Thanks for your effort at replying to the question I directed toward Joe, and thanks too for your articles on help for the XJ (I think that was you). I benefited from them, particularly the part on suspension limits. But in going through your reply, it appears you have addressed the period of record ending in the late 1990’s related to the now infamous “hide the decline” email. My question to Joe pertains to the period from the late 1990’s up to present during which a cooling is purported to be supported by temp data, but to which a blind statistical test has indicated no statistically significant cooling.
So the question still stands for Joe: How did data that had been compromised to tilt toward warming result in the conclusion of cooling if they were reviewed objectively? After all, that is how this entire thread got started, at least in part, with a reference toward the reported cooling occurring since the late 1990’s. Why did blind statistical tests using this data not confirm rather than refute the contention of cooling?
As for the “hide the decline” data, it’s appropriate that any precipitous drop on the graph for the post 1960 period was, in fact deleted, whether intentionally or not and whether due to omissions or computer glitches, because the decline exists only in digital format on our computer screens. We know the earth has been warming over the last 150 years or so from the record of glacial recession, but you already knew that because you are a meticulous guy. Glacial recession has been particularily pronounced from about 1980 on.The ironic thing is that the title of the initial post of this thread reads, in part: “history repeates itself”. About 10 years ago all the “skeptics” I had conversed with abandoned the “no warming at all” position, due to the irrefutable, incontrovertible evidence of glacial recession, and adapted a “no humanly induced component of warming” position. But now with the “hide the decline” email, the skeptics have had to revert back into the untenable “no warming” position. The moral of the story: “sometimes quote mining comes around and bites you in the ass”. I am really not light years away from the “no humanly induced component of warming” position myself, and I think the jury is even still out whether GW is all that harmful and I don’t know that the cure for GW, if there is one, is any better than its symptoms, but ignoring its effects doesn’t make it go away.
333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
http://www.nichols.edu/DEPARTMENTS/Glacier/glacier_retreat.htm
“On the sheltered slopes of the highest peaks of Glacier National Park, most glaciers are diminishing rapidly. The area of each glacier has been mapped by the National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. [14] Every glacier has retreated notably in the last 140 years. The larger glaciers are now approximately a third of their size when first studied in 1850, and numerous smaller glaciers have disappeared completely. Only 27% of the 99 km² area of Glacier National Park covered by glaciers in 1850 remained by 1993. An increase of approximately 1 degree Celsius (2 °F) in average summer temperatures is reflected in reduced glacier sizes.”
Thanks for the kind words on the XJ Help series.
A few things concern me about this "Climate Crisis" and the dubious science driving the demand for global climate saving legislation.
Specific to your concern about the basis of claims of recent cooling, without the CRU ignored post-1960 Briffa reconstruction data the climate change reflected in Peer reviews of the CRU climate presentation reflected cooling (excessive cooling). The peer review claim of excessive cooling (the GW skeptics rally cry) was too much for the CRU to remain silent. The CRU could not dispute the valid peer analysis, a number of analysis reports that invalidated their warming conclusions, so they had to come clean and release Briffa's Post-1960 data. This occurred less than six months ago (very recent past, and poorly reported).
When pressed with the analysis showing conclusive and drastic cooling from their presentation, the CRU admitted they failed to account for the post-1960 data and they then released the missing data set, a data set that reflected the more recent upturn in climate temperatures (the upward swing in the pink line in the graph posted). This also happened in the very recent past (less than two months ago).
If anything, regardless of the final outcome of any investigation, this exchange reflects why legitimate Science demands independent Peer review, and why any immediate climate conclusions or climate legislation driven by the illegitimate CRU data is premature. This process of valid independent peer review is common in legitimate science, including the immediate exchange and exposure of overt omissions and simple mistakes to remove unintended errors and validate the conclusions (it's why legitimate Scientists welcome Peer review and freely provide any data to the skeptical oppsition).
The glacial changes are a long term indicator of warming. I doubt any Scientist will make the claim that the long term climate trend has been warming since the Little Ice Age (the last period when most glaciers expanded). The question is why do we have warming, due to natural causes (similar to the causes since the last major ice age), or due to CO2 emitted by mankind's actions (if we accept CO2 was present in-advance of climate changes to drive previous warming)?
The glacial change is also not as well understood as expected. Glaciers in Africa and New Zealand tend to gain mass and stall under the additional weight, looking like recession when the climate is cooling (and the obverse is also true, they extend in warm periods due to the lubrication of excessive melt water).
We need multiple points of Climate research and multiple reports of independent Peer review of Climate Reports with open source validation of Raw Climate data (before enacting global Legislation).
:cheers:
