UPDATE: See
via SpaceRef.com
PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Source: KUSI-TV
Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as “THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at www.kusi.com.
In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government’s two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D’Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.
The report reveals that there were no actual temperatures left in the computer database when NASA/NCDC proclaimed 2005 as “THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” The NCDC deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it changed to a system of global grid points, each of which is determined by averaging the temperatures of two or more adjacent weather observation stations. So the NCDC grid map contains only averaged, not real temperatures, giving rise to significant doubt that the result is a valid representation of Earth temperatures.
The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,000 now. “That leaves much of the world unaccounted for,” says D’Aleo.
The NCDC data are regularly used by the National Weather Service to declare a given month or year as setting a record for warmth. Such pronouncements are typically made in support of the global warming alarmism agenda. Researchers who support the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also regularly use the NASA/NCDC data, including researchers associated with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that is now at the center of the “Climategate” controversy.
This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with NCDC data. “For one thing, it is clear that comparing data from previous years, when the final figure was produced by averaging a large number of temperatures, with those of later years, produced from a small temperature base and the grid method, is like comparing apples and oranges,” says Smith. “When the differences between the warmest year in history and the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such comparisons,” added D’Aleo who asserts that the data manipulation is “scientific travesty” that was committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda.
Smith and D’Aleo are both interviewed as part of a report on this study on the television special, “Global Warming: The Other Side” seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV, channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program can now be viewed via computer at the website http://www.kusi.com/. The detailed report is available at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.
So does that push 2009, which has just been announced as 2nd warmest year globally behind 2005, up into 1st place?
I came across this quote and couldn’t help but think of a few people….
“It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.”
– Thomas Paine
And, doing corrections out of order, and having not much of an idea that the corrections are particularly accurate in the first place…but other than this the data is great!
Oh, Lysenko? Your followers have done you proud…..
Wow. That’s amazing.
“The report reveals that there were no actual temperatures left in the computer database when NASA/NCDC proclaimed 2005 as “THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” The NCDC deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it changed to a system of global grid points….”
Among other things, maybe they should also be charged with destruction of government property, or failure to comply with legal archiving legislation, if that can be made to apply. The cost of setting up all those monitoring stations and then destroying the data that can never be replicated is just unthinkable as a scientist.
Not many load bearing walls left in the AGW house of cards. Structurally unsafe for habitation.
There are some real stinkers in the employ of the government.
Real trustworthy.
My personal feeling is that no one is ever going to take the rap for this fraud. The trail will lead to too many politicians and ALL politicians have to cover for each other as they all have “skin in the game”. They all live in the same glass house.
We should count ourselves lucky that the fraud has been exposed.
This explains why the castigate McIntyre and others that wanted data. They had fear of being caught. Criminals just don’t volunteer incriminating evidence. The behavior is just like several people I know that were in embezzlement.
Hats off to Chiefio and D’Aleo . I hope enough people see this – I intend to watch this via internet tomorrow , if I can . Thanks , guys .
Looks like Al Gore’s buddy was up to his ears in fudge as was CRU.
I hope they you-tube the video.
With only 1000 weather observation points and about 150 million square kilometers of land mass, that’s about one observation point per 150,000 square kilometers. By comparison, New York state is approximately 140,000 sq.km.
Just WOW. Go chiefio & D’Aleo! You both ROCK as they say.
DaveE.
6000 readings bad, 1000 readings good! According to GRC ( Gavin at RealClangGate -last year) the lower the readings the better- circa 70 global readings was optimal to measuring Moma Earths fever.
Gawd bless you, young Mister GS. You is truly a seeker of Truth!
More is good but lesser is better. Trillions well spent, you’re a jewel young man!
the collapse of a house of cards, is sudden.
one can hope.
Time for some of the jokers to go to jail. I can see the day coming when they are in jail and complaining of freezing temperatures and demanding better heating. So much for runaway global warming. What a joke.
The temperature maximums by decade graph http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf with a peak in the 1930’s, looks very similar to Briffa 1998 hide-the-decline N hemisphere tree ring graph.
At what point do the alarmists drown in the rising seas of auditing, checks and balances and accountability!
“The detailed report is available at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.”
Nice summary. Well done.
It could use a bit more proofreading, however. For example, this sentence on page 3:
“By using airport stations, the data centers claim they have rural data includes, but instruments have been documented in airports near tarmacs, runways and airplane exhaust.”
Should be “included”.
What does KUSI stand for?
[Reply: the call letters for a TV station. ~dbs]
I am deeply alarmed that all the raw data is lost. It is more then theft. It is pure vandalism or the desire to deprive a scientific treasure to others. It is like burning rare papyrus scripts.
Would this data still exist at the weather station site itself? Can any of this data be recovered from other sources?
What other “heritage data” has such flimsy security that anyone can simply and arbitrarily make it evaporate with a click of a mouse and deprive scientists now or in the future access to it?
What an outrage!
It is a worry that soon someone will decide that we do not even need 1000 temperature readings. Could it be done with, say, 50?
I’m never sure where I stand.
Sometimes I am on the “well, maybe CO2 contributed a very very tiny percentage to the most recent warming period of 1975-1998”, and the other half of the time I think “the temperature record is so worthless that I’m not even sure if we’re warmer than the earlier part of the century.”
I’ve completed USHCN vs USHCN version 2 blink comparison charts for Wisconsin. As with the Illinois charts, the majority of stations had their raw data adjusted to show more warming by lowering the temperatures in the first half of the 20th century.
That brings the raw data more in line with the GISS homogenized versions. I haven’t blinked the original GISS with the new homogenized charts yet, but I’d bet a nickle they’ll show even more warming.
Wisconsin original USHCN raw / revised raw data –
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htm
Illinois original raw / revised raw –
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions.htm
Revised raw data. Oxymoron?
While the points made in the report are those that many have previously noted, the grammatical and typographical errors in the document do not help its credibility.
e.g. “Though the population of the world has increased from 1.5 to 6.7 million and dozens of …”.
