Modeling Confirmation Bias

Check out this propaganda at the Los Alamos Science Museum. They have modeled that trees are doomed by global warming, as part of their efforts to secure funding for biofuels research.

B6YVJauCEAAXHtBB6YaV4OCMAAroDe

Only problem is, their own tree ring exhibit shows that Los Alamos has been much wetter since 1958 than it was prior to that date.

ScreenHunter_5748 Jan. 02 22.01

They don’t present one shred of evidence in support of their funding drive, other than a worthless “computer simulation.”

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Modeling Confirmation Bias

  1. omanuel says:

    How sad it is, Steven, that our most prestigious research institutions – including even the Los Alamos Science Museum – have been reduced to promoting false government propaganda as consensus science.

    Society is now headed for another historical showdown, this time between:
    1. The selfish forces in those who took totalitarian control of planet Earth in 1945, and
    2. The all-powerful but invisible spiritual forces from the Sun’s pulsar core that made our elements, birthed the Solar System, and sustains the illusion of solid planetary matter orbiting the Sun today

    See Max Planck, “The Essence of Matter,” from a speech Dr. Planck presented in Florence, Italy in 1944, entitled “Das Wesen der Materie” (The Essence/Nature/Character of Matter) Quelle: Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797: http://www.greggbraden.com/resources

    • omanuel says:

      The battle-lines are between the:

      1. Selfish, malevolent force that exist in each of us [1], and

      2. Benevolent forces in the Sun that
      a.) Made our chemical elements
      b.) Birthed the Solar System five billion years (5 Ga) ago
      c.) Sustained the origin and evolution of life on Earth after 3.5 Ga ago
      d.) Still controls every atom, star and world in the Solar System today.

      It is in the best interest of society if we can forgive those convinced to “save the world” from nuclear annihilation by deceiving the public about the energy in cores of heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars and galaxies on 1945.

      1. See: “Defending humanity . . .” http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/02/2015-defending-humanity-by-reason-or-force/

    • DakotaKid says:

      I may say that consensus science is not science at all:
      Scientific method:
      1. Observe nature
      2. Make a model (or several models )that might explain what is going on. These models must be falsifiable (If something like x happens or does not happen then the model is false).
      3. Make predictions based on those models, if the predictions do not occur then said model is falsified and the model is either scrapped or revised and you go back to number 1. Else if the predictions are accurate
      4. The model is supported. If the model is supported repeat until the body of evidence allows accurate predictions.
      5 If all the steps have been done then you have a theory.
      No consensus is needed, no other people are needed.
      If as in global warming/climate change occurs the predictions are demonstrably wrong, it does not matter how many “scientists” (read academics in reality) agree wrong is wrong and no theory exists.

      If you have a good model in something like climate prediction, plant trees in area that are about to change, short sell insurance companies on the stock market, buy wastelands about to become sea shore, and get really rich.

  2. Gail Combs says:

    The problem with telling lies is you then have to tell more lies to support the original lies. Soon you have a towering edifice of lies blowing in the breeze of truth. A good gust and the whole edifice comes tumbling down. When it does the rose colored glasses the population had on are ripped off.

    The Progressives/Democratic party are betting the farm they can seize complete control before those rose colored glasses get ripped off. Skeptics are hoping we can rip them off before it is too late. I would say the race is neck and neck with Mother Nature square in our corner.

    • rah says:

      “I would say the race is neck and neck with Mother Nature square in our corner.”
      Mother Nature doesn’t take sides. She just “is”. Even though it sure seems like she is doing a lot these days to back the skeptics positions.

      I think of it more like you and skeptics in general are all in her corner! For every bullet point cherry pick the climatnistas make she, and her known history, provides Tony and you and so many others that see and know the same things, with a full basic load of ammunition to shoot it down. It’s just that Tony has made it his life’s work to find that ammunition and and has the talent to use it for maximum effect.

      • Gail Combs says:

        You are correct rah. I am sure glad someone with Tony’s skills and dedication is fighting the BORG. However sometimes Mother Nature or the Good Lord seems to have a great sense of humor and wonderful timing….
        Original photo of Obama landing after Copenhagen from Major Snowstorm Hits Atlantic Coast (New York Times)

        Anthony Watts caption contest:

        • omanuel says:

          Thanks, Gail.

          Reality does not choose sides. Those who choose to lie about reality often seem to be the butt of Mother Nature’s sense of humor.

