and now. Compare them side by side, and see what you come up with.
If it is hotter now, it should show it is hotter now.
hasn't even the IPCC stopped using the Mann Hockey Stick and left the skanky prof to rot in some junior college somewhere ?
ReplyDeleteEven the PR experts at the IPCC won't protect a dying dog.
"According to Norwegian Aftenbladet, IPCC Chairman Pachauri had done his usual alarmist presentation in a good mood. He even included a joke about 20-30 percent of species dying out as a cause of global warming, and this extinction would include climate skeptics.
ReplyDeleteÅm had done his homework and disproved the outrageous statements, and concluded by accusing the IPCC of committing scientific fraud. One of his strongest points was the scientific critique of the hockey graph that the climate alarmists love so much.
Personally, I have read so many science reports discrediting that graph that it is hard to believe that IPCC is still using it with a straight face, but that is just my meager science reporter’s opinion…
After the debate, Aftenbladet asked Åm what his scientific credentials on climate science was, and Åm answered “I have the same credentials as Al Gore”.
So he's as well versed in Climate Science as The Goreacle.
That explains a lot.
They don't have Calgary data for the 1930s. At Gleichen on Jan 9, 1936, the max temp was -3.3 degrees and the min temp was -15.0. Here in Calgary the current temp is -1.1 degrees. So it's warmer here than in Gleichen in 1936. Single day temperatures don't mean that much, you need to look at trends over a long period, which is what the scientists are doing. There are various factors involved; Calgary may be hotter because of urban heat effect, but it may be cooler here than usual because of La Nina which may be causing much of the crappy weather on the west coast.
ReplyDeleteIt might be a good idea to compare the low temperatures, as well. Is it warmer at night now than it was in the 1930s?
I went through every month for everyday and compared highs and lows. For 1936 and 2007. Sometimes it was hotter on one day than 1936 but over the whole year, month by month, day by day, 1936 was hotter, where I live.
ReplyDeleteThe data was collected in the exact same spot in a rural area since 1898. A Stevenson screen was used to house the thermometers.
Wow. Doctor Perfesser Wayne, Climatological Scientician.
ReplyDeleteGod I hate graphs with averaging and smoothing in them. Just plot the yearly data. Human beings are perfectly capable of seeing the long term trends without all of this "help".
Another scientician.
Wayne, in what part of Canada were laymen measuring temperature in Celsius in 1936?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't Wayne's picture just scream out "morals charge?"
ReplyDeleteThis is a public service announcement to BCL readers as BCL might be a little slow in reporting the latest poll numbers from Decima issued today for the period of Jan. 3- Jan. 6. (See thread below for more commentary.)
ReplyDeleteConservatives 37
Libeals 30
That's all folks, have a good evening.
informed debate and rasing awareness of poignant issues...
ReplyDeletewww.nationwords.wordpress.com
hey, your favorites, Kinsella & Gore on the same page.
ReplyDeletehttp://no-libs.com/?p=2093
BCL? Did you post the wrong graph?
ReplyDeleteWhere's the Hockey Stick? You know, the one that claimed with full scientific and moral authority that the 1990s were the "warmest in a 1000 years".
Now we're down to "likely the warmest in a 150 years"?
- Paul S
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Wayne, in what part of Canada were laymen measuring temperature in Celsius in 1936?"
ReplyDeletethe mound of sound
Enviroment Canada converted all temperatures to C when the metric system came in. I was found all the data from my books on their website, going back to 1914.
I'm just telling you what is happening where I am ti-guy, check the data where you are.
"morals charge"???? Thanks ti-guy. I was having a great time at the lake. Family and friends and a few beer.
I was found all the data from my books on their website, going back to 1914.
ReplyDeleteThis makes no sense whatsoever, and seems to contradict what you asserted earlier. Your credibility with me remains very suspect, Wayne.
In any case, as has been said before, temperature measurements in a limited area don't really say anything, and you should probably stop making such an issue of it. If it proves, to you, that AGW isn't real, then fine. You don't need to say that more than once.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Arrrrrg. I can't download the data and I am not going to type it all in."
ReplyDeleteWhat station are you using?
Lenny I was trying to get the info from Environment Canada, my info is all handwritten.
ReplyDeleteI asked you what weather station you're refering to.
ReplyDeleteLenny, the equipment came from Environment Canada and what ever it was before that. My Great Grandfather, Grandfather, Mother and my self took several readings a day to come up with the data.
ReplyDeleteLook up Stevenson screen on wiki and you will get an idea what it looks like.
ti-guy "This makes no sense whatsoever, and seems to contradict what you asserted earlier. Your credibility with me remains very suspect, Wayne."
The data in my books go back to 1898, the records at Enviroment Canada only go back to 1914.
My books record F until 1978 then they switch to C.
My data does not show a hockey stick.
Healthy skepticism is not a bad thing.
ti-guy I farm 2300 acres of land, when Manitoba comes out with their carbon credit plan, I'm going to reap thousands of dollars. If I was the asshole you think I am, what do you think I would be saying.
"Lenny, the equipment came from Environment Canada and what ever it was before that. My Great Grandfather, Grandfather, Mother and my self took several readings a day to come up with the data."
ReplyDeleteAre you daft? What is THE NAME OF THE WEATHER STATION you're refering to? The STATION. I don't care what the equipment is called or who gave it to you.
Brandon, Manitoba.
ReplyDeleteThe only Brandon station that has records going back to the 30's in Brandon is "Brandon CDA"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/monthlydata_e.html
Taking Enviro Can's annual mean temps for that station gives you an average annual mean of 2.1c for the period of 1930 to 1939. For the period of 2000 through 2006 that number is 2.6c.
Your claim is bogus, Wayne.
RSS MSU data please...
ReplyDeleteJon P
Jay, years ago I was struck by the fears that middle-class kids without religion had about nuclear war. It was almost an obsession with a few of them. It's almost as though people without religion, who don't belong to any of the great religious traditions, have got to be frightened of something.
ReplyDeletePerhaps they're looking for a cause that is almost a substitute for religion. I often point out that some of those who are now warning us against global warming were warning us back in the 1970s about an imminent new ice age, because according to some criteria an ice age is a bit overdue. Remember the fuss about the millennium bug and our computer systems in the lead-up to the year 2000.
You guys really need to chill out as Wayne says
Dion will ruin our economy if he ever gets elected. He's an enviro-freak and we can't afford extremists like him in power.
ReplyDeleteIt is also fact that increasing temperatures have been detected on Mars where human activity can hardly be blamed.
Do any of you enviro-freaks wish to explain that annoying little fact that doesn't fit into your loony theory. (And if you're going to rely on the presence of lots of little green men on our neighbouring planet, please back it up with evidence other than National Enquirer articles.)
Ti-guy, I used to give you some credit for a little bit of skepticism, but you've fallen hook, line and sinker for this crapolla.
Wow, every moron denialist argument finds its way here over and over again. Warming on Mars? D'uh! Environmnetalism is uh religion? Double d'uh!!
ReplyDeleteThey must be from FD, home of incestuous amplification of dumbnitude.
Do any of you enviro-freaks wish to explain that annoying little fact that doesn't fit into your loony theory.
ReplyDeleteIt's because the MAN-MADE greenhouse gases are so plentiful, they've now enveloped Mars.
That's just teh science, you denialist wingnut.
Lenny 1930's 2.2C
ReplyDelete2006 is estimated.
So I went to 2005 2.3C
or .1C higher.
Where I am, no I was not going let you nut cases know where I am.
ReplyDelete1930s 1.9C
2000-2005 1.8C
2000-2006 1.9C
I had only checked my data with a calculator and only until 2005.
The mid to late 80's were hot as well.
The site I gave you is now in the city of Brandon.
My site has not changed in 100 years.
EnviroCan lists 4 weather stations in Brandon, only one of which(Brandon CDA) has records from the 1930s(and earlier) to the present. I've already posted the numbers for that station above, and they show clearly that the 30's were colder in Brandon, despite your repeated claims to the contrary. In fact, the numbers look pretty much identical to this:
ReplyDeletehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png