Just as Gore is castigated for flubbing his comments on the temperature of Earth’s core, these flubs in a report such as this might be used to ridicule some very interesting observations in the report.
Dr. Bob (17:25:02) :
I’m never sure where I stand.
Sometimes I am on the “well, maybe CO2 contributed a very very tiny percentage to the most recent warming period of 1975-1998″, and the other half of the time I think “the temperature record is so worthless that I’m not even sure if we’re warmer than the earlier part of the century.”
Ditto.
If, as alledged, the core data have been tweaked, manipulated or whatever… to my mind the biggest travesty is that all the research based upon false data is null and void. Every single study involving this data would then be suspect… surely?
Dr. Bob (17:25:02) :
This might help:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002
With a value of 0.79 C we’ve just overtaken the monthly peak of the 1998 Super El Niño. We appear to be seeing a massive release of stored thermal energy in the Pacific.
After 1998 temperatures did not settle back to their values before the El Niño. If the same happens again it will be very difficult to explain how just natural processes could have added so much energy.
Anthony,
It would be very useful with items such as this one if we could obtain the relevant time in GMT (UTC) as well as local time at the event.
Kindest regards
Gillian Lord (17:24:41) : “It is a worry that soon someone will decide that we do not even need 1000 temperature readings. Could it be done with, say, 50?”
Heck, you could get equally useful numbers from a single crystal ball…or a coin.
The discussion of the effects of reducing station numbers on temp trends is worth a more nuanced discussion. Though Anthony should be able to speak of the effects on U.S. temps of the changing number of stations used (vis-a-vis using all stations or “best” stations).
The argument that raw station data was destroyed, however, seems patently false given that its all archived here: http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds570.0/
I do wonder, if historical raw data has been deleted, whether copies will be found to exist once the AGW edifice has crumbled. I can not believe all the researchers are truly loyal to AGW even if forced to be to get a job and may have taken clandestine copies. Not quite ‘Fahrenheit 451′, but it does come to mind.
Is any independent organisation trying to create a store of untainted data?
There is one modification that might get things across to the general public a little more clearly:
“added D’Aleo who asserts that the data manipulation is ‘scientific travesty’ that was committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda.”
Should be something like:
“added D’Aleo who asserts that the data manipulation is ‘scientific travesty’ that was committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda which brings them millions of dollars in additional research grants.”
Oh, and Danny Glover today blames the Haiti earthquake on global warming.
I was wondering how long that would take.
Certainly it would save money, time and effort if all the stations were shut down and the figures simply made up. Do they still need the fig leaf of being vaguely based on actual data?
Actually yes – then the only real data would be from satellites, and that data is ‘wrong’.
Gary Hladik (17:51:41) :Heck, you could get equally useful numbers from a single crystal ball…or a coin.
Henceforth, ALL global temperatures will be determined by the CRUde Hansen-Mann AlGorithm based on the most accurate temperature proxy known – Mauna Loa CO2 readings. And that is “settled”.
/sarc
u.k.(us) (16:54:56) :
“the collapse of a house of cards, is sudden.
one can hope.”
___________________________
Unfortunately the house of cards we’re speaking of is a huge single entity. For want of a better name, let’s call it “The Western World” or “The Second Roman Empire”. When character, integrity, and honor play no function in a civilization, the civilization has no future. Time to buy a pair of mules (or a team of oxan) and a wagon? Or maybe a miracle? Yes, let’s pray for a miracle. Hark! Are those the barbarians at the door?
I imagine the RC will have a detailed technical refutation of this by tomorrow. Something like:
This report is from a non-peer reviewed source with known connections to the fossil fuel industry. Further, the lead author is known to be a sniveling little rat faced git. This is the kind of analysis we’ve come to expect from the blinkard, phillistine pig-ignorance types who produce this noncreative garbage. They sit there on their loathsome, spotty behinds, sqeezing blackheads, and not caring a tinkers cuss for the peer review process, what excrement! What whining hypocritical toadies they are, with their Tony Jacklin golf culbs and their bleeding denialist handshakes. You don’t frighten us, you oily non-climate scientist! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called skeptics, you and all your silly Exxon/Mobile funded shills. I fart in your general direction.
Or something like that.
PaulT above is absolutely right. Correct this: “Though the population of the world has increased from 1.5 to 6.7 million people and dozens of peer review papers have established”… immediately! (billions, not millions)
“NASA manipulated data”
Maybe, but they have a history of peer pressure and manipulation from example below right through the solid rocket (Thiokol) booster tragedy and on into this current Hansen mess.
Thomas Gold:
At the time, scientists were engaged in a heated debate over the physical properties of the moon’s surface. In 1955, he predicted that the Moon was covered by a layer of fine rock powder stemming from “the ceaseless bombardment of its surface by Solar System debris”. This led to the dust being jokingly referred to as “Gold’s dust”.
In any case, NASA sent an unmanned Surveyor to analyze the conditions on the surface of the Moon. Gold was ridiculed by fellow scientists, not only for his hypothesis, but for the approach he took in communicating NASA’s concerns to the American public; in particular, some experts were infuriated with his usage of the term “moon dust” in reference to lunar surface. When the Apollo 11 crew landed on the Moon in 1969 and brought back the first samples of lunar rocks, researchers found that lunar soil was in fact powdery. Gold said the findings were consistent with his hypothesis, noting that “in one area as they walked along, they sank in between five and eight inches”. However, Gold received little credit for his correct prediction, and was even criticized for his original prediction of a deep layer of lunar dust.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Gold was a vocal critic of NASA’s Space Shuttle program, deriding claims that the agency could fly 50 missions a year or that it could have low budget costs. NASA officials warned Gold that if he testified his concerns before Congress, his research proposals would lose their support from NASA. Gold ignored the warning and testified before a Congressional committee headed by Senator Walter Mondale. In a letter to NASA administrator James C. Fletcher, George Low wrote that “Gold should realize that being funded by the Government and NASA is a privilege, and that it would make little sense for us to fund him as long as his views are what they are now”
The last sentence (emphasis added) says it all…
Joe D’Aleo is relentless. Give ’em hell, Joe!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
royfomr (17:37:21) :
Dr. Bob (17:25:02) :
I’m never sure where I stand.