          Who chose to lie?

        • Vice President Joe says:

          Can I play?
          I can? Oh kool!
          How’s about, Mr. Vice President tell my pilot to fire this sky rocket up so that I won’t miss my Tee time.

        • V.P. Joe Beiden says:

          Can I play?
          Kool!
          How’s about:
          “Mr President, fire this bottle rocket up so we can get the Global Warming out-o-here!”

  3. gator69 says:

    Can”t wait for the ‘Hansen 9000’…

  4. Dave Nunn says:

    Vast amounts “pond scum” wouldn’t affect the environmental balance then? Where to put it all such that it has the required nutrients. How stupid do they think we are?
    They seem to forget that there are still some talented scientists and engineers out there in productive and ethical industry who can see the nonsense. I count myself in the later category profession wise.

    • Rud Istvan says:

      For a detailed examination of ‘pond scum’ nonsense see essay Salvation by Swamp in ebook Blowing Smoke. The limiting nutrient is adequate CO2!

  5. Gail Combs says:

    “….trees are doomed by global warming,…”

    What a royal crock of fertilizer.
    First, trees are close to CO2 starvation:
    Royal Society: Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution

    Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California.
    (wwwDOT)ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15642948

    Impact of lower atmospheric carbon dioxide on tropical mountain ecosystems
    (wwwDOT)ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9367947

    Second Warm = Moist
    Stone-Age graveyard reveals life in a “green Sahara” (Not that this ‘Politically Correct’ article mentions that fact.) but CO2Science does: (wwwDOT)co2science.org/subject/other/clim_hist_tenthousand.php
    Note the two periods of Holocene warmth. Once as the earth came out of the Wisconsin Ice Age and later during the Holocene Optimum.

    A quicky over view of Tree/Plant evolution:

    The first plants to invade the land did so about 430 million years ago in the silurian, before vertebrates invaded the land….

    After the invasion of land by plants a big adaptive radiation followed, in Devonian times. The first trees (big plants [30 meters] with woody stems) evolved about 360 million years ago and had roots and leafs (begin carboniferous)….

    Lycopod trees could only live in moist-environments because they reproduced by spores, which need moisture to enable sperms to move to the egg.

    In the devone a second innovation came about: the seed. The seed enabled plants to colonize non-wet land, beginning a total change of much of the lands since plants play an important part in the formation of soil because they slow down erosion. The first seedplants evolved trees with seeds which thus colonized the lands and formed the first vast forests. One of the first kinds of large trees was Archaeopteris….

    In the carboniferous important swamp trees were lycopods…. Cordaites was the first of the group gymnosperms (naked-seeds) that colonized the land for quite a while.

    At the end of the permian time (280 million years ago,) when the first reptiles appeared, but no dinosaurs yet), lycopod trees had declined and cordaites had dissappeared. Gymnosperms, including confers, took over land environments….

    Plant life of the Permian (248 million years ago) took on an increasingly modern “look” with the rise of a number of gymnosperm (naked seeded) plants during the late Carboniferous and their diversification during the Permian. Indeed, the late Carboniferous “extinction” is almost inapplicable to terrestrial plants. The arborescent lycopds of the carboniferous coal swamps disappeared before the end of that period. The Permian saw the spread of conifers and cycads, two groups that would dominate the floras of the world until the Cretaceous period with the rise of the flowering plants. The first conifers had small leaves similar to those seen in the modern plant Auracaria, the Norfolk Island pine….

    At the end of the mesozoic era, 66 million years ago, gymnosperma trees have largely take over from the conifers. Amongst the genera that had evolved were platanus, the oak family, hollies (like American holly or hulst), the walnut family, palm trees and the family that now includes birches and alnus. 50 of the 500 families of flowering plants had already evolved. At that time mammals were about to take over the animal kingdom.
    http://www.bomengids.nl/uk/tree-evolution.html

    You get the idea. Plants and trees were doing just fine and evolving from 430 million years ago. So what has the temperature done since then?

    I only have a chart going back 65 Million years however the conifers and deciduous trees that existing 66 million years ago are still with us and lived through all these temperature changes.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I figure it is nice to have a summary of the scientific data that rips that piece of propaganda to shreds all in one place with the links to back it up.

    • nielszoo says:

      I’ve had Sago “Palms” (cycas revoluta) in my yard for decades. I’ve never protected them during freezes or during the sub tropical heat of Florida and I’ve never had one die. The species is about 200 million years old.

