A global warming advocate who is a friend, has been after me to post some stuff over at Realclimate.org, a site for believers in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). I don't say scientists because scientists are skeptical even of what they believe. Those guys are not skeptical of anything concerning the party line on AGW. Sheeple is the term I use for this.
Consensus is what they say science is all about. We are told that there is a consensus about global warming. Funny, but that was exactly the claim made against Alfred Wegener, the meteorologist and amateur geologist who proposed continental drift. He was an outsider. He wasn't supposed to be able to understand geology. He was an amateur. And he violated the consensus of the day and everyone KNEW he was wrong. Wegener challenged the scientific consensus of his day.
"Despite their general rejection of the theory of continental drift, scientists somehow could not quite lay it to rest. In November of 1928, Wegener was invited to New York to attend an international symposium sponsored by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. He eagerly accepted the chance to explain his views, only to find that the few support raised at the meeting were quickly drowned out by a chorus of hostile dissenters, who criticized not only his hypothesis but his scientific credentials as well. One after another, delegates to the symposium stood up to express, with crushing sarcasm, grave doubts about the possibility of continental drift. Some barely troubled to justify their rejection of the hypothesis; others demonstrated errors of detail and used them to discredit the whole theory; a few seemed unable to restrain their anger that the idea was being seriously considered at all."
"Professor Rollin T. Chamberlin of the University of Chicago attacked Wegener's geological evidence on 18 separate counts, claiming it ranged from unlikely to ludicrous. "Wegener's hypothesis in general,' he said, 'is of the footloose type, in that it takes considerable liberty with our globe and is less bound by restrictions or tied down by awkward , ugly facts than most of its rival theories."
"A professor of paleontology at Yale University, Charles Schuchert, provoked much hilarity by displaying pictures of a globe on which he had elaborately tried, and spectacularly failed, to fit together obviously incongruent coastlines such as those of North and South America. He also pointed out that erosion would have substantially altered the shape of the coastlines over long periods of time, yet Wegener was suggesting, by matching Africa and South America, that the fracture line had retained its shape for 120 million years. "Is there a geologist anywhere," asked Schuchert, "who will subscribe to this startling assumption?"
"Professor Bailey Willis of Stanford University picked up on the same theme, charging that Wegener's supposed fit of the continental coastlines was illusory. If continents were drifting through a layer of the earth's crust, said Willis, the stresses of the movement would utterly destroy the original configurations; the apparent fit of Africa and South America could therefore be nothing more than coincidence. William Bowie of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey used the nagging question of the driving force as the basis for his attack. If the continents were being propelled toward the Equator by some mysterious force, as Wegener had suggested, then how, Bowie asked, could four of the seven continents remain concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, three of those on one side of the earth? Of a total of 14 speakers, hardly anyone had a favorable word for the idea of continental drift. One scientist who wrote about the symposium may unintentionally have accounted for much of the animosity when he complained, "If we are to believe Wegener's hypothesis, we must forget everything which has been learned in the last 70 years and start all over again."
"Wegener himself spoke only briefly and said little in his own defense. Perhaps he had heard too many attacks to know where to start defending himself; perhaps he was so serenely convinced of the validity of his hypothesis that he saw nothing to be gained by arguing about details. Whatever the reason, he listened intently but silently throughout the symposium, smoking his pipe, to all appearances unmoved by the barrage of criticism.
"On his return to Germany he went right ahead with a fourth and final edition of The Origin of Continents and Oceans, although this time he acknowledged the difficulties of trying to answer his critics." Russell Miller, Continents in Collision, (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1983),p.51-52
© source where applicable
We should all be careful about how dogmatic we get about science. and as a member of the AAPG, we should be ashamed of the way Wegener was treated.
But today, it is the AGW advocates who act as if everyone who doesn't agree with them are nutters. They don't think there is the slightest possibility that they could be wrong--no, they have the consensus.
What I want to look at tonight is the fact that the editing of the raw temperature record is making the present appear hotter than the thermometers are measuring. In 2002 Balling and Idso published an article in Geophysical Research Letters, 2002, p. 1387 did something very simple. They merely subtracted the raw US average temperature record from the edited US average temperature record. What they found was that each year the editing by the climatologists added more and more temperature to the US record. In 1930, the editing reduces the temperature measured by the thermometers by negative .2 deg C. In other words, editing cools the earth in 1930. But in 2000 the editing of the raw records was adding positive 0.17 deg C. This means a .35 degree C tilt to the raw data.
What does this mean? Well, it means that the climatologists doing the editing think that the modern instrumentation is so awful that it measures too low of a temperature. Thus they feel they must correct it by adding heat to the present time. It also means that they think that the equipment used in pre- 1930 was so wonderful that it hardly needed to be corrected at all. Ludicrously, the AGW advocates don't think about this very seriously.
Ok, so you don't believe me about this. Let's look at a NOAA site http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ushcn_monthly/ushcn_monthly_doc.html
This site has the following picture:
"The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940's until the last decade of the century." http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ushcn_monthly/ushcn_monthly_doc.html
So, the modern instrumentation is so bad, so awful that we must adjust its temperature readings upward while, at the same time, we lower the temperature in 1930 by only a smidgeon. One can only conclude from this that we had better instruments in the 1930s and earlier than we have today. So much for progress. The effect of this is that we tilt the temperature trend accentuating the scare factor of the temperature. Old instrumentation doesn't need correction, but new instrumentation requires an uplift in temperature.
I would ask the AGW advocates: Why don't we simply go use the equipment that they used in the 1930s, which doesn't seem to need fixing by adding heat to it?????
Ok, so you still don't believe me (that is what believers in AGW do--they believe AGW and disbelieve any apparent problems). Let's see what Balling and Idso say.
“The annual difference between the RAW and FILNET
record (Figure 2) shows a nearly monotonic, and highly statistically
significant, increase of over 0.05 [deg] C dec_1. Our analyses of
this difference are in complete agreement with Hansen et al. 
and reveal that virtually all of this difference can be traced to the
adjustment for the time of observation bias. Hansen et al. 
and Karl et al.  note that there have been many changes in
the time of observation across the cooperative network, with a
general shift away from evening observations to morning observations.
The general shift to the morning over the past century may
be responsible for the nearly monotonic warming adjustment seen
in Figure 2. In a separate effort, Christy  found that for
summer temperatures in northern Alabama, the correction for all
contaminants was to reduce the trend in the raw data since 1930,
rather than increasing it as determined by the USHCN adjustments
in Figure 2.It is noteworthy that while the various time series are
highly correlated, the adjustments to the RAW record result in a
significant warming signal in the record that approximates the
widely-publicized 0.50 [deg]C increase in global temperatures over the
past century.” Robert C. Balling and Craig D. Idso, “Analysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology
Network (USHCN) temperature database, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 10,, p. 1388
Below is Balling and Idso's chart.
This editing bias means that editing bias is part of the cause of global warming. It leads to the conclusions that either
1. the instrumentation is getting worse with each passing year
2. the observers are getting drunker with each passing year and are reading the thermometers as if they are too cool. Thus they need to either have their booze removed from the clutches of their hands or be given new glasses.
3. bias plays a major role in global warming.
For any AGW supporters who might read this, please explain why we have to add .6 deg F or .35 deg C to the modern temperature record in order to account for instrumentation problems? I would also ask that they explain why the instruments from 1930 were so much better.
It's only 0.6 deg F, just over half a degree. That isn't very much. Well, given that advocates of global warming claim that the earth has warmed by only 1.1 deg F over the past century, it represents half of the claimed temperature rise. Editing is responsible for half of the global warming. From that viewpoint, global warming IS man-made, it is made by human climatologists editing the temperature record and not by CO2. The claim that global warming is man-made is true, just not in the sense that it is normally meant.