Sometimes I am on the “well, maybe CO2 contributed a very very tiny percentage to the most recent warming period of 1975-1998″, and the other half of the time I think “the temperature record is so worthless that I’m not even sure if we’re warmer than the earlier part of the century.”
Ditto.
==========
Same here.
I wish these expletives would come shovel the record high temps and global warming off my walk and driveway.
Pascvaks (18:21:09) :
u.k.(us) (16:54:56) :
“the collapse of a house of cards, is sudden.
one can hope.”
___________________________
Unfortunately the house of cards we’re speaking of is a huge single entity. For want of a better name, let’s call it “The Western World” or “The Second Roman Empire”. When character, integrity, and honor play no function in a civilization, the civilization has no future. Time to buy a pair of mules (or a team of oxan) and a wagon? Or maybe a miracle? Yes, let’s pray for a miracle. Hark! Are those the barbarians at the door?
============
yes it is, they want to come in out of the cold. shall we let them ? they keep talking about some travesty??
i agree with your premise.
Brian Madeley, re UTC time for the 9 p.m. PST Jan 14th showing: it is 05:00 hours, on January 15th.
see this link for the conversion to :
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/zones.html
how many hours since this story broke? about 11 hours.
do a google ‘news’ search and u get precisely ONE link and that is to delingpole’s BLOG in the UK Tele:
Dodgy GISS temperature records exposed: the US Climategate?
Telegraph.co.uk (blog) – James Delingpole – 3 hours ago
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022334/dodgy-giss-temperature-records-exposed-the-us-climategate/
the AGW cabal has nothing on the “MAINSTREAM MEDIA” cabal.
who would have thought NASA AGW ‘workings’ could be legally brought to light, hot on the heels of climategate, and the media would simply ignore it?
If NASA can be convincingly shown to have manipulated data…
It opens a new chapter in Climategate.
From the PDF linked to at the end of the article (atop this page) comes a Latin tag I was unfamiliar with:
Well-done (again) Mike! Maybe some others will get busy and try this – a little above my tech savy.
I’m glad this story is getting out into the public. I don’t care which part of the media puts it into the public; small tv stations, FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, talk radio—just get the word out and get James Hansen out of NASA.
Dr. Bob said (17:25:02) :
Sometimes I am on the “well, maybe CO2 contributed a very very tiny percentage to the most recent warming period of 1975-1998″, and the other half of the time I think “the temperature record is so worthless that I’m not even sure if we’re warmer than the earlier part of the century.”
The second part of Dr Bob’s comment reflects the concern I have had since I first started trying to understand the CAGW hypothesis. I kept asking “what is the margin for error?” when reading analyses of past temperatures derived from proxies, and when reading analyses of past and present temperatures taken from actual measurements.
If you take a measurement from a temperature gauge today you cannot say it is accurate. All you can say is that it is accurate within the margin of error of that particular instrument. If you then want to extrapolate that measurement as an indication of temperature in the area of 100 yards around the gauge you introduce factors that expand the margin of error.
I find it difficult to accept that temperatures recorded by identical thermometers in five gardens either side of mine will produce identical results. In fact it would be bizarre if they did because each thermometer has its own margin of error and the placement of the devices adds a further inexactitude.
Yet we are invited to believe that actual, estimated and averaged temperatures over the whole planet can be stated to within a couple of tenths of a degree and that future changes in temperature can be estimated to a degree or two.
Call me a denier, call me a sceptic, call me anything you want, but I remain unconvinced that measurements involving substantial margins of error can justify any firm conclusions.
When the official history of all this is published, you all realize that everything we have read here and every comment we have made here (and on every other website of similiar content) will have been purged from the record and destroyed. And, after extensive research into who we were, everything about us –including our graves stone inscriptions, will also be destroyed. It will be as if we never existed. I imagine that by then it will not be very difficult for the UN’s Hav’erd History Dept. to amend anything they want to or delete anyone they wish.
[snip] Sorry, I don’t usually shout foul acronyms, but it is just plain bizarre that a scientific community can betray the basic tenants of its profession so brazingly.
I guess it just proves that some in this world subscribe to infamous Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels’ assertion that “… when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it.”… justifying “false, but true” bull as long as the one propagating the lie is a pure as snow liberal who knows what’s best for the rest of us Neanderthals.
Sheesh. What arrogance!
I call [snip] to all the above pompousness.
If you really think that there is fraud in the manipulation of data, you should be suing someone.
Is this not the American way?
instead you make *ALLEGATIONS* not proved anywhere in a forum that can determine the truth.
LOL
time for all the vampires here to start their ad hominem and totally illogical attacks upon my person.
I believe I have an example of how the records have been altered. If you send me an email address, I’ll send it to you.
Mike McMillan (17:28:30) :
I’ve completed USHCN vs USHCN version 2 blink comparison charts. Is there a “dummy’s guide” blink comparator showing the total adjustment for each state?
Blaming earthquakes on AGW is just moronic. Danny Glover gets a duh award.
As to the topic of this thread, I am a little confused. Does this mean only 2005, or 2005 on?
Let’s not go overboard. I’ll say again what I said right after Climategate broke. The tweaking that exists will, after the dust has settled, turn out to have raised the temperature anomaly by only a small amount. We shouldn’t focus on that point. If we do, then the alarmists will eventually have the comeback that the scandal doesn’t affect the underlying science / data very much.
What we should focus on is the willingness of the gatekeepers involved to participate in, or wink at, such shenanigans, which impugns their trustworthiness on every other point, most particularly their predictions and prescriptions.