    • PeterK says:

      Gail: Where do you get all of this stuff from? I find most of it quite interesting. You must sure have a very large collection of data / information neatly cataloged to be able to retrieve at a moments notice.

      • Gail Combs says:

        About ten years of reading, making notes, bookmarks and a good memory.

        Much of it is thanks to being a dedicated reader of WUWT for years with frequent stops at Jo Nova’s and elsewhere.

        I also have a very fast reading rate (1500 words/min) which is a major pain when I try to edit my own work.

        My hopes are I can string various studies together well enough that people can understand them and then use them to defend the alternate views against the propaganda pushers.

  6. Fox From Melbourne says:

    Just a quick point that the not so smart people Los Alamos Science Museum must of missed or forgot, that’s if they even bother to check with reality on this one. Our green than tho ABC (Australia) put this up on its science web site way back in 2013.

    Rising carbon dioxide is greening deserts
    ” Dr Randall Donohue says carbon dioxide increases the water efficiency of arid-zone plants.
    “From 1982 to 2010, carbon dioxide levels have increase 14 per cent,” he said.
    “It’s been understood for a while that plants do a lot better under elevated carbon dioxide levels.
    “Carbon dioxide is an essential ingredient for plant growth, the more they have, generally the better they do.
    “That means plants in dry places can end up being more water efficient, and can grow a little bit more for a given bit of rainfall.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-03/carbon-dioxide-increase-vegetation/4796990

    Climate change turning desert green
    ” “CO2 is needed by plants, it’s a main source of food for plants,” Dr Donohue said.
    “So generally the more CO2 in the atmosphere – and therefore the more CO2 plants can grab – the better they grow.
    “They also end up being more efficient at using many of the other resources they need, including water.” ”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-04/climate-change-turning-desert-green/4798930

    Just as the tree rings show the tree didn’t die in the droughts they just got more efficient and keep on growing. So question why wouldn’t the trees do the same in the future? Someone please ask them at the Los Alamos Science Museum. Better they don’t have a clue.

  7. richard says:

    As far as i know trees grow well in cities that are up to 10- 20 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside .

    I call bull****

    • Gail Combs says:

      The only thing on earth that limits trees is CO2 starvation and cold (and the drought caused by cold)

      Even C4 plants have better water efficiency with higher CO2 C4 Plants (Water Use Efficiency)

      C3 plant water efficiency studies here

      A search on CO2science for trees heat stress showed no results.

      Death from ‘Heat Stress’ seems to be linked more with drought than with temperature. We know some conifers need fire to release seeds and far west conifer forests have survived repeated fires over centuries. We also know that high and low temperatures are recorded under clear skies and low air moisture content. This causes confounding of temperature with drought.
      From the University of Georgia

      …A thermal death threshold is reached at approximately 115°F. The thermal death threshold varies depending upon the duration of hot temperatures, the absolute highest temperature reached, tissue age, thermal mass, water content of tissue, and ability of the plant to make adjustments to temperature changes.

      A plant’s temperature usually runs just above air temperature. Plants dissipate heat by long-wave radiation, convection of heat into the air, and transpiration (water loss from leaves). Transpiration is a major mechanism of plant cooling. Without transpirational cooling, heat radiated to the surroundings and wind cooling are the only means of keeping plant temperatures near air temperatures. Sometimes radiated heat and hot breezes prevent heat dissipation and add to the plant’s heat load.

      Figure #3 gives three examples of heat loading in a landscape. The first example is the sensible heat generated in a parking lot with a hard surface. The sun beats down with 1000 heat units. The hard surface absorbs and reradiates heat for a total of 2000 heat units. This heat can be reflected onto plants and used to heat air that is blown into or across a landscape, raising heat loading and water loss…..
      warnell(DOT)forestry.uga.edu/SERVICE/LIBRARY/index.php3?docID=195&docHistory%5B%5D=12

      Biologists are just now starting to look at plants ability to regulate temperature.
      WUWT had a discussion about temperature regulation:
      wattsupwiththat(DOT)com/2008/06/13/surprise-leaves-maintain-temperature-new-findings-may-put-dendroclimatology-as-metric-of-past-temperature-into-question/

      Another paper:
      Mechanisms of thermoregulation in plants
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634508/

      And a third:
      2012: High temperature exposure increases plant cooling capacity

      Summary

      Plants inhabit different environments and have evolved mechanisms to optimise growth within defined temperature ranges. In Arabidopsis thaliana, growth at high temperature (28°C) results in striking elongation of stems and increased leaf elevation from the soil surface [1–3] . Despite insights into the molecular control of these responses [1–5] , their physiological significance remains unknown. Here, we analysed the impact of high temperature-mediated development on plant water use strategy. We present the surprising finding that Arabidopsis plants developed at high temperature (28°C) [82°F] show increased water loss and enhanced leaf cooling capacity in these conditions, despite producing fewer leaf surface pores (stomata). Our data suggest that plant architectural adaptations to high temperature may enhance evaporative leaf cooling in well-watered environments.

