Tom Karl’s Senate Dog & Pony Show – it’s worse than we thought, again

Well, the Kerry Lieberman cap and trade fiasco has brought Tom Karl to give a Senate briefing last week. Predictably, they couldn’t wait to spring more adjustments du jour on the hapless Senators, claiming once again, everything analysis-wise the government does is ‘robust’ (used several times). But ‘robustness’ just isn’t convincing enough anymore. The new catch phrase is shown below:

What’s the most interesting thing about this PowerPoint? It reads like a skeptics refutation handbook. NCDC reacted. I’ve highlighted a few slides of interest, including one refuting me and the surfacestations project. Because, well, as readers of DeSmog blog and Romm’s fairy tales know, I’d never want anyone to see that.

The key word above is “adjusted”. Comparing adjusted data to adjusted data will almost guarantee an agreement.

I’m sure Karl (or Peterson) was thinking “Better not make those graphs too big”. Surely he didn’t mention that he and Menne et al ‘borrowed’ my incomplete surfacestations rating data against my protests. Dr. Pielke Sr. and I, plus others on the surfacestations data analysis teams (two independent analyses have been done) see an entirely different picture, now that we have nearly 90% of USHCN surveyed. NCDC used data at 43%, and even though I told them they’d see little or nothing in the way of a signal then, they forged ahead anyway. Assuming we aren’t blocked by journal politics, we’ll have the surfacestations analysis results in public view soon. If we are blocked by journal politics, we’ll have other ways.

What’s humorous about this PowerPoint (besides the claims) is that after Peterson previously authored a rushed and ghost written “Talking Points Memo” critical of the surfacestations project, attributable to nobody, but who got caught in the PDF document properties:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/ncdc_document_properties.png?w=720

…they now show this for the author, heh.

Once I took the test to be a "Govenment" employee, now I are one.

After NCDC’s unethical borrowing of my data and denying my right of first publication, don’t ask to see the surfacestations analysis results here. I learned my lesson not to trust Karl et al the first time. Full disclosure comes in an SI with journal publication, not before.

Here’s some other slides of interest.

The urbanization signal, easily dispensed with thanks to homogenization.

This slide above is part of the “nothing matters and we can adjust for everything” meme. Now they are using Hansen’s night lights method. Heh. The rural trend they present is different than what I’ve seen.

Above: New and improved! Gotta show progress for the senators! Thanks to GHCN3, it’s now even hotter, faster.

Look for new pronouncements of “unprecedented” and “it’s worse than we thought” when they publish GHCN3. Robust times two. Gosh.

Of course, airports don’t matter. Naw. Never, even when they don’t bother to remove the base measurement errors at airports, even when pointed out. Like movie directors, I’m sure they are thinking: “we can fix that in post production”.

Yes, I’m being sarcastic here. Yes, I think most of this shown to the Senate is based on self fulfilling adjustments and a need to keep bureaucracy alive.

You can download the entire powerpoint here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/download/Global%20Warming%20is%20Unequivocal%20TKarl%20May%206.ppt

Do it fast before it gets “disappeared”.

===========================================

UPDATE 5/21: Backup file locations (since the one above seems to have gone dysfunctional) as PowerPoint and PDF are below:

Global Warming is Unequivocal TKarl May 6 (PPT)

Global_Warming_is_Unequivocal_TKarl_050610 (PDF)

===========================================

In related news. I’ve been made privy to a new surface data set, one that doesn’t have the problem of NCDC’s need to show additional warming to keep the cap and trade dream alive. This surface data set uses an entirely different methodology to fix the errors, deal with dropouts, and separate good records from bad. I’ve seen the methodology. I won’t insult everyone’s intelligence by calling it “robust”. Instead, I’ll call it properly engineered.

The best part is, it was never designed with global warming in mind. So there’s no built in confirmation bias.

And to Mr. Karl, Dr. Menne, Dr. Petersen, and Dr. Easterling (who I know will read this): stay tuned.

Oh, and another team sends word today and that’s not the only surprise to come. But, that’s another story for another day.

h/t to Steve Mosher, who is the new inspector Columbo.