Here’s an analogy: Let’s say the treasurer of a company has been discovered misappropriating $10 from the company’s petty cash cigar box. The important point to focus on isn’t the loss of the $10, which is a piddling amount, but what OTHER fiddles (perhaps unconscious or even well-meaning) he may have committed in the company’s books.
Independent auditors (scientists not marinated in the hothouse atmosphere of climatology) must come in and examine everything in organized clime (including the conscious and unconscious inferences it makes) in order to ensure that all is on the up-and-up.
I particularly liked the Latin quote: “Non gradus anus rodentum.” My Latin is a little out of date, but I believe he said that the data is “not worth a rat’s ass.” Beautiful!
“Revised raw data. Oxymoron?”
They used to call it “value data”. Typical snake oil talk. There are lies, dam lies, statistics, and revised climate data.
And it’s all George Bush’s fault….
…but seriously, is anyone surprised by this?
Looking at Anthony’s work, I am convinced that the climate ‘stations’ used are all strategically located next to the A/C exhaust vents found on top the administrative office buildings of sewer plants that were built next to major International Airport parking lots!
mpaul (18:23:57) :
Your “peer review” should read “genuine peer review”? 😉
Anthony,
I looked at a few time zone converters today for the very purpose described above. I added this one to my sidebar:
http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc
There are others you may like better. I searched – time zone converter
There’s no denying the excellent credentials of E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo.
Excellent work!
nanuuq (19:16:45) :
Thank you for your comment. Vampires do not eat trolls.
iOh, and Danny Glover today blames the Haiti earthquake on global warming.
It is easy to explain. The glaciers on Hispaniola melted relieving the pressure on the rocks below allowing them to shift.
Some of you are missing the point. It doesn’t matter if the global mean temperature has risen somewhat over the past 100+ years. It’s part of a much longer term trend of rising temperature. No big deal. It’s the claim that the rise has accelerated somewhat over the past 100 years compared to the previous centuries. Clearly this is not the case as there is ample evidence to prove the recent variations are well within normal operational parameters of natural climate change. So, any talk of a man-made runaway in global warming is a hoax. End of story.
I began to appreciate the advantages of grid averaging when I put it to good use on the map of Colorado. Instead of many thousands of altitude readings, I could get by with just one for each grid. I measure the bottom of a valley and the peak of a mountain, divide by 2, and there you go.
This would be an incalculable benefit to mapmakers everywhere. Think of the ink saved!
Minor irregularities have been observed of course, such as trout in the mountains and rather flat ski runs. Several rivers have reversed direction on my maps.
But I am willing to overlook these minor problems in the interest of accuracy.
nanuuq (19:16:45) :
I call [snip] to all the above pompousness.
If you really think that there is fraud in the manipulation of data, you should be suing someone.
Is this not the American way?
instead you make *ALLEGATIONS* not proved anywhere in a forum that can determine the truth.
LOL
time for all the vampires here to start their ad hominem and totally illogical attacks upon my person.
It takes time to build a case. Patience lad. It will all come out in due time.
I am beginning to also adopt the approach that the data is so suspect that it is meaningless, with out a full audit and provenance to prove it really is “raw original source data!
I suspect the only solution would be for a companion to the surface stations project, where teams of volunteers go to historical documents that are beyond modification like library microfilm records and validate random temperature records to get a sample of how trustworthy supposedly raw data is.
Does anyone know if the major repository libraries have hard copy or microfilm records of original National Weather Service station records, or is our only independent check on them the numbers reported in local newspapers?
Unfortunately those news paper records will only be reported to single degree’s even if the original data was of higher precision, but it would show if major adjustments have been made to high and low temperature records.
Larry
fatbigot (19:12:54) :
“Call me a denier, call me a sceptic, call me anything you want, but I remain unconvinced that measurements involving substantial margins of error can justify any firm conclusions.”
—–
Reply: I shall call you a Climate Realist.
” …”The Other Side” seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV, channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program can now be viewed via computer at the website http://www.kusi.com/. ”
It’s 11:30 EST, and I’m happy to report that the program is NOT available to view at this time. At this time… it’s only 8:30 in San Diego, so the show hasn’t happened yet. I was wondering if you had a time warp, or if maybe the tape had been pre-released to the rest of the world.
I’m going to bed now. Will the program be available to view tomorrow?
Many thanks to Roger Sowell.
0500 UTC is 1600 local time here in Sydney, Australia, so I now know for sure that I can watch the program.
Thanks again.
Here’s a good read.
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/413-benny-peiser-copenhagen-and-the-demise-of-green-utopia.html
Obviously you’re standing right there. You can’t possibly stand anywhere but where you are.
The raw data must have been rotten data.
Can someone please divide the total volume of atmosphere, say up a few miles, and divide it by the total number of IPCC thermometers used to measure climate, so I can contemplate the statistics of total volume (or surface area) per thermometer,
Regarding Mike McMillan (17:28:30)
Great blink charts, some questions, how many states has this been done for? I mean the blink charts , has it been done for the US composite, the world? And finally how have thes agencies explained this?
Hope you see this, thanks.
Well, it’s after 9pm and I don’t see the video on KUSI…
REPLY: But we have it here, check the main page of WUWT
Anthony
Jeff Alberts (20:22:01) :
There are a plethora of definitions for “stand”, only one of which applies as you used it. Even then, Dr Bob’s usage is metaphorical.
be standing; be upright; “We had to stand for the entire
performance!” [syn: {stand up}] [ant: {sit}, {lie}]
be in some specified state or condition; “I stand corrected”
occupy a place or location, also metaphorically; “We stand
on common ground”
hold one’s ground; maintain a position; be steadfast or
upright; “I am standing my ground and won’t give in!”
[syn: {remain firm}] [ant: {yield}]
have or maintain a position or stand on an issue; “Where do
you stand on the War?”
put up with something or somebody unpleasant; “I cannot bear
his constant criticism”; “The new secretary had to endure
a lot of unprofessional remarks”; “he learned to tolerate
the heat”; “She stuck out two years in a miserable
marriage” [syn: {digest}, {endure}, {stick out}, {stomach},
{bear}, {tolerate}, {support}, {brook}, {abide}, {suffer},
{put up}]
remain inactive or immobile; “standing water”
be in effect; be or remain in force; “The law stands!”
be tall; have a height of; copula; “She stands 6 feet tall”
put into an upright position; “Can you stand the bookshelf
up?” [syn: {stand up}, {place upright}]
withstand the force of something; “The trees resisted her”;
be available for stud services; “male domestic animals such
as stallions serve selected females”
[also: {stood}]
Roger Knights correctly pointed out that restudy of the data won’t change the results very much.
i. e. it really won’t matter in the big scheme if restudy indicates the rise has been, say, 0.4 C instead of 0.6C over the last Century.
Perhaps that will take a year. Or five years. But I suspect the polar bears will not go extinct by then.
The important matter is accountability. Now it will be hard for climatologists to publish or assert anything without showing data and methods.
People talk. Gradually we will learn what, if any, unjustified data changes were made. And how well the work was done. And whether the “team” really was suppressing or hampering work that contradicted their conclusions and bias.
nanuuq (19:16:45) :
I call [snip] to all the above pompousness.
If you really think that there is fraud in the manipulation of data, you should be suing someone.
Is this not the American way?
instead you make *ALLEGATIONS* not proved anywhere in a forum that can determine the truth.
I do not like your tone, but your verb is fine. Based on this post alone anyway. However there have been indications of very serious problems in climate science for some time.
To Pascvaks
For want of a better name, let’s call it “The Western World” or “The Second Roman Empire”.
Sorry it would have to be the “Forth Roman Empire” as the third Roman Empire was actually the “Third Reich”, Nazi Germany.
To Pascvaks
For want of a better name, let’s call it “The Western World” or “The Second Roman Empire”.
Sorry it would have to be the “Fourth Roman Empire” as the third Roman Empire was actually the “Third Reich”, Nazi Germany.
Gary Turner (21:07:26) :
Dude, it was a joke.
An experiment that someone who knows their way round the data might want to do, that would probably be quite quick.
If I was going to take a quick look at the data, with the minimum possible need for adjustments, I would pick a station (stations) with 100 year of raw data. I would then combine them and look for a trend. (Pretty obvious.)
Now if I wanted to fiddle the outcome of even that simple test, and I had the ability to shut down stations, or prevent their data getting into the dataset, I would close or exclude stations that had a long term cooling trend, leaving only “warming” stations.
So, a simple test would be to take all the stations that had data from, for example, 1900 to 1985. Then divide that set into two, call them Set A and Set B. Set A is every station that is STILL contributing data by 2000 (or 1995). Set B is every station that is NOT contributing data by 2000 (1995).
Then see if there is a difference between the temperature trend of Set A and Set B up to 1985. In other words, is there any sign that the stations to be maintained been pre-selected based on the temperature trend.
The second Roman Empire being the Holy Roman Empire 962 to 1806.
Everyone, its a glorious day here in Perth (australia), Friday afternoon, I’ve had a few beers at lunch, and just about to nick off for few more.
So, despite the disgrace thats been happening for years with this issue, I’ll pose the real question…………
Does anyone fancy a pint??? CBD pub in 15………
You’re one to talk about illogic, pomposity and groundless allegation.
This post and John Coleman’s show are necessarily non-technical and presented so that even a layman can grasp it. However, the background analysis if far more detailed.
If you bothered to read the detailed case laid out by E.M. Smith on his blog over many weeks, you’d find code, data and methodology. Rather than spouting your “Joe Rommish trollspeak,” how about reading beyond the headlines and doing an equally detailed analysis including code, data and methodology to refute E.M. Smith and Joe D’Aleo?
We eagerly await your results. Though I’m not holding my breath.
Well, Plato said it was ok for the rulers (philosopher kings) to lie to the people for their own good. Called it the Noble Lie. In those days natural philosophers were the days scientists.
Actually, scientists do good work but are constrained by funding limitations as to what they can research, as most funding comes from the government, and the government is advised by the warmers on what should be funded.
Peer review limits what they can say as well, so they always pay lip service acknowledging AGW even if their findings contradict AGW’s hypothesis, otherwise one of the reviewers who may be a warmer will reject it (did I see leigh comment he has to pay a page fee and this costs up to 11,000 dollars, why Einstein working in a patent office never would have got his theory of relativity published today).
It’s just those philosopher king types that give science a bad name. Lets face it, we are in the Dark Ages, and the warmers Church is invested in man causing the warming, as we are sinners. Deniers or skeptics are heretics and will go to a Green hell on Earth. Amen.
Galen Haugh (20:05:14) wrote:
fatbigot (19:12:54) :
“Call me a denier, call me a sceptic, call me anything you want, but I remain unconvinced that measurements involving substantial margins of error can justify any firm conclusions.”
—–
Reply: I shall call you a Climate Realist. unquote
Better, I’ll call you a dissenter — or a dissident. You dissent from the consensus position. This word has advantages: it points up the ideological nature of the world view you are opposing, has a romantic, rebellious ring for those who lived through the 60s, and, best of all, will get up Monbiot’s nose.
Me, I’m a climate dissident having started from alarmed (cured that by reading RC which seemed to be into bludgeoning people rather than educating them — I don’t know how much funding they get from Fenton but if it’s more than tuppence it’s wasted) to undecided (cured that by reading CA, WUWT and the wonderfuilly eccentric graphs at Lucia’s site) to my current position.
Now I don’t know what the hell is going on with the climate and I don’t believe anyone else does either.
Time to start again from scratch.