      Thanks to the Köppen climate classification system we know that plants also adapt by moving to a more hospitable climate.
      (wwwDOT)britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/322068/Koppen-climate-classification

  8. Mike says:

    I’m clearly not the smartest person hanging out at the Los Alamos Science Museum… So how exactly are Liberal Socialists going to ‘power my life’? And what are they doing ‘in my backyard’?

    • And what are they doing ‘in my backyard’?

      Just fire two shotgun blasts into the air. Why? I don’t know, but it seems like a good thing to do. –The Vice President of the United States, Ladies & Gentlemen

    • The pond scum is everywhere you look. I still hope they’re in your backyard and not mine but I’m not gonna take any chances.

      • Pathway says:

        But you live near Boulder where pond scum is rampant.

        • annieoakley says:

          Don’t have to go that far south. Pond Scum is rampant (now) in Ft. Collins too. However Ft. Collins has broken so many cold, wet records lately an epiphany might be at hand.

        • It’s everywhere—that’s why you don’t second guess anyone telling you the scum’s in your backyard again. You take a blade and go at it again.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Liberal Socialists are very long on propaganda and very short on engineering. Plants simply can not convert incoming solar into an amount of energy that can power modern civilization.

      Someone went over the engineering at WUWT a couple of years ago. Essentially you are looking at the amount of incoming solar radiation over time X the conversion ratio = the actual amount of net energy captured. It is depressingly small. You would have to cover the surface of the USA with solar panels or these specialized plants and would still fall far short. This display has everything to do with promoting warm fuzzys in the brains of the gullible and nothing to do with actual science. It is an excellent example of a conman selling snake oil.

      The Second point – “And what are they doing ‘in my backyard’?”
      Here is the history of why THEY own YOUR backyard. (The links are old.)
      We lost our property rights in 1976.

      In 1976, the U.S. government signed a UN document that declared:
      Land … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice;
      D-1. Government must control the use of land to achieve equitable distribution of resources;
      D-2. Control land use through zoning and land-use planning;
      D-3. Excessive profits from land use must be recaptured by government;
      D-4. Public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform;
      D-5. Owner rights should be separated from development rights, which should be held by a public authority.
      This document was signed on behalf of the U.S. by Carla A. Hills, then secretary of housing and urban development, and William K. Reilly, then head of the Conservation Fund, who later became the administrator of the EPA.
      Land-use controls found their way into the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, “Our Common Future,” which first defined the term “sustainable development.” The meaning of sustainable development here defined was codified in another U.N. document called “Agenda 21,” which was signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. This document recommended that every nation create a national sustainable development initiative….

      We have seen all of those principles implemented mostly via the EPA. In Taxachusetts I left 20 years ago when they proposed making most of the state the ‘Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge’ I got a hold of the draft plan and as a farmer you would have to file your planting plans each spring with the state and get approval and get permission to cut down a tree or put in a fence post…. Sure sounds like the USSR to me.

      During Clinton we got House Concurrent Resolution 25

      “The official title of the resolution [H. Con. Res. 25] as introduced is: “Expressing the sense of Congress that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the United States should provide from renewable resources not less than 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber.”

      It is supposedly driven by 25×25 America’s Energy Future This Web site states:

      “25x’25 is a grassroots-led and -supported Renewable energy initiative. Across the country, farmers, ranchers, forest land owners and other leaders in the community are coming together in state-level alliances to explore how the 25x’25 vision can help accomplish state energy,”

      Actually it is a United Nations Idea. Farmers being cantankerous independents were NOT in support. This is based on several discussion groups I haunted at the time. Thats where I got these links

      “The 25x’25 Initiative is sponsored by the Energy Future Coalition, a project of the UN Foundation”

      http://www.25×25.org/
      (wwwDOT)unfoundation.org/features/25×25.asp
      http://www.un.org/documents/gACa/conf166/ngo/950307140407.htm

      • Gail Combs says:

        This study gives the conversion rate What is the maximum efficiency with which photosynthesis can convert solar energy into biomass?