About these ads

144 thoughts on “Tom Karl’s Senate Dog & Pony Show – it’s worse than we thought, again

  1. George Carlin´s excerpt:
    The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles; hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors; worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages… And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet… the planet… the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!

    We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that.

    http://www.climatechangefraud.com/videos/130-george-carlin-saving-the-planet

  2. Aha! In the pay of Big Government. These results are obviously can’t be trusted

  3. So why isnt the GOP calling for and demanding his sacking ??

    The man is obviousy producing propaganda, that is easily disproven (as A.W. has done here)

  4. Although I think the evidence for AWG is strong using the word “unequivocal” is wrong. We, and even Senators, need to learn how to make reasonable decisions about costs and risks while acknowledging uncertainty.

  5. The whole world has become a scam.

    Pay more in taxes to the government, so government scientists can pretend to control the weather. After all, we want to verify that we are getting our money’s worth.

  6. I tried downloading the presentation like 6 time, each time problem loading page.
    Must be a popular PowerPoint needed to counter the ICCC results coming out this week.

    So how do those knowledgeable (more than senators) counter these trumped up graphs?
    I am sure the media will be covering this extensively, especially NPR !

    -Jay

    -Jay

  7. The second slide alleges little difference between well and poorly sited stations. The flaw there is that according to Dr Peterson, these use GISS homogenized temperatures.

    Homogenization means that the data from good stations are blended with data from poorly sited stations, so we have trends from good stations adjusted with bad stations compared to trends from bad and good stations adjusted with bad and good stations.

    Because good stations are outnumbered 9 to 1 by bad, how surprising is it that their blended trend differs little from the bad?

  8. So wait, US non airports show 0.54 deg C warming per century, and then we correct it and get 0.85 deg C per century. How did they correct it? By building an airport runway around the Stevenson screen? That’ll show you, thermometer… (Sorry, i just can’t take them seriously)

  9. Interesting stuff in the Slide Notes.

    Number 40 — Graphs of, among other things, the snow cover for the northern hemisphere during March and April from about 1930 to date and glacier mass in a nosedive since 1980. The pic is web described as “temperature-plots-p-thorne.png”, but the note says, “DO NOT USE before accepted for publication”

    Has it been?

  10. Also, Anthony, the “Adjusted” argument is a bit of a misnomer in this context since (at least based on the 40% of classifications released by Menne) CRN12 max trends much warmer than CRN345 max in the raw data: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Picture-1491.png

    It trends a little bit cooler in the min raw data: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Picture-151.png

    [REPLY - A straight average turns out to be entirely invalid, quite beyond the incomplete, unreviewed, horrendously flawed data set. (A painstaking review shows many of those "good" stations not to be good and vice-versa.) Menne, as it happens, falls completely flat. I am not at liberty to comment on the other reasons yet, but I ask you to be patient and it will be explained fully to your satisfaction. I ask you (and the rest of you out there) to reserve judgment until then. ~ Evan]

  11. What’s the probablity that every adjustment made to a dataset is positive?

    I will note that the airport result is interesting and it does make some sense. There is reason to believe that using airports will be better than leaving thermometers in places where more buildings are erected and more people move in.

  12. Well looking at their “New Global (GHCN) Monthly version 3 to replace version 2.” with their trend rates of 0.91 and 0.83 deg C/century graphs; if any employee of mine presented me with those two graphs and claimed they were different; I would call security and have them walk him/er out of the building along with his/er final paycheck. And if s/he claimed that the trend rates were different by 9.6% I would sue him/er to recover some of his/er back pay to when s/he started working on that data.

    And if s/he claimed that that red straight line showed the trend in that data; I would retroactively fire him/er back to his/er hire date. The real trend of that data is ZERO from 1900 to 1975, and then about 2.86 deg C per century since 1975 (1 deg C in 35 years).

    I’m not even going to query the data; well at least since around 1980 ish; but I don’t believe any of the data prior to that bend at 1975. Not surprisingly that is roughly; give or take 10 years so, as to not spook anybody; about when the early ocean buoys were set out that Dr John Christy reported on in Jan 2001 in Geophysical Research Letters; that showed that ocean near surface water Temperatures, and atmospheric near surface air Temperatures are not the same; and are not correlated.