JF
Has anyone else inspected the CD publications from NCDC for other states for year 2005? I happened to discover these odd data edits for 30 Sept 2005 which resulted in bogus warming of about 20 deg F for a seemingly random assortment of about 20% of the stations in Washington. When contacted in 2007 NCDC admitted these were wildly in error, but could provide no information on how this could possibly have happened. Believe me, I repeatedly asked, but an answer was not forthcoming. Equally alarming was the fact no one else had reported the problem after almost 2 years had elapsed. The cause remains a total mystery today, at least outside of NCDC. I was told by a former NCDC employee, who will forever remain nameless, that the QC software was so hopelessly byzantine that anything was possible!
Here I have captured some of the data from 30 Sept 2005 for all to see. The original or “correct” observation is listed first followed by the QCed or “corrupted” value second:
Observed Max -> QCed Max
Hoquiam AP 58 -> 84
Bellingham 3SW 62 -> 84
Coupeville 1S 61 -> 87
Olga 2SE 63 -> 86
Clearbrook 62 -> 84
Monroe 64 -> 86
Landsburg 62 -> 82
Shelton AP 61 -> 89
Plain 61 -> 82
Satus Pass 2SW 64 -> 80
Harrington 1NW 63 -> 81
Odessa 67 -> 83
Waterville 63 -> 78
Northport 68 -> 84
Spokane WFO 62 -> 81
Yakima No 2 70 -> 85
Yakima AP 72 -> 85
Julian Flood (22:56:31) : “Now I don’t know what the hell is going on with the climate and I don’t believe anyone else does either. ”
We trust those who claim expertise and confidently make dire predictions which are intuitively plausible. They seem to know what they are saying. The expertise to conclusively disprove their hypothesis is unavailable.
‘Global warming’ is just like a religion. At present it is neither provable, nor falsifiable.
It is a compelling opportunity to gain money and influence.
>>At what point do the alarmists drown in the rising
>>seas of auditing, checks and balances and accountability!
And the rest of the ‘naughties’ (2000 – 2010) politics too.
For some reason we have just lived through ten years of ‘virtual politics’, where politicians around the world said things were happening, but it was all spin and mirrors.
Lethal epidemics, financial stability, end of boom and bust, weapons of mass destruction, improving education standards, immigration is good for us, multiculturalism works, global warming.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch. The railways are falling apart, standing room only in every tube or metro, the airports suck, the motorways are jammed, gas is running out, electricity is running out, water was running out (until the floods), there are not enough housing units, we cannot produce enough food, 15% are unemployed (if you include the sick), the government is bankrupt, the nation is bankrupt.
It was a decade of political deceit.
For those worried about loss or destruction of US thermometer data, as near as I can tell it is not gone. The “deleted” statement (as I delivered it) has been accompanied by “from the recent” or “from about 1990 on” or some similar qualifier.
The data are retained for periods prior to “the great dying of thermometers” that begins in the late 1980’s but are “deleted” as far as GHCN is concerned. USHCN had a “cut off” in May of 2007 (so GIStemp that used USHCN also had a cut off of those thermometers then). As of just a few weeks ago, GISS put back in the USA thermometers (though they did it by putting in USHCN.v2 that has a greater “adjustment” to it as shown in the blink comparisons posted above).
Similarly, you can find Australian and Russian and Canadian data all being reported… somewhere else! It is just NOAA / NCDC that drops it on the floor and leaves it out of the GHCN (which, as the climategate emails showed, substantially matches the UEA / CRUt data set; and is the basis of GIStemp; and is the core of NCDC Adjusted GHCN, and is used in the Japanese data series, and… just the foundation of all the temperature series that are widley used to predict AGW…) So the “deleted” is not “destroyed” (at least, I hope the various country BOM’s are keeping their originals …) just “removed from the recent part of GHCN”.
That, BTW, is one of my flags for “nefarious stuff is going on”. If it is hard to wrap words around it without lots of qualifiers and lots of “what is is” redefintions, or needing to quote things to show non-standard use like “Unadjusted – adjusted data”: You can pretty much bet there ‘are issues’…
So the “trick” here was to delete cold thermometers from the recent part of the GHCN data set and leave them in the baseline periods. (But not necessarily lose the data for all time from archives… I hope.)
gober (21:55:37) :
An experiment that someone who knows their way round the data might want to do, that would probably be quite quick.
If I was going to take a quick look at the data, with the minimum possible need for adjustments, I would pick a station (stations) with 100 year of raw data. I would then combine them and look for a trend. (Pretty obvious.)
I did basically that in one of my earlier investigations. What I found was that long lived stations had no warming pattern, but short lived stations (most of which were newer) had almost all the warming “signal”. That lead to all the other work that to where I am now. It’s at the bottom of:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/gistemp-quartiles-of-age-bolus-of-heat/
Now if I wanted to fiddle the outcome of even that simple test, and I had the ability to shut down stations, or prevent their data getting into the dataset, I would close or exclude stations that had a long term cooling trend, leaving only “warming” stations.
Yes. I’ve identified a couple of core patterns. One is that anything at altitude gets removed from the recent part of the dataset. For example, Japan now has no thermometer above 300 m. No mountains need apply. Similarly the Andes are deleted (from the recent part of the record).
Then see if there is a difference between the temperature trend of Set A and Set B up to 1985. In other words, is there any sign that the stations to be maintained been pre-selected based on the temperature trend.
It would be interesting to do that. But take a lot of time and effort. Right now I have to split my time between temperature stuff and “making ends meet”, so I only get to put a little time on temperature stuff. But someone with the time could do this fairly easily.
What I did was to look for “indicia of cooling” and see what happened. So you find the average thermometer location moving toward the equator, or away from cold water (as in Morocco where they move away from the coast that has cool water and into the Atlas mountains on the edge of the Sahara).