        4.6% for C3 photosynthesis at 30 °C and today’s 380 ppm atmospheric [CO2], but 6% for C4 photosynthesis. This advantage over C3 will disappear as atmospheric [CO2] nears 700 ppm.

        Unfortunately this article is behind a pay wall and the numbers are not revealed in the Abstract. SURPRIZE! (not) Solar energy conversion efficiencies in photosynthesis: Minimizing the chlorophyll antennae to maximize efficiency

        And again numbers are left out of abstract. Improvement of light to biomass conversion by de-regulation of light-harvesting protein translation in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

        Scientific American answered the question of conversion rates.

        ….So, a group of 18 biologists, chemists and physicists set out to answer the question by first creating roughly equivalent systems—comparing apples with apples, as it were rather than apples with oranges. Photosynthesis (conducted by algae) turns roughly 3 percent of incoming sunlight into organic compounds, including yet more plant cells, annually. “Artificial photosynthesis”—comprising a PV cell that provides the electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen—turns roughly 10 percent of incoming sunlight into usable hydrogen annually….
        (wwwDOT)scientificamerican.com/article/plants-versus-photovoltaics-at-capturing-sunlight/

        So you have
        chemical ~ 10%
        C4 plants like corn ~6%
        C3 plants like trees – ~4.6%
        Algae like the museum was talking ~ 3%
        PITIFUL, down right pitiful

        For solar panels ~ 25% (max)
        In 2014, three companies broke the record of 25.6% for a silicon solar cell. (WIKI)
        December 7, 2014, University of New South Wales (Home of Professor Christmas Turkey so a large grain of salt) — report solar researchers have converted over 40 percent of the sunlight hitting a solar system into electricity, the highest efficiency ever reported.
        (wwwDOT)sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141207091648.htm

        This is gross energy output for the solar panels and does not include energy invested in mining,manufacture, transport and set up.

        Take-away? If you hate coal go nuclear.

      • annieoakley says:

        That is very interesting. I left Taxachusetts around the same time because it was so incredibly regulated in every way and as a result expensive.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Another escapee from the People Republic of Taxachusetts!

          Nothing like living in a Socialist Utopia. What I have never understood is why those fleeing the high cost of socialism and regulation turn right around and want to pollute their new home with the same crappy laws.

          Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. – Albert Einstein

  9. skeohane says:

    If “fossil fuels pollute the environment and cause global warming”…and…”they are running out”…wait for it…won’t the problem go away?
    Are they really that stupid?

    • annieoakley says:

      I think that they are that stupid and I have a brother with an MS degree who just refuses to admit he is wrong. He just peddles his crap endlessly and is steamed when I laugh at him. Has his wife and children convinced too.

  10. Cicero418 says:

    I propose a new term. Catastrophic Anthropegenic Climate Anomolies, or CACA. Pretty much sums it up, right?

  11. ren says:

    Whether people smoke at an altitude of 27 km? But who cares.

  12. During my work as a research associate at the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona in Tucson in the early 1970s, I discovered that the standard tree ring chronologies were constructed using an invalid statistical technique. The orthogonalization of dependent variable data through principal component analysis (the eigenvector transform) is valid only when applied to normally distributed data. Temperature data are normally distributed, but precipitation data are Poisson distributed. This calls into question the validity of tree ring data as proxies for precipitation. Even temperature might not be immune, however. I conducted a study of the standard Bryce Canyon douglasfir chronology in which I evaluated the growth response to a broad range of environmental factors and found that two thirds of the variance (r^2) was explained by the depth of April snowpack! The ring growth showed no significant response to either precipitation or temperature.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Now that is some very interesting information.

      Thank you David.

      Unfortunately statistics are routinely misused. I went through a GE Six Sigma course and cringed. It was all about how to use a computer program with NONE of the necessary theory behind the statistics explained. As a chemist I was never required to take any statistics. I took some stat courses later because I became a QC engineer. However I fully acknowledge my stat background is akin to learning to add and subtract and not much more.