    To me that makes all the so-called global temperature data, prior to about that 1980 period suspect; since the oceans only account for about 70-73% of the total earth (smoothed) surface area. The (smoothed) caveat is in case there are any Fractal wisea***** out there.

    I don’t have any basis to query what raw data that NOAA put into these graphs; but I don’t have to like their analysis of what it means.

  13. “”” Steven mosher says:
    May 19, 2010 at 2:18 pm
    What’s the probablity that every adjustment made to a dataset is positive?

    I will note that the airport result is interesting and it does make some sense. There is reason to believe that using airports will be better than leaving thermometers in places where more buildings are erected and more people move in. “””

    So just what is the reason to believe that; given that airport thermometers are placed specifically to measure real runway temperatures to enable pilots to determine that it is safe to take off with their load condition ?

  14. GK says:
    May 19, 2010 at 1:42 pm
    ‘So why isnt the GOP calling for and demanding his sacking ??’

    Don’t kid yourself. There are a lot of GOP politicians that are for CO2 Cap and Tax.

  15. With climate gate, long term CO2 related stories took a hit. The Politics took over.
    Now NOAA has to save face and look busy. They have to crank out stuff, insert some drama hope for job security.

  16. You know… thinking about all that has emanated from both the “core” of GW scientists(?) as well as the likes of the “Union of Concerned Scientists”, since 11/09 but especially in the last month; the screeching, the contradictions, the outright lies, the Power Point propaganda, the relating of EVERYTHING that is wrong to GW……

    …where as I was going to end all my thoughts with, “It’s the water, Stupid!”, now I think it should be, “It’s the MONEY, Stupid!”

    This may sound a bit off topic, and I know this could never get passed, but wouldn’t it solve everything if henceforth ALL funding for scientific research had to come “through” private, for-profit industry? We cut the total world-wide Gov. funding in half (for the first year), make for-profit companies apply (like Grants) and then when awarded (obviously for things the Gov. wants researched, just like now) the companies hire the people, get the eqp., do the research and – - benefit (or not) from the results in the competitive market-place. Seriously, if that lake in Africa IS REALLY warming and it’s killing the fish or whatever, with the right research money there are any number of companies ….. well, you get my point.
    THE WAY IT IS NOW, politicians from various parts of the world (mostly the USA) GIVE money to scientists to produce – - nothing, but words in a report and if it “fits” what the politicians want, they give them more money – - – FOR ANOTHER REPORT! OR COMPUTER MODEL! OR ANOTHER PP PRESENTATION!
    No wonder EVERY professor I have ever met (and it numbers in the dozens) is a socialist or outright communist.
    “Government isn’t the solution to the problem, government IS the problem.”

    It’s the money, stupid!

  17. Zeke

    The biggest issue with Menne’s study is that he MIXED rural stations with Urban Stations. Not a very good design for finding a small effect.

    Anthony, if you guys want it I can post my google earth tour of menne’s sites. I was making a movie of them, but kinda got distracted with other stuff

    Also, I did a much larger file of the most “ruralest” sites I could find. There are 239 in the US that pass all the screens I have for being rural.. more to follow

  18. Let me get this straight.The ‘warmist’ crowd use Mr Watts’ work in an incomplete state,against his wishes,yet, when research by a government sponsored body kept secret in defiance of a FOI act gets out into the wild,they cry “theft”?

    The hypocrisy of these people is breathtaking in it’s arrogance.

  19. Mosh,

    A good test would be to compare urban airport station to nearby urban non-airport stations and rural airport stations to rural non-airport stations. I’m about done with a project to that end.

    Also, looks like I misread their slide on rural stations. Finding a higher trend in rural stations than in all stations is indeed rather odd, as what I’ve seen suggests that rural stations trend 0.05C per decade lower than all station, not 0.05C higher. I wonder if they have some spatial coverage issues sneaking into their analysis (e.g. faster warming high-latitude areas might be predominantly rural).

  20. NOAA/NCDC claims ” no evidence that the US temperature trend is inflated by poor siting stations” and “poor siting alone does not implicitly lead to significant observational errors in the trend”

    If siting doesn’t matter, why bother to set siting standards at all?

