Eric Steig Gets 27 Million Pinocchios

[Update : comment from Eric Steig]

Eric Steig says:

For the record, I never said anything of the sort. It’s best to avoid publishing quotes, unless you have first hand evidence that the quote is correctly attributed. I agree with you that such claims about there being “a 1-in-27 million chance” that Earth’s record hot streak is natural are stupid. I’d appreciate your correcting or deleting this blog post of yours, seeing as there is a 100% chance you are misquoting me!

—————————————————————————

There is less than a 1-in-27 million chance that Earth’s record hot streak is natural

Eric Steig, a professor at the University of Washington, told Mashable that satellite data’s main flaw is that it doesn’t tell us much about the changing climate where we live — that is, at the surface.

“We live on the surface, and the surface temperature records are the most global and longest term record we have,” he said. “The satellite records measure something different — not the surface, where we live but averages over a substantial vertical part of the atmosphere. The records are short, and subject to greater uncertainties than the surface temperature data.”

There is less than a 1-in-27 million chance that Earth’s record hot streak is natural

Steig says that surface temperatures are reliable, yet GISS has massively altered them over the past decade. In fact, GISS has nearly doubled reported 1880 to 2000 warming since their 2003 version. They have altered the data so much, they had to stretch the scale at both ends to fit their alterations on to the graph. This is not “reliable” data.

GISSSurface1001vs2014

2003: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/Fig.Anew.ps

2014: Fig.A.gif (656×446)

It defies explanation how any scientist could report this as reliable data. But it is much worse than it seems. The tampering above sits on top of a huge amount of earlier tampering.

nasasurfacetemp1981-1999-20141

But it gets even worse. Why would you choose surface temperatures over satellite temperatures to measure global warming? The whole point of global warming is that it warms the troposphere, not the asphalt five feet from the thermometer.

screenhunter_3270-oct-03-04-54 (1)

Science doesn’t get any worse than this, Eric Steig. Making such a bold claim based on completely unsupportable data. You have completely reversed reality and misled the public and policy makers.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

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

46 Responses to Eric Steig Gets 27 Million Pinocchios

  1. stewart pid says:

    Tony, as you point out (yet again) it is beyond belief that the con artists get away with “climate science” crap that wouldn’t pass scrutiny at a high school science fair!!
    Keep it up … eventually truth will prevail.

    • We are watching the largest and most transparent fraud ever undertaken.

      • gator69 says:

        Absolutely! This warmist movement will be referenced for centuries, it will be used to keep scientists in check in the future. The Piltdown Man will be forgotten, kind of like Jimmy Carter.

      • omanuel says:

        We weren’t watching in 1945-46 when two lies were inserted in the very foundations of stellar and nuclear physics:

        1. Stars make and discard H to interstellar space. They do not form from interstellar H and consume H.

        2. Neutron repulsion causes cores of heavy atoms, stars to either fission or emit neutrons. Neutron attraction is a lie.

    • Jimbo says:

      How to ‘measure’ temperature.

      NASA GISS – 2005 (Interview with Dr. James Hansen)
      GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
      The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)
      …..Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?

      A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a ‘climatology’) hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year……
      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

  2. welldoneson says:

    Let’s not forget that 5/6 of weather stations were closed… almost all those closed showed no temp change, almost all those left working show warming. We need go no further than that to understand the scam involved. That had to be the only reason to close those… if we’re so concerned about the Earth warming, why else would they close most of the stations?

  3. Douglas Hoyt says:

    The 1 in 27 million number assumes that the temperature record is white noise, or in other words, there is no persistence. There is plenty of persistence or red noise in temperature, so the years are not independent of each other. Climate scientists don’t seem to know statistics or probability theory.

    In short, their number is completely bogus.

    • gator69 says:

      Alarmists cannot even work out simple logic. So why would I trust their models, their alleged probabilities, or listen to their thoughts on wild theories?

  4. gator69 says:

    “There is less than a 1-in-27 million chance that Earth’s record hot streak is natural”

    There is a more than a 1-in-1 chance that Steig’s number is completely fabricated, false, and smells like ass.

  5. emsnews says:

    This has got to be the coldest hot streak in history of the universe.

  6. Glacierman says:

    Yea and he also thinks Antarctica is getting really hot. I believe his graphics show it red hot.

    • SMS says:

      Thanks for bringing this subject up. It was Eric Steig who statistically smeared the continent of Antarctica with warming from the peninsula when the continent was actually cooling. And as the saying goes, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes”. Mark Twain.

      The results of this statistical trick were then used by the alarmists in article after article to claim CAGW. And if not for people like Steven McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Tony Heller, etc. showing us where this slight of hand has been occurring; a lot of us would be, at a minimum, indifferent to what is happening. And the world would be worse off.

      Thank you Tony for your efforts.

      • Glacierman says:

        Yes. O’Donnel and Condon with McIntire on the stieg Antarctic paper.

        Also remember Stieg was a reviewer of that paper showing his methods were flawed. What a great little kingdom they have created for themselves.

  7. Eric Steig is a twat.

    All you need do is to look at the Central England Temperature series and you will see that changes as seen in the 20th century happen very regularly. In other words, there is no way on earth that you can say the 20th century warming was mann-made based on the available temperature data.

    And if he wants statistics, I calculated the chance the the Met Office’s yearly global warming prediction could have been so disastrously wrong. And this was quite easy as they provided the probability ranges from which I found that there was less than a 1 in 20,000 chance that they could have got their global warming forecasts so wrong just by pure chance.

  8. Nick Temple says:

    A better interpretation would be:
    There is less than a 1-in-27 million chance that these records are accurately reporting what has happened in the natural world.

  9. What are the odds that every single day for the last 40 years I have been older than my average age?

  10. Nick Temple says:

    Have you ever considered running thier data through a Benford’s law statitical test? It is a good screening for data tampering.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law

  11. Tom Moran says:

    You write :
    “But it gets even worse. Why would you choose surface temperatures over satellite temperatures to measure global warming? The whole point of global warming is that it warms the troposphere, not the asphalt five feet from the thermometer.”

    True, In a real greenhouse, the roof of the greenhouse would be warmer than just above the floor. Can anyone point me to a non-alarmist description of what could be happening to the heat that CO2 could be capturing on the return trip up?

  12. philjourdan says:

    We also do not have sea cities, yet the are claiming this is the warmest year on record based upon sea surface temperatures. I think that is called hypocrisy.

  13. Billy Liar says:

    If the recent ‘hot streak’ is so unlikely, how is it that there have been at least three hotter streaks since the last glaciation? (Mediaeval, Roman and Holocene Climate Optima)

  14. Gail Combs says:

    Oceans cover approximately 70.8% so that makes ~ 70% of the ‘surface temperature measurement ‘guesses’. What about the rest of the solid surface?

    Canada – Top of the Hockey League (Part 1)

    From over 600 individual temperature series and more than 540 combined series with records of more than 20 years, the thermometer record in Canada peaked in approx. 1975 (see map, left), but has since been decimated by station dropout.

    By 2009 there are less than 30 locations reporting temperature that are used by the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) prepared by the U.S. National Climate Data Center (NCDC); this data is also used as the input to NASA’s GIStemp program.
    You can see the locations of the stations on the map (left) and the most obvious ‘hole’ is the lack of stations above latitude 60N. ….

    The stations used are the ones in surrounded by a diamond not just circles. look at each graph in a separate full screen.

    They dumped all but one far north station despite Canada having reasonable coverage of the area!!!

    and

    • AndyG55 says:

      Gail.. I wonder how many of those “dumped” stations, still have data coming in.

      How many still have data being fabricated to create the warming instead. !

      You can see here…..

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=2001&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob

      …. that they still have a warmer area just in the middle of all those dumped sites. (about where it says Canada on your lower pic.)

      Where does their data come from for that ?

      • Gail Combs says:

        AndyG55 says: “….Where does their data come from for that ?”
        ……………………

        From Kriging

        E.M. Smith does an excellent write-up of the GHCN – GIStemp Interactions – The Bolivia Effect That answers your question.

        Canada

        What about that other red spot in the middle of Canada? Yup, you guessed it. No thermometers survive north of 65 degrees in recent GHCN data in Yukon and The Northwest Territories, and only one survives in Nunavut (at the northern edge of Canada, but in a location called The Garden Spot of the Arctic due to the unusual warmth of the area allowing a variety of plants and animals to survive there that do not survive elsewhere.

        In both these cases, there is real data in the baseline period, but the current temperatures must be created from somewhere else….

        Simply? They make the data up. They used ‘kriging’ taking data from 500 kilometers away to ‘infill’ as the cover for pulling the data out of their rumps.

        ….the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

        The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations…..
        http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

        original link at a russian newspaper in English is now dead.
        en(DOT)rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

        Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discusses the Russian data here: IEA: Hadley Center “probably tampered with Russian climate data”
        IEA is Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis.

        • Gerald Machnee says:

          RE:Gail.. I wonder how many of those “dumped” stations, still have data coming in.

          How many still have data being fabricated to create the warming instead. !
          ——————
          Some of the “dumped stations have data coming in. Some are complete, some are limited, e.g. every 3 hours or part of a day, some are closed. I do not think any of the stations are being filled, but grid-points are kriged as Gail has indicated. And some of the warming is likely artificial.

    • AlaskaHound says:

      The dumping of solid earth monitoring weather stations after 1996 was due to the narrative, or lack of reinforcing the narrative.
      The stations that represent current earth temperatures in the north were placed specifically for the hot-spring/upper mantle properties, which were found using VLF flyovers, since the VLF sounding was no longer needed for gas/oil exploration…

  15. omanuel says:

    There are encouraging signs that we may finally realize the promise Lord Aston made to humanity ninety-two years ago in his Nobel Lecture, as a bonus for solving Climategate.

    The core of the uranium atom is the place where the most accessible nuclear energy was discovered and then used on 6 Aug 1945 to destroy Hiroshima, . . .

    Frightening world leaders into hiding neutron repulsion with false models of stellar and nuclear physics to “save themselves and the world from nuclear annihilation:”

    1. Neutron repulsion allows stars to make and discard H to interstellar space. Stars do NOT form out of interstellar H and consume H, the first (1st) falsehood.

    2. Neutron repulsion causes cores of heavy atoms and stars to fission or emit neutrons. Neutron attraction is the second (2nd) falsehood.

    Since neutron repulsion is an important nuclear force in cores of lanthanide and actinide elements that alpha decay [1], . . .

    http://m.seekingalpha.com/article/2820446-a-2015-nuclear-renaissance-should-fuel-solid-gains-for-uranium-stocks

    Mankind may finally realize Aston’s promise of ninety-two years (Jan 2015 – Dec 1922 = 92 years) ago: “powers beyond the dream of scientific fiction:” See Aston’s Nobel Lecture, last paragraph [2].

    References:

    1. “Solar energy,” Adv. Astronomy (submitted for on-line review, 6 Jan 2015)
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf

    2. Aston’s PROMISE & WARNING (12 Dec 1922); CHAOS & FEAR (Aug -Sept 1945) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/CHAOS_and_FEAR_August_1945.pdf

  16. “… satellite data’s main flaw is that it doesn’t tell us much about the changing climate where we live — that is, at the surface.”

    This really is absurd. The good professor wants us to believe that 10 kilometers (6 miles) of atmosphere above the surface does not qualify as relevant to “climate”.

    Further, by inference he is suggesting that the atmosphere at the surface and not the ocean determines climate.

    I started study of climate in high school, went on to major in geography and then to do an M.A. in geography and an M.S. in Earth science. Altogether I have studied climate for about 10,000 hours, but I have never heard a professor make such an unscientific claim nor have I read any report or academic paper in which a climate scientist has made such a claim.

    On the contrary, most climate researchers make it clear that what we experience at the surface is the result of various strata of the atmosphere together with the upper strata of the world ocean.

    This professor should be ashamed of making such a fatuous statement in public.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Unfortunately he is typical of the professors now found in academia and the reason I want ALL science and ALL universities completely defunded.

      German climate physicist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke explains the reasons much better than I can.

      • omanuel says:

        Regretfully, I agree. But they are not at fault. We trained and rewarded university professors for prostituting their scientific talents in order to get research funds, promotion and tenure.

        The system is broken, and the problem started at the top of the food chain in 1945 . . .

        when Joseph Stalin showed world leaders how to “save themselves and the world from nuclear annihilation” by hiding the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima.

  17. Menicholas says:

    Not too many people live out on the ocean either, so why are we using that data?

  18. If global warming is caused by back-radiation from the troposphere, why can’t we just use the temperature of the troposphere?

  19. Mervyn says:

    It’s a timely reminder of what John Coleman exposed in the following news clip:

  20. Scottar says:

    This link apparently got scrubbed

    2003: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/Fig.Anew.ps

    You have better proofs?

  21. Eric Steig says:

    For the record, I never said anything of the sort. It’s best to avoid publishing quotes, unless you have first hand evidence that the quote is correctly attributed. I agree with you that such claims about there being “a 1-in-27 million chance” that Earth’s record hot streak is natural are stupid. I’d appreciate your correcting or deleting this blog post of yours, seeing as there is a 100% chance you are misquoting me!

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