      • rah says:

        “However I fully acknowledge my stat background is akin to learning to add and subtract and not much more.” And mine is pretty much non existent. In fact I have learned more about stats reading this site and others involved in the climate change battle than I ever learned before. Before that my only exposure was in some texts having to do with epidemiology which for some reason seemed more straight forward and understandable to me. Want me to find the area of an irregular shape or helix or something like that? No problem. Want me to calculate the most efficient method of transporting a pile of stuff from points A to B using transportation with varying mileage, maintenance costs, etc. Yea I have done that. But I find myself completely lost when I read some of the stuff written here and at Watts about the statistical techniques being used.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I can follow barely, maybe, sometimes and I have had three semesters of stat!

          That is why I have major doubts about all the data manipulation by a guy (Phil Jones) who can not even use Excel!

    • Robert B says:

      I can see why if they live in a canyon. Bristlecone pines live on slopes of steep mountains with poor soils and I read in an archeology book that this made them good proxies for the summer growing season ie. growth was dependent on frequent summer rains.

      Temperature data might be normally distributed but growth as a function of temperature is not. Most plants have an optimum temperature of about 27°C and even tomatoes grow below 14°C but not above 32°C. It might rarely get above 27°C at the tree-line used for the study though.

      The age of trees near the treeline might be more interesting. from wikipedia ” A series of warm summers in the 1940s seems to have permitted the establishment of “significant numbers” of spruce seedlings above the previous treeline in the hills near Fairbanks, Alaska (Viereck 1979, Viereck et al. 1986)” Just before the drop in global temperature (plateau after a bit of homogenizing) until the 70s.

  13. nickreality65 says:

    Is that the Bradbury Science Museum? Couldn’t locate the “Los Alamos Science Museum.” There’s a LA Neutron Science Museum.

  14. au1corsair says:

    Saying from “The Rat Patrol:” “Who was there, Sarge? You or me?”

    When the same evidence can be read two ways, either one is wrong or both are wrong. Wide tree rings don’t always equate to “moisture,” but do mean that the tree had good growing conditions–a combination of nutrition (nitrogen, carbon dioxide), sunlight, and moisture. No one factor–but an optimum combination of factors contribute to wide tree growth rings.

    Review how this was established–historical records cross-referenced with the growth rings. Problem–historical records have gaps and are not conclusive. Just general trends. Expecting precision so that accurate backwards predictions of climate past is engaging in fantasy. Only a general idea can be gleaned by this methodology. Since the trigger point is so low (1 degree Centigrade) for runaway global warming and destruction of all life on Planet Earth (thus saith the holy global warming prophets) the historical record’s accuracy is significantly worse than 1 degree Centigrade.

    What is that global climate record’s accuracy again? I recall something like a ten degree range–but I could be wrong about that–and I don’t know if that variation was on the Centigrade or Fahrenheit scale.

    • Gail Combs says:

      From Anthony Watts Surface Station Project

      Station quality ratings obtained from NOAA/NCDC via this source:

      Climate Reference Network Rating Guide – adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA’s new Climate Reference Network:

      Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover 3 degrees.

      Class 2 (CRN2) – Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation 5deg.

      Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) – Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

      Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources = 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.

      Class 1 – 1.2 % (error < or =1C)

      Class 2 – 6.7 % (error =1C)

      Class 4 – 64.4% (error >= 2C)

      Class 5 – 6.2% (error >= 5C)

      Over 70% of the stations have an error of 2C or more. Since the USA has the best data in the world the Global temperature also has a minimum error of 2C and more likely 5C.

      Since each data point is unique in time and space, the averaging multiple readings is not going to buy you better accuracy and precision.

  15. emsnews says:

    I lived in the same area these trees grew…the desert Southwestern mountains! During the 1950’s we had very little rain to the point, my youngest brother thought the world was coming to an end when we finally had a big storm!

    Then, beginning with 1959, it began to rain and rain and harder and more and snow more and more and nights were much colder, too, in winter. I remember this vividly because I went to school during these many storms!

    Hiking to the bus stop at 5:00 am it being very rural. It was wet, one day, in 1964, my bus driver asked me to get off the bus to check to see if a bridge that was under water due to the rushing river that normally was totally dry in winter, to see if it was still there.

    I remember boating on the Tanque Verde wash! It was a river! And I remember the school having to put boards to the buses to walk on because the mud was so deep. And I once pulled a lady out of the Bear Canyon stream when she tried to drive her car across the road and was swept away.

    Yes, the tree rings in the photo above clearly shows that cooler, wetter climate of the 1960’s in New Mexico and Arizona.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s