The most interesting one was Mexico. Took me several days to figure it out. It was rather clever. Thermometer locations leave the mountains, but unlike South America, also moved away from the beach. Didn’t make sense until I looked at a climate zone map of Mexico. They were rising in numbers in what is called the “Megathermal band” … Golly, wonder why 😉 But it is a band toward the middle south of the country that has “big heat”…
The other fascinating one in New Zealand. VERY stable thermometer locations and not much to work with. The “trick” was to delete one cold Island thermometer (from the recent record). IIRC Campbell Island. Take it out of the WHOLE record, and New Zealand does not have any warming…
I have postings up on all of these with code, data, everything open. See the “GIStemp” tab at the top of http://chiefio.wordpress.com and look for the “global analysis” link.
Ref – RexAlan (21:21:10) :
“To Pascvaks
“For want of a better name, let’s call it “The Western World” or “The Second Roman Empire”.
“Sorry it would have to be the “Fourth Roman Empire” as the third Roman Empire was actually the “Third Reich”, Nazi Germany.”
Ref – RexAlan (22:07:07) :
“The second Roman Empire being the Holy Roman Empire 962 to 1806.”
_________________
I think you may possibly be right but my copy of the history, the Official 2010 unabridged and fully corrected version, approved for purchased by the Texas State School Board Approved Text Book Committee, seems to have smoothed those two out of the graph. Don’t see even a blip. The current graph, since 1776, shows a remarkable hockey stick shape. I guess there’s just not much you can trust these days.
Perhaps the potential defendants should have read these documents before making their defamatory remarks in print:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_overview.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_qc.pdf
About 7000 stations and quality control documented in 1997. Hope Joe’s got deep pockets.
So that’s 7300 stations over 320million square miles, or one thermometer for every 44,000 square miles.
E.M.Smith (02:19:14) :
I think this is stunning stuff. Far too much to be held back through a lack of funds.
Myself I have no time to spare, but a little money. Having said that I can process data being a code monkey. Others may have time. Can we donate to the cause to help this along?
Multiplied by a column of air about 30,000 feet, is approximately one thermometer for every volume of atmosphere equal to about 1000 close-packed Mt. Everests. I suppose one can calculate the uncertainty by measuring variations in temperature 7000 termometers across the State of Louisiana. I imagine the uncertainty is too high to warrant substantive conclusions and the spending trillions of dollars to abet CO2 emissions.
Ref – Turboblocke (04:44:35) :
“Perhaps the potential defendants should have read these documents before making their defamatory remarks…”
________________
I’m sure NOAA has gigathousands of stations in mothball status that are, and have been since 1818, silently sampling temperature and humidity and air pressure data –oooops, nearly forgot wind direction. The problem is that they have selectively choosen which devices to use in devising their data. Or, they have been politically manipulating and creating with the aim of achieving special outcomes. Proving you use data is easy. Proving you’re data is credible is another story. Proving you’re the ‘trustworthy government agency’ the American people always thought you were, can be near impossible. When its all said and done, you’re only as good as your reputation.
You know the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has guidelines on what are official record and what are not – and raw data that hasn’t been minipulated is generally considered official records (kind of like the chain of evidence thingie in the judicial arena). There is probably a very good legal case against the people responsible for the data. My $.02
Non Gradus Anus Rodentum! -> not worth a rat’s ass
I’ve read all 215 pages of NASA GISS emails at Judicial Watch. Thanks to Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit for finding the original error in 2007 and writing courteous emails with very specific and reasonable requests. James Hansen and others at GISS, in their internal emails and emails to friendly reporters, call him a “court jester” and question if he has “a light on upstairs?” Hislight is BRILLIANT! The best court jesters let the King know the truth in a valuable way that didn’t get their heads cut off :^)
Makiko Sato, the author of the email with the seven versions of the 1934 vs 1998 temperare anomaly data I graphed and mentioned by Jim Hansen in an email excerpt below, appears to be the innocent truth teller at GISS. She may turn out to be the heroine of this story! (Along with the hero “court jester”, Steve McIntyre!)
Jim Hansen writes [2007-08-10 at 11:59 -500]: “The appropriate response is to show the curves for U.S. and global temperatures before and after (before and after McIntyre’s correction). Makiko doubts that this is possible because the earlier result has been “thrown away”. We will never live this down if we give such a statement. … By the way, I think that we should save the results of the analyses at least once per year …”
(If any of you downloaded my PowerPoint Show on Explaining Climategate, I’ve just updated it with the info just made available yesterday so you may want to download the newer version.)
CharlesRKiss: LAND SURFACE stations. Think about it.
If you measure your own temperature at one point, you don’t know what your average temperature is. But you can tell when your temperature goes up. If you measure your own temperature at fifty different points you still don’t know what your average temperature is, but you can still tell that you’ve got a fever if the average of the measurements goes up.
Pascvaks: I don’t think that you’ve checked the data have you?
Ref – Turboblocke (07:33:51) :
“Pascvaks: I don’t think that you’ve checked the data have you?”
__________________
What data? The original? No. The adjusted? No. The political? No. The theoretical? No. The selective? No. The tweeked? No.
Your question suggests that we would agree about something if I did. You’re probably right is some respect, I’ll admit that; but is that the point of all this? Isn’t there a question in your mind as well, “Can the ‘whatever’ data be trusted?” If you say yes, I’ll understand where you stand. If I say no to the same question, will you understand where I stand?
This story id based on / connected to these infos:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
********
Tom P (17:45:23) :
Dr. Bob (17:25:02) :
This might help:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002
With a value of 0.79 C we’ve just overtaken the monthly peak of the 1998 Super El Niño. We appear to be seeing a massive release of stored thermal energy in the Pacific.
After 1998 temperatures did not settle back to their values before the El Niño. If the same happens again it will be very difficult to explain how just natural processes could have added so much energy.
********
Not quite as difficult as explaining how temps naturally rose 6C globally in a few thousand yrs at the beginning of this interglacial. Or the natural temp changes during any interglacial/glacial transition for that matter.
beng (08:28:49) : edit
********
Tom P (17:45:23) :
With a value of 0.79 C we’ve just overtaken the monthly peak of the 1998 Super El Niño. We appear to be seeing a massive release of stored thermal energy in the Pacific.
After 1998 temperatures did not settle back to their values before the El Niño. If the same happens again it will be very difficult to explain how just natural processes could have added so much energy.
********
Not quite as difficult as explaining how temps naturally rose 6C globally in a few thousand yrs at the beginning of this interglacial. Or the natural temp changes during any interglacial/glacial transition for that matter.
TomP also fails to notice that the energy release is happening worldwide, and because it’s not concentrated just in the Pacific, there isn’t a high water vapour concentration (humidity) holding heat in. That’s why he’s utterly wrong to say the temp won’t fall further after the current modoki el nino. Wait 12 months and see.
Tom P (17:45:23) :
“If the same happens again it will be very difficult to explain how just natural processes could have added so much energy.”
Not to mention how difficult it would be using scientific methods to show how un-natural processes could do it.
/Humour_on
Can anyone tell me who this “al” is whenever they mention Mann et. “al” ? Al Gore?
/Humour_off
E.M. Smith — you clearly have cause and effect reversed. It is global warming that is causing the thermometers to go extinct. Get with the program.
Turboblocke (07:33:51) :
If you don’t know the temperature due to uncertainty, you can’t tell if it has increased; especially if the error is greater than the measured increase, that is what error is for; it’s not just a number at the end of a measurement!
Sorry, Turbo, the error is too high.
fishhead (16:41:41) :
With only 1000 weather observation points and about 150 million square kilometers of land mass, that’s about one observation point per 150,000 square kilometers. By comparison, New York state is approximately 140,000 sq.km.
There are probably something over 100 million men in the US – yet it would be possible to estimate the average height of the US male froma random sample of around 1000.
We are looking for a trend – not precise measurements. A global trend of say, 0.6 deg over 30 years (0.2 deg per decade) , could be detected with a lot less than 1000 site observations providing those sites gave reasonable spatial coverage…..
… and probably even if the measuring apparatus (thermometers) only measured to the nearest degree.
I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding over this issue.
[You can say that again! RT – mod]
[You can say that again! RT – mod]
Are you suggesting that my understanding is at fault. If so what are you referring to in particular.
[It was a general comment, I try not to get personal in mod comments. RT – mod]
Are you suggesting that my understanding is at fault. If so what are you referring to in particular.
[It was a general comment, I try not to get personal in mod comments. RT – mod]
It’s ok – I didn’t take it personally. I don’t mind my comments being challenged.
As much as I enjoyed John Coleman’s presentation, the very crux of data manipulation was never properly brought to light. It lies not in the mean temperature levels of the stations employed, as E.M. Smith implied, but in the time-series of average anomalies produced from an ever-changing set of stations. That, and not the zonal temperature factor, is what provides an open door to obtain any “trend” you want. An invariant set of UHI-uncorrupted stations must be used throughout the entire time interval to obtain reliable time-series.
I made a comparison of raw and adjusted GISS temperature data for several european meteostations with a long data record (1880-now). My impression is that a lot of data is ‘adjusted’ to favour a warming trend. You can find the results on:
http://people.mech.kuleuven.be/~jpeirs/Climate/Temperature_comparison.html
One would expect a downward correction for compensating the Urban Heat Island effect, but you see the opposite for cities such as Paris, Geneva, Zurich, Trier, etc. For Brussels (Uccle) they simply cut of the ‘inconvenient’ hot period before 1950.
@ E.M.Smith
Thanks for that post / those links.
Turboblocke (04:44:35) : Perhaps the potential defendants should have read these documents before making their defamatory remarks in print: […]
About 7000 stations and quality control documented in 1997.
The key here is that the stations are deleted from the record AT a POINT IN TIME. Their past is left intact.
So a bunch of cold thermometers participate in setting the baseline, then in the present have been taken out and shot. But no worries, we can fabricate an infill anomally from 1000 km away at the major jet airports classed as “rural” and compare it.
So yes, all 7000 are “USED”, just some cold ones are used for the base line and some warm ones are used for “now”. The count of PRESENT used thermometers (i.e. in 2009) in GHCN is 1500+ (it hit a low a couple of years back at 1470 or so) but they are compared to 5996 in 1970 (back when the world had cold mountains, Cambell Island in N.Zealand down toward antarctica, Norther Siberian stations in the USSR. You know, what they call “Baseline” stations…
John Finn (05:28:07) : There are probably something over 100 million men in the US – yet it would be possible to estimate the average height of the US male froma random sample of around 1000.
Yes, but the problem is that the 1500 current stations are not random. They are preferentially warm.
We are looking for a trend – not precise measurements. A global trend of say, 0.6 deg over 30 years (0.2 deg per decade) , could be detected with a lot less than 1000 site observations providing those sites gave reasonable spatial coverage…
Yes, just like if we were looking for a trend in male height in the USA we could, oh, take the average height of a sample of Irish immigrants in the early years (growth limited by famine) and compare it with a small group “randomly” selected from the NBA … and “find a trend”.
The problem with “the anomaly will save us” is that the baseline is an obvious cold period cherry pick and the “present” is a warm biased set from thermometer deletions.
Other than that, no problem.
But yes, they DO use both sets of thermometers. Just at different times and for different “uses”…
sky (14:06:54) : It lies not in the mean temperature levels of the stations employed, as E.M. Smith implied, but in the time-series of average anomalies produced from an ever-changing set of stations. That, and not the zonal temperature factor, is what provides an open door to obtain any “trend” you want. An invariant set of UHI-uncorrupted stations must be used throughout the entire time interval to obtain reliable time-series.
Remarkably well said!
mpaul (08:56:59) :
E.M. Smith — you clearly have cause and effect reversed. It is global warming that is causing the thermometers to go extinct. Get with the program.
So you are saying the cold thermometers have ‘caught a cold’ and died out? Oh Dear. The poor little things. You are right, I’d completely missed that 😉