  21. Socialist Science where the Government decides the outcome and conclusions regardless of the actual observations… that is surely robust and unequivocal …. barf!

  22. This image seems wrong. The more recent V3 data seems lower, especially in recent years like 1993, 1994, 2009. The trend difference, 0.83 vs 0.91 should be readily visible on the graph, but the trend lines seem to be nearly on top of each other.

    Also, the data covers 1 1/2 full PDO cycles – 2 warm phases, one cool. Ah well, at least they aren’t pulling the recent decade is the warmest. Or is that on another slide? Don’t have time to check right now.

  23. Ideally, with some minor financial support, you set up a Stevenson screen thermometer a kilometer or two away from an airport (or other “contaminated” site) and compare the two over several months. (For a statistically significant number of sites.) That way, you could provide the fudge factor to re-adjust the current values.

    Just so we know what is really going on.

  24. Lets not forget the exponential increase in the size of airports since the late 60′s, and particularly since, what, the middle 80′s. As we all know.

  25. The attempt to trivialise urban heat affect must be a kind of acknowledgment that there is a measurable (and perceptable) temperature difference between urban and rural areas that needs to be accounted for. Added to the fact that Airports are not positioned in urban centres where the greatest heat is.

    Perhaps it’s worth revisiting ‘UHI is alive and well’

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/31/uhi-is-alive-and-well/

  26. Well…first off, these boys are on a political mission as well as CYA mission. I wouldn’t trust Tom Karl any farther than I could throw him. Anthony Watts, et al have done an absolutely marvelous job with the surface station project. Many others have done great work exposing the flaws in the HADCrut, NASA and NOAA datasets. Recently the lid has been blown off the NZ temp record. So where are Roy Spencer and John Christy for this Senate testimony?

    I work in the healthcare industry and the staggering ignorance on the part of Congress, the Senate and Obama made my skin crawl throughout the healthcare reform debacle. I can only extrapolate that ignorance in the field of climate.

    I think global warming is indeed “unequivocal”. Sure enough, the planet is warmer than it was 300 years ago. Almost no one would argue that, theoretically, doubling atmospheric CO2 conc would result in about a 1 degree increase in global mean temperature in about 90 years (all other factors remaining unchanged). In my view that’s about as “robust” as their claims are. I found this NOAA drivel to be quite disturbing. This is 100% political and nearly 0% scientific.

  27. Ric Werme says:
    “Oh, come on :-) , that’s been known since at least 1863 and the Gettysburg Address!”

    OK. Now I really did laugh out loud. Thanks Ric.

  28. The biggest issue with Menne’s study is that he MIXED rural stations with Urban Stations. Not a very good design for finding a small effect.

    Not necessarily. As it turns out, urban stations actually have superior micrositing to non-urban stations. There are, however, other (very) severe issues with the Menne “study” (and I use that term loosely).

  29. I look forward to seeing your analysis published in a journal. I see no reason why it shouldn’t be if the methodology is sound. Have you decided which journal you will submit it to?

  30. The attempt to trivialise urban heat affect must be a kind of acknowledgment that there is a measurable (and perceptable) temperature difference between urban and rural areas that needs to be accounted for.

    Big difference not only in that cities are warmer, but trends (sic) are considerably higher as well. I have run the numbers.

    Added to the fact that Airports are not positioned in urban centres where the greatest heat is.

    But they have other issues. The absolute heat may be low but the heating trend (sic) is artificially high for a whole host of reasons.

  31. there are 3 pages of utter rubbish in here, including quotes from plenty of “experts” on denial blah blah. quite incredible:

    19 May: New Scientist: Debora MacKenzie: Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth
    Similarly, global warming, evolution and the link between tobacco and cancer must be taken on trust, usually on the word of scientists, doctors and other technical experts who many non-scientists see as arrogant and alien.
    Many people see this as a threat to important aspects of their lives…
    If science is the best way to understand the world and its dangers, and acting on that understanding requires popular support, then denial movements threaten us all.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.100-living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth.html?page=1

  32. “Global Warming is Unequivocal: The Evidence from NOAA.”
    ==========================
    Does this mean I can stop worrying about Climate Change??
    I recall something being “settled”, but which one was it. I’m so confused.

    I’m sure the Senators will explain, it is after all the New Age of transparency in Government, and I’m sure my taxes won’t go to waste.

  33. u.k.(us) says:
    May 19, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    “Lets not forget the exponential increase in the size of airports since the late 60′s, and particularly since, what, the middle 80′s. As we all know.”

    If this were the case I would expect to be able to pick out all the airports in those IR images of Earth. Instead the IR images show urban areas quite clearly with the greatest heat where you would expect it, in the urban centres. And no, airports have not grown exponentially in comparison to urban and infrastructure expansion. In fact in the case of somewhere like Las Vegas the international airport is within the urban area when in the middle 80′s it was outside.

  34. Henry chance says:
    May 19, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    My money is on NOAA finding itself the subject of budget vulnerability.
    Folks are voting hard against lavish spending.
    Who wants to be a forecasting millionaire?

  35. pat says:
    May 19, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.100-living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth.html?page=1

    Thanks Pat, well I’m living in Denial.

    I deny the U.N the right to determine how I live.
    I deny any government the right to impose a Carbon Tax on me for their gain and my detriment.
    I deny Al Gore et al access to my Body, Mind and Soul.
    I deny the political class any influence to infect my emotions with Hate, Fear or Despair.
    I deny the Mass Media to persuade me they can be trusted, but my own reasoning can’t be.

    And finally I deny Hysteria, Panic, Populist rhetoric and Greed any hold on my compassion for
    my fellow man, my country and my planet.

    (I also Deny New Scientist my money, since they became a wing of Greenpeace and Socialist International.)

  36. Greenland is rising b/c of so much ice melt is taking weight off the continent. That study just came out of U. of Miami. Another study I just heard of that goes across parts of the globe is that some lizards are disappearing from the “hotter” end of their range. They are getting baked out. Glacier National Park will have to be called “The Park Known Formerly As…” Ski resorts in the Alps are extending lifts and trying innovative techniques to keep more snow on the ground & glaciers from melting away. Sea ice, while extent was decent this year, isn’t as thick as it used to be…old ice just isn’t there anymore & new ice melts away quicker. I don’t need any weather stations to tell me it’s been getting warmer recently. All you have to do is look to Mother Nature to see that.

  37. ya Zeke,

    “We will have to wait for Anthony to release the full dataset to play around with it more. I’d love to test CRN status while holding urbanity and sensor type (MMTS vs CRS) constant.”

    Ya, meanwhile I have some other notions we should toss around. I just got the GIS stuff to work in R, so I think I should be able to reproduce Ron Bs work. ( just got it working today). Also, Given what LeRoy’s fellow scientist said at Lucia’s I expect the signal to be small, Having NCEP wind data available to explain some things will also be helpful..

    Looking around a lot of this work has been done, but nobody has put it all together.

  38. Great to see some real science getting done – by the blogosphere. Science started out with dedicated amateurs, and it looks like the wheel has turned full circle. The Gubmint and grant-funded stuff is just noise now, no signal.

    Tune it out, and concentrate on the real work.


  39. skye says:
    May 19, 2010 at 3:24 pm
    I look forward to seeing your analysis published in a journal. I see no reason why it shouldn’t be if the methodology is sound.

    November 17, 2009 called. It wants its plausible deniability back.

  40. no commonsence thay have never heard of the word. the only word thay know is gov grants $$$$$$$$ and more

  41. OT – It’s much ‘worse’ than we thought, again. :o)

    Nature – 19 May 2010
    “”The complexity of malaria and the other vector-borne diseases is astonishing,” says Reiter. “To bring it down to just one factor — climate change — is totally unjustifiable.””

    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100519/full/465280a.html

    —-
    I’m sensing backtracking by a lot of these alarmists recently.

  42. “”” Here’s a hypothesis: denial is largely a product of the way normal people think. Most denialists are simply ordinary people doing what they believe is right. “””

    So just what is Debora MacKenzie’s specific expertise that qualifies her to assert that she knows that “”” Most Denialists are simply ordinary people…..”””

    Ordinary in what sense? I suspect that “most ordinary people”; the vast majority to be specific; don’t give a tinker’s damn about the climate, the environment, global warming, climate change, carbon dioxide, aerosols, fossil fuels, or the IPCC or the United Nations in any of its manifestations.

    “Most people”, I suspect are simply trying to make a living for them and their families; and maybe get some enjoyment while they are at it. They have no tolerance for authoritative dictation by other persons who have no knowledge whatsoever of their condition.

    Humanity has always endured the scourge of elites who somehow think they know best how the person next door should live; and the person next to him too.

    It is doubly insulting to also have to foot the bill for these self appointed leeches.

    If you can’t personally provide for the sustenance of yourself and whatever family members you have a responsibility for; then don’t expect people who do, to pay a whole lot of heed to what you have to say; unless you can provide convincing proof of what you claim. And the output of a computer program; that cannot even replicate the very input data, that was used to “adjust” or “calibrate” the program; is not proof of anything.

  43. These alarmists just don’t give up do they.
    “Adjusted” and “homogenized” are the alarmists disciples of “unequivocal”.

  44. I have a simple and very basic question; that maybe anybody with expert knowledge of the subject might be able to provide an answer for. I invite (seriously) any input you may want to offer.

    If I wanted to go outside (some place), probably at night time; but mayber in daylight as well; and direct some “sensor” up at some presumably blank area of the sky ( or maybe even a cloudy region) and directly plot the spectral irradiance falling on some “target area” that can originate only from what atmosphere is visible above that sensor target, and hopefully includes almost all of the available clear sky solid angle; without any intruding objects; and with sufficient spectral resolution to directly resolve whatever line emissions, and also a thermal continuum; over the spectral range from say 0.3-0.4 microns to perhaps 100 (or even 50 microns) wavelength; who would I go to to find such an instrument; and about how much would it cost. I would want to be able to do this at ambient temperatures down at least to zero deg C, and maybe to -10 deg C (when conditions permitted that).

    Any ideas; I already checked at Fry’s and they don’t sell one.

    And yes this is a serious question. Even if such a setup is just not affordable to an ordinary denialist working stiff like me; I would be interested to know just what equipment is required.

    I assume that some sort of Optical Mechanical chopper confarnation is necessary to isolate real input signals from the self emissions of the equipment.

  45. Another exciting installment in the continuing adventures of Thomas and his pet rat TOBy! I have filed it along with his 1985 paper on developing a computer model to apply TOB adjustments to surface station surface data in the absence of complete metadata. Interestingly that 1985 paper’s conclusions mention climate change and indicate “The main advantage of this model is that it eliminates the cumbersome task of obtaining data at first order stations, and then calculating and interpolating the TOB to the location of interest” Also interesting is the large amount of warming in the USHCN record that results from TOB adjustments…

    I remember Reto Ruedy’s email comment from the NASA emails obtained under FOI , “I still think, Steve […] mixes us up with Tom Karl’s group – they “fix” station data, we don’t.”

  46. Intuitively, poor station siting should matter, but McKitrick and Michaels saw little statistical evidence of bias in US land-based measurments, while most of the rest of the world had quite a lot of it. On the other hand, the continual back-correcting by NASA GISS that increases past US trends appears appears to be a prima facie case for bias.

    My take away is that the satellites are the gold standard, and the most reliable record before that is CRU, who despite all the shenanigans correlate relatively well with the satellites during the period of overlap. The US agencies are altogether untrustworthy.

  47. h/t to Steve Mosher, who is the new inspector Columbo.

    Ah, yes. Mr Mosher. Here he is in full flow back in January accusing Phil Jones of fraud …

    One scientist, Phil Jones, even suggested changing the dates on papers to hide the misdeed.

    Source: http://biggovernment.com/smosher/2010/02/01/leake-and-the-london-times-climate-scientists-thwarted-foia/

    But what is the basis of this serious, some might say defamatory, claim? A leaked private correspondence, of course:

    Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.

    Cheers
    Phil

    Source: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=816&filename=1189722851.txt

    Covertly changing the received date of a paper to circumvent IPCC procedures! Scandalous!

    Or is it? Could it in fact be a private joke, the basis of which is a printer’s error that caused the year of the paper to be misprinted? Ah, actually yes, as noted in a Climate Audit post

    With regard to Ammann and Wahl 2007, of course it was not received in 2000 and that was an unfortunate printer’s error on the part of the publisher, and indeed your presumption of August 2006 is correct for the date of receipt. Hopefully all readers will join you in reaching that logical conclusion despite the printer’s error. In any case, we will ask the publisher to publish an erratum to avoid any misunderstanding.

    Source: http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/23/will-stephen-schneider-say-what-the-acceptance-date-of-wahl-and-ammann-2007-was/

    So Jones was joking. But maybe ‘Columbo’ Mosh made an innocent mistake? After all perhaps, despite writing a book on the affair, his research had missed this in-joke?

    Er, no. In a post on this very site, he linked to the CA post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/mosher-the-hackers/

    So, either Mosher was flinging about unfounded accusations of malfeasance based on a joke (these things happen when you take private correspondence out of context) or he had forgotten his own ‘research’. Either way, a comparison with Clousaeu seems more apposite than a likening to Columbo….

  48. Speaking of temperature changes, how many here have looked at the new mathematical site called Wollfram?

    Interesting results occur if you plug in various cities around the world – I’ve done major cities in Canada and the US – the results are not what the warmists would suggest. I used the range 1975 – 2010. Not sure where they are getting the data but it does not appear to be ‘adjusted’.

    Don’t take my word for it – check for yourself:

    http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average+temperature+los+angeles++1975+-+2010

    LA – Downward trend, Vancouver, BC, Canada – pretty stable, Tuctayuctuck – pretty stable…and so on.

    John :-#)#

  49. Mike @ May 19, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Whilst I agree with your sentiment, let’s face it: “It is unequivecal that the world will end” – yes, in several billion years but the statement is not wrong in this case. Politicians employ lanmguage and you must take it both seriously AND with a pinch of salt. This is how they get away with lying through their teeth and persuading you they are working in your interests. And AGW is a lie.

    Statements like “the science is unequivecal” is a politicians trick, which is rather like a magician’s or conjurer’s trick; wave hand over to the left while the right hand is doing the work.

    Distraction: Even if “the science was unequivecal”, does that mean we should, or could, do anything about whatever problem is being talked about?

  50. GK says:
    May 19, 2010 at 1:42 pm
    “So why isnt the GOP calling for and demanding his sacking ??”

    Because their politicians and he’s presenting an avenue for the usurpation of more power and governance over the populace. Regardless of what side of the aisle they sit, it is too tempting for most of them. Funny though, given last night’s mini-Tuesday, you’d thought some of the GOP would pay attention. The power offered, I suspect, is simply too intoxicating.

    We were warned of giving them too much authority, we just didn’t pay attention.
    “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”———–George Washington
    Yet we have over and over again, so much so, they consider it their prerogative to do as they will with the populace without the constraints of morality or constitutional law.

  51. On a serious note, I would call some of the behavior Piracy, or theft without attribution.

    But the real problem is not the politics, tho many see it that way, it is the satellite data, pesky stuff. It is the fact that country’s or more importantly economies that moved early to unproven renewable technologies without baseload generation potentials are suffering in their jocks.

    The last and most important thing on topic to this post, even with the built in UHI being called Global warming in the land based sets, that is still only a one trick pony that can in reality be performed only once.

    I know I know back in yer box Jack.

    (I just read Delingpole’s piece talking about politics, but you know you have won an argument with a fool when he takes a shot at yer head with a limp wrist, that is axiomatic).

    Politics no matter how convoluted and hysterical always has to take a back seat to reality sometime.

  52. For the spelly tyranos

    Global, Histerical and in reality.

    Aaargh, me key board be sticky from rum.

    [Fixed. R. ~dbs]

  53. Sorry about the sidetrack :-)
    George E. Smith says:
    May 19, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Excellent new word George, Confarnation – just needs a definition.

  54. @ Phil Clarke
    I wanted to thank you for your post. Perhaps the changing of the date was a joke after all, maybe not, perhaps it was a gentