2011-03-05 04:08:43Small victory
Rob Honeycutt


Yesterday I was browsing around for images of GISP2 and Vostok charts on the internet and came upon this one.  You have to scroll down the page a bit to get to it.  This one was just the GISP2 data with Dome C CO2 record below it.

I contacted the author and here's what went down...

Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:46:05 -0800, Rob Honeycutt <robhon@me.com> wrote:

Dr Humlum,
I'm sorry I can't link you directly to the graph in question because
of the way your "climate4you" site is formatted, but there is a chart
of the GISP2 temperature reconstruction with EPICA CO2 chart below it.
At the far right you have a dashed line that represents "the
approximate temperature increase since..." 1855 where the data ends.
I believe this is incorrect.  You place the increase at about 0.5C
but this would be conflating the instrumental global average
temperature against a local record of the Greenland summit.  Due to
Arctic amplification temperature changes at the Greenland summit are
going to be greater than that of the global average.
Please check out the work of Dr Jason Box who has presented modern
data for the summit showing a 2.0C rise in temperature since the
Best regards,
Rob Honeycutt


And the response came back....

Dear Rob

You are entirely correct; my error. I will change it in a short while.

Thank you very much for pointing this out.

All the best,

2011-03-05 08:48:22
Rob Painting

Good on ya Mate!.

2011-03-05 11:01:11Interesting
Robert Way


Hey Rob,
Ole was one of my profs in Norway for two masters courses. He is a big climate change skeptic but he's relatively reasonable and I think you witnessed that there. Nice guy all in all but sometimes I do wonder about his motivations (he gets lots of mineral/oil money for permafrost research)

2011-03-05 12:17:06
Rob Honeycutt


Robert...  Very cool that was your prof!  I'm on a bit of a mini-quest to fix all the GISP2 diagrams on the internet that have the instrumental record tacked on.  I got Josh Kerr (The Inconvenient Skeptic) to change his header graphic.  Now I've gotten Ole Humlum to fix his.  ...Only about 6 million left to do!  :-) 

2011-03-05 12:48:44That's an interesting story in itself
John Cook

The fact that relatively high profile blogs (TIS) and more credible skeptics like Ole are willing to update their graphs is very telling. Rob, maybe it's worth finding just a few more of the more prominent examples of this bad graph and politely contact them - then tell your tale in a blog post. Just the story of having skeptics correct the false graph speaks volumes. In fact, we should offer an accurate version of this graph and I'll do it up as a high rez climate graphic available for anyone to use, we show it to Richard Alley and Jason Box for a thumbs up and your blog could end with a challenge to other blogs to update their graph.
2011-03-05 18:56:20


This is the first time I have heard of Humlum. He has a website on climate: http://www.climate4you.com/.

It is a good sign that he's willing to correct clear errors. Ultimately, it could be interesting to arrange a discussion to narrow differences between his point of view and that of mainstream science. He claims that 1/3 of scientists he knows do not credit CO2 with a dominant role in climate change.

2011-03-06 03:31:17
Rob Honeycutt


John...  I like that idea.  I'm going to keep working on this quietly and see if I can get people to fix some other graphs.  Then maybe I can leverage that into a widespread crushing of all the other misrepresentations.  

One of my goals is to get TIS to change his header graphic again.  He has essentially hung his hat on this one piece of information. It's his Achilles heel. 

2011-03-06 04:09:43To be fair to Ole
Robert Way


To be fair to Ole maybe his 1/3 number is a bit high but it is relatively close. A lot of the professors I had over there (in Oslo) weren't big proponents of it. They all acknowledged that there was going to be some warming but I don't think many were convinced that almost all of the last 50 years warming is due to anthropogenic influences. In fact to be honest I know very few in the field who guess as high as Gavin schmidt's 90 to 110% warming (or whatever it is). That being said Ole is one of the few who thinks that it will cause virtually no warming in comparison with the IPCC and of course that is a very large minority view.

He's actually married to another skeptic prof, her name is Hanne Christiansen and they publish together quite frequently. Her research gets a lot of industrial funding. There's been quite a few issues which have gone on over there because Ole is very vocal about his beliefs at times and has been critical of those in his department like Dr. Jon Ove Hagen (an IPCC lead author in the impacts section, glaciologist)