The Weekly Deep Think Piece

OK… NOT SO much with the deep thing; just a note about the so-called “global warming” panic.

In this invaluable video, Warren Meyer (a.k.a. Climate Skeptic, a.k.a. Coyote) makes the point that, although the hoax has been rebranded — formerly global warming, now (NEW! and IMPROVED!) climate change — the mendacity of the new brand name does not change the fact that, in order for “climate change” to be a matter for concern, it must be preceded by (or include as a first step), warming. Not that cooling is of no concern, but that the warmiasts themselves have taken it off the table.

Now, I disagree with Meyer on this next particular point, because he professes ecumenity with the warmiasts and allows as how there probably is, has been, and will be warming — just not so much.

Sort of like the Republicans want socialism like the Democrats — only not so fast or so big.

And, yes, I realize that science is not like politics: there is no win in the topic, and — even if there were — you don’t win by automatically gainsaying your opponent.

But when your opponent is WRONG on all points — and deliberately (and tendentiously) mendacious about it, too — then there’s no point in pretending ecumenical good fellowship just for the sake of comity. The enemy has pretty much thrown that on the ground and stomped that sucker flat. And there’s especially no point in go-along-to-get-along when the whole matter you’re opposing has been made up of a whole cloth.

In a post over the holiday weekend, Meyer notes that the apparent warming over the 20th Century, as measured (where we’ve looked when we’ve looked) in the “official” record — the so-called RAW data… (How trustworthy is data that has to be cooked? Shouldn’t it all be eaten raw?) … that apparent warming has been a whopping one-tenth of a degree Celsius.

And that the sixth-tenths of a degree that everybody talks about is actually an artifact of the cooking. Dunnit just make your heart go pittipat? Make you just want to run off and marry these paragons of virtue, who can cook the books to produce FIVE TIMES the warming as the instruments ACTUALLY SHOW?

Oh, come on, Alger! You know that raw data can often resemble noise!

Fine. Filter out the noise. But, when they cook all the virtue out of the data, or put words in its mouth, they shouldn’t be allowed to pretend boiled-to-death from a can is as nutritious as steamed fresh from the garden.

Sort of like the notion that |this| (holds fingers four inches apart) is actually nine inches.

Remember that figure: one tenth of one degree Celsius.

Meantime, over at Surface Stations (dot) Org, Anthony Watts’ volunteer initiative to survey and gather meta data on the surface stations in the United States Climatologican Historical Network, has surveyed 82% of the stations and has determined that only 10% of the stations fit a CRN standard of level 1 or 2, with a bias of less than one degree. The other 90% show siting bias that should result in an error of greater than one degree. ONE WHOLE DEGREE or TEN TIMES THE OBSERVED “WARMING”. And the vast majority 61% show a bias of greater than TWO degrees.

Please note that there ARE no designations for cooling biases. Yes, temperatures may register hotter than reality, but it’s not likely they’ll register colder. And, if you think about it, this matches up with reality as we know it. Unless there are major man-made sources of cold air floating around out there… it ain’t happening.

Now, there’s a whole lot of disclaimers here. Just because a station shows bad siting that does not mean that it’s record is all biased. Yeah, it’s pretty unlikely that the sensor placed in an asphalt parking lot next to air conditioner heat vents is going to record accurate temperatures, but the likelihood isn’t a perfect zero. Yeah, even with a greater-than-two-degree bias in 61% of the sites, that doesn’t mean that their records will be uniformly two degrees (plus) higher than you might otherwise get from a properly-sited station. Yes, ALL of the RAW data is composed of a good deal more than just the US network, but — let’s be honest, here — the US network is the BEST of the lot. Anywhere else, the siting, instrumentation, reporting, and data reliability is going to be WORSE, not better.

Nevertheless, the difference in the values is so great that those ameliorating factors can be considered nil.

And the point? Well, if you have a temperature record that reports one tenth of a degree of warming over a century, and 90% of the instruments whose product makes up that record show a siting bias of greather than ten times that, how in the world can you claim, with a straight face, that there has been any warming at all?

Which is the conclusion I came to years ago when I first came in contact with the raw data myself, even before the surface stations initiative.

(Cross-posted at Eternity Road.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *