Yet Another Clueless Climate Scientist

Where do they find these people at?

On Dec. 26, Rolf Westgard made a demonstrably false statement in the St. Cloud Times/SCTimes.com about climate change. He stated, “The earth is overall warm in 2014, perhaps equaling 1998 and the mid-1930s as among the warmest years of the 21st century.”

Aside from the fact that 1998 and the 1930s were in the 20th century, his comments about the 1930s are false. The 1930s were warm in the United States, but they were cool globally.

I am a climate scientist. I was in China at the time of the U.S.-China announcement. I work on global temperature studies. When people make these types of false statements in the press, it is my professional obligation to submit a correction.

Let’s debate solutions on climate change but let’s at least start with facts, not fantasy.

Dr. John Abraham is a climate scientist at the University of St. Thomas.

Letter: Start global warming debate with facts, truths

Yes, let’s start with some facts. Dr. John Abraham has no idea what he is talking about. In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported a large 1930’s warming spike across the Northern Hemisphere.

ScreenHunter_5753 Jan. 03 09.19

The National Center for Atmospheric Research reported the same thing

ScreenHunter_5761 Jan. 04 04.33

In 1981, NASA’s James Hansen reported the same thing

ScreenHunter_5763 Jan. 04 04.36

In 1940, six degrees of Arctic warming was reported.

screenhunter_5293-dec-18-06-30 (1)

By 1947, ten degrees of warming were reported in the Arctic, and both poles were melting.

ScreenHunter_5580 Dec. 26 11.54

By 1952, the glaciers of Norway and Alaska had lost half their mass.

ScreenHunter_5768 Jan. 04 11.34

Now let’s review the statements of “climate scientist” Dr. John Abraham

The 1930s were warm in the United States, but they were cool globally.

I am a climate scientist. I work on global temperature studies.

How is it that a PhD climate scientist who studies global temperature, doesn’t seem to know the most fundamental facts of global temperature? Does Abraham do any actual research? Even the climategate crooks knew about the warmth in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

About stevengoddard

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

73 Responses to Yet Another Clueless Climate Scientist

  1. michaelspencer2 says:

    Surely this is not the same John Abraham who keeps putting his head up above the parapet?
    http://sppiblog.org/news/a-preliminary-response-to-john-abraham-the-extremists-join-the-climate-debate-at-last-2.

    There’s nothing more persistent than a zealot intent on proving that he’s a fool!

    • Stephen Richards says:

      The same inveterate misanphropot (idiot spelled badly)

    • Phil Jones says:

      Yep… And I was in Walmart at the time… Loads of Chinese stuff there… Same level of relevance Abraham presents…

      What a total tool…. I doubt he ever leaves his office yet knows everything about Climate… Total bullshit…

  2. quaesoveritas says:

    “I was in China at the time of the U.S.-China announcement.”
    Is that sentence supposed to imply that he was involved in the agreement?
    I dare say a lot of people were in China at the time who had nothing to do with the agreement or had any knowledge of the subject.

  3. gator69 says:

    The Chinese temperature record also shows a spike in the thirties and forties. Then there is the problem of marine influence…

    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/coastal-temperature-stations.php

    Globally, stations located away from marine influence mostly agree with the US temperature record.

  4. gator69 says:

    “Abraham and a number of colleagues including Michael E. Mann submitted a document to the US Congress which rebutted nine errors in Christopher Monckton’s May 6, 2010, testimony.

    In November 2010, Dr. Abraham (and two colleagues, Professor Scott Mandia and Dr. Ray Weymann) launched the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, to provide rapid, high-quality scientific information to the media and government decision makers. The intention of this group is to enable scientists to share their work directly with the general public.”

    Odd that Mann did not join in the effort to share work directly with the public.

    • michaelspencer2 says:

      Of course C. Monckton had a little more to say about it!
      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/monckton-warm-abra-qq2.pdf
      Much more egg on face for Dr Abraham!
      And here’s an interesting (and very relevant) quote: “I have never once in my life seen a fanatic with a sense of humour!” (Amos Oz)
      And a special note for American readers: kindly note correct spelling of ‘humour’!

    • Beale says:

      What happened to the Climate Rapid Response Team? What responses did they give (rapid or not) to serious questions?

        • I guess the same could apply to fire trucks as crazy cab drivers.

          So this crazy taxi driver is speeding through the streets running every red light when all of a sudden, I’m knocked out of my seat as he comes to a screeching stop at a green light. I scream at him, your ran every darn red light, why on earth would you slam the breaks at a Green LIGHT!!!

          He looks back at me and tells me, “There might be another Taxi Crossing the Intersection…”

  5. John Abraham is the guy who co-authors pee reviewed papers with Nuterelli

  6. Eliza says:

    Ohhh Mandia ect… Would not even bother. Actually a list of the real diehard idiot “climate Scientists” purposely creating fraud to fit the agenda should be drawn up such as Mandia, Mann, Abraham, Rahmsdorf, Jones., Hansen ect. Im sure the list would be about 30 or so…not more, very easy to identify for future legal action LOL

  7. I can’t figure out how guys like Abraham flourish in the climate debate. He is *not* a climate scientist. This is not to say he does not have broadly relevant qualifications but they are not in any of the climate-related fields: atmospheric or oceanic physics, meteorology or one of the geologic sciences. Because he is broadly qualified, he worked at one stage in the field of refrigeration, then in rheology. In 2007, he published on the fluid dynamics of urine:

    Jimmy Tong, Ephraim Sparrow, and John Abraham, Numerical Simulation of the Urine Flow in a Stented Ureter, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, Vol. 129 (2), pp. 187-192, 2007.

    You don’t see him going ‘I’m a urologist, I study the flow of urine in catheters’, do you?

    Abraham’s climate connections are tenuous, recent, and mainly centred on what he did with Monckton’s presentation. Yet, for some reason, one finds him puffing up his climate credentials at nearly every instance, and especially his work on renewable energy projects. Sorry, but working in renewable energy and visiting China does not make you a climate scientist. Nor does visiting Africa make you a humanitarian, which is another self-portrait one sees him promoting.

    Somebody ought to tell him people can see through this and it doesn’t look all that good.

  8. markstoval says:

    I think I see the problem here.

    You folks don’t understand that Dr. John Abraham lives and works in the world of adjusted, homogenized, infilled, and made-up data along with models which create alternate worlds. There was no 1930s warm period! Just look at “Dr.” Mann’s hockey stick for verification.

    By the way, I am a huge fan of Dr. John. Great singer. Here is a link to one of his best:

  9. Chaeremon says:

    The following TV movie appears to come from the same training camps of the scripted-reality industry (aka academia),
    http://coolmoviezone.org/discovery-channel-scandals-of-the-ancient-world-egypt-2008/
    with brainwash and truth tellers who “assert” that they have “translated” unintelligible signs into unintelligible words, as professor and PhD on universities, if only you pay for their books and films (scroll down for the plot outline).

  10. Gail Combs says:

    Abraham showed up as a troll at WUWT for a while. He was really pathetic. I do not know if he finally got banned or if CAGW Propaganda Central withdrew him because he resembled a 5 year old arguing physics with Einstein.

  11. icarus62 says:

    Seems Abraham was right –

    • gator69 says:

      It seems you don’t understand the difference between raw data and fraud.

    • rah says:

      Empirical data and evidence trumps data adjusted in more recent times without explanation every time. When NOAA will share with us exactly why and how their adjustments to the raw data of of the past and present have been made so those adjustments can be assessed for their validity using the scientific method they are meaningless. Until that happens they are nothing more than another example of ‘argumentum ad verecundiam’ in which the validity of the claim is supposed to be supported by the authority of the source just like the now thoroughly discredited Cook et al. consensus.

      • Louis Hooffstetter says:

        Exactly. Let’s face it people, how difficult is it to read a thermometer? Unless you’re completely incompetent, thermometer readings don’t need to be adjusted. The raw, unadjusted readings are most likely the most accurate data.

      • Streetcred says:

        Let’s not forget the lame excuses given by the Australian BOM for making the same adjustments to the Australian temperature record … such excuses that were demonstrably fraudulent.

  12. emsnews says:

    This is why the tampering with raw data is so important. This year, in total contravention of reality, the global warmist regime simply outright lied about this being the hottest year ever. Blatantly.

    They are sticking to these lies like flies on a glue trap. They won’t move. It is snowing in northern Africa, for example. Will be well below zero at my own home this week. The relentless approach of another Maunder Minimum as the sun gets weaker is on the horizon and they know this and so, to keep their gravy train rolling, they have resorted to outright manufacturing graphs and studies that are based 100% on doctored, false or manipulative data.

    Disgusting and criminal! Arrest them all.

    • icarus62 says:

      No need to worry about a new Maunder Minimum. The effect would be negligible against the background of the rapid and ongoing global warming.

      • I was in -24F weather on Wednesday morning in Fort Collins. Please place your “rapid global warming” in the dark place where it belongs.

      • gator69 says:

        In spite of all the fudging, even NOAA data shows a strong cooling trend. I enjoy nothing better than clubbing someone with their own jaw bone.

        Now, would you care to admit you have been wrong, or would you care to continue down the path of failure. Time and again we show intent, collusion, and action, all following the path of money and power.And all you can do is parrot models and fudged data.

        Baaaaa. 😆

      • Gail Combs says:

        CO2 logarithmic absorption ignoring the new data that squashes the curve even flatter at the higher concentrations.

        If we managed to kick the CO2 back up to where plants want it, 1000 to 1500 ppm, reading from the chart you are looking at ~5 Wm2.

        So where are we in terms of the Milankovitch cycle and solar insolation?

        NOAA:
        (www1DOT)ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/orbital_variations/berger_insolation/insol91.jun

        Holocene peak insolation: 522.5 Wm-2
        ………………………………………………………..decrease = 46.5 Wm-2
        NOW (modern Warm Period) 476 Wm-2
        ……………………………………………………….. decrease = 13 Wm-2
        Depth of the last ice age – around 463 Wm−2

        From Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic (2010)
        climate(DOT)envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/MillerArctic.pdf

        Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present.”

        So even if you are talking 9% of Trenbreth’s “incoming solar radiation… absolute forcing,… around 340 W m–2 at the top of the atmosphere” the reduction in solar radiation since the Holocene climate Optimum is 30.6 W m–2 , and is equivalent to the entire CO2 forcing [32-44 W m–2] with mankind’s contribution being 1.5 W/m 2 for the forcing of anthropogenic CO2 [cf., Reid, 1997].

        To give you a feel for just how close to glaciation we are you can look at the calculations from a fall 2012 paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? The paper gives the calculated solar insolation values of several glacial inceptions:
        Current value – insolation = 479W m−2 (from that paper)

        MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
        MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
        MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
        MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
        MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2

        So an increase in energy by 5 W m−2 gives a value of 484 W m−2 IF mankind can jack the CO2 levels back up to over 1000 ppm.

        I am old and have no offspring so I am actually looking forward to watching the next glaciation descend and all the Progressives scramble for explanations while trying to dodge all the pitchforks, tar, feathers and Madame Guillotine. It isn’t so much that I think CO2 could prevent the next glacial inception (Ruddiman’s “Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis”), it’s the entertainment value in watching the progressives either do the wrong thing or, at best, an intellectually impotent thing. (You have to admit the Progressive Trolls do provide entertainment value.)

        The Holocene interglacial is now 11,717 years old. That’s two centuries or so beyond half the present precession cycle (or 23,000/2=11,500). (Thank you Grand Solar Maximum) Only one interglacial , MIS-11, since the Mid-Pleistocene Transition has lasted longer than about half a precession cycle.

        Any hope that the Holocene would go long was shot down by Lisiecki and Raymo in 2005 in their rebuttal of Loutre and Berger, 2003. No more recent papers has rebutted Lisiecki and Raymo in the decade since then. Not that the MSM would bother telling us that.

        ABSTRACT
        We present a 5.3-Myr stack (the ‘‘LR04’’ stack) of benthic d18O records from 57 globally distributed sites aligned by an automated graphic correlation algorithm. This is the first benthic d18O stack composed of more than three records to extend beyond 850 ka,…

        RESULTS
        Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA Community Members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with d18O values below 3.6% for 20 kyr, from 398 – 418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6% for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398– 418 ka as from 250–650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.
        large(DOT)stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf

        HEY, ICKY did you read that? “current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr.” That kills any possibility of a CAGW tipping point for the next 65 kyr. The solar energy just isn’t there and CO2 has already shot its wad in the first 100 ppm.

        The fall 2012 paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? agrees with Lisieck and Raymo …

        …although it has been unclear whether the subdued current summer insolation minimum (479 W m−2 ), the lowest of the last 800 kyr, would be sufficient to lead to glaciation (e.g. Crucifix, 2011). Comparison with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474 W m−2 ) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240 ± 5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012). …..

        An older paper from 2007 also agrees Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception

        ….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….
        (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107002715

        Given the age of the Holocene and the low level of solar insolation resulting, the witch hunt against CO2 is really rather humorous.

    • rah says:

      Personally I hope it is more along the lines of the intensity and duration of the Dalton.

  13. Don says:

    Poor Icarus, flew too close and his wings came off and he has crashed and burned.

  14. JP says:

    Icarus is a troll. He used to haunt American Thinker’s climate posts. He’s a broken record whose been posting the same nonsense for years. Icarus’ tactics are simple: he never admits he or the Alarmists; he changes the subject before admitting he and the alarmists are wrong.

    • Gail Combs says:

      My hope is Icarus is quite young so he ends up shivering and hungry in the cold and dark if the ideas he is pushing become policy.

      • bit chilly says:

        my hope is i meet some of the icarus types in person gail. unfortunately as i age my tolerance for fools and charlatans has has completely disappeared . meeting any of these idiots in person will result in a dose of harsh reality being administered and to hell with the consequences.

        we have enough pariahs screwing every last penny out of the ordinary citizen,and the extra load on energy bills these clowns have created is the final straw that broke this camels back. i have elderly relatives that now must be checked upon regularly to make sure they are are using their heating as they really do fear not being able to pay the bills and having their supply cut off.
        hopefully the surge in support for the ukip party in the uk will bring an end to this madness shortly,if not i will have no worries in my old age,as hm prisons are required to provide a minimum level of heating. 🙂

        • Gail Combs says:

          Bit Chilly you might want to read what your countryman has to say about ‘renewables’ and how they are good for the UK economy starting HERE.

          My tolerance for fools and charlatans has also disappeared completely.

        • my hope is i meet some of the icarus types in person …

          You live a charmed life. I meet these types every day in the People’s Republic of Boulder. I also know from them that your belief in a required minimum level of prison heating is misguided. The activist icarus types speak of special prisons and camps for climate deniers, as well as Nuremberg-style trials for their leaders. Minimum required prison temperatures are never mentioned. You should rethink your retirement options.

  15. Jack Dale says:

    The explanatory notes to Hansen’s 1981 graphic.

    (The scanned copy does does not have OCR)

    “The temperature trends in Fig. 3 are
    smoothed with a 5-year running mean to
    make the trends readily visible. Part of
    the noise in the unsmoothed data results
    from unpredictable weather fluctuations,
    which affect even 1-year means (42).

    We combined these temperature records
    with a method designed to extract
    mean temperature trends. The globe was
    divided by grids with a spacing not larger
    than the correlation distance for primary

    None of our conclusions depends on the
    nature of the smoothing.
    Northern latitudes warmed – 0.8C
    between the 1880’s and 1940, then
    cooled – 0.5C between 1940 and 1970,
    m agreement with other analyses (9, 43).
    Low latitudes warmed – 0.3°C between
    1880 and 1930, with little change thereafter.
    Southern latitudes warmed – 0.4°C
    in the past century; results agree with a
    prior analysis for the late 1950’s to middle
    1970’s (44). The global mean temperature
    increased – 0.5°C between
    1885 and 1940, with slight cooling thereafter.
    A remarkable conclusion from Fig. 3 is
    that the global temperature is almost as
    high today as it was in 1940. The common
    misconception that the world is
    cooling is based on Northern Hemisphere
    experience to 1970.
    Another conclusion is that global surface
    air temperature rose – 0.4C in the
    past century, roughly consistent with
    calculated CO2 warming. The time history
    of the warming obviously does not
    follow the course of the CO2 increase
    (Fig. 1), indicating that other factors
    must affect global mean temperature.

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

  16. Jack Dale says:

    James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato in 1999

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

    • gator69 says:

      Odd that we must update these historic graphs. One would think that historic temperatures would be incapable of changing, that is unless one has read 1984.

      • Jack Dale says:

        The two 19981 and 1999 graphs are congruent for the 30’s

        1981
        Global anomaly approx. 0.15
        Northern Hemisphere anomaly (which would include North America) approx 0.4

        1999

        Global anomaly approx. 0.2

        US approx – 0.7

        In both cases US temperatures have a larger anomaly than global temperatures.

        As well This sentence from 1981 is telling “A remarkable conclusion from Fig. 3 is
        that the global temperature is almost as high today as it was in 1940.”

        Roy Spencer shows an anomaly increase from 2.5 since 1981.

        Wood for trees shows:

        Time series (uah) from 1978.92 to 2014.92
        #Selected data from 1981
        #Selected data up to 2014
        #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0150154 per year
        1981 -0.23327
        2014 0.262239

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/uah/from:1981/to:2014/trend/plot/uah/from:1981/to:2014

      • Jack Dale says:

        Standard response? I suggest that you read 1984 and the essay that follows it.

        It is funny how science uncovers new data.

        • gator69 says:

          Standard or even nonstandard hand waving gets you no points with me. Historic facts should be left unchanged. Unless you have an agenda.

        • “In Soviet Russia the future is known. It’s the past that’s ever-changing.

          Anonymous, unidentified apartment kitchen, Moscow, 1972”

          In retrospect, you have to admire the sunny world outlook of the old Stalinist butchers. They were driven by visions of a glorious collectivist future. The alarmists’ reasons for manipulating the past are their gory fantasies of an apocalyptic future.

        • rah says:

          Really, what “new” DATA was uncovered? Were temperatures recorded back then and nobody found the records until later? Please explain and provide the old data just found? Interpretation of data may change but the original data is what it is. All I have seen is that NOAA uses data from from stations effected by heat islands in the present while ignoring the data from stations which are not effected by heat islands. But what is the justification for adjusting the old data temps down?

      • Jack Dale says:

        Data, historic or otherwise, is not written in stone.

        • gator69 says:

          Who are you to judge? I will defer to the original observations until just cause shows otherwise.

          Got agenda? Hint: Check for an odd mustache in your mirror.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Jack Dale says: “Data, historic or otherwise, is not written in stone.”

          Yes it is unless you are not a scientist.

          The data IS.

          This is the CORRECT WAY to handle data. (gray is error bars)

          The REAL CO2 levels in history

        • Gail Combs says:

          “Data, historic or otherwise, is not written in stone.”

          Confessions of a datum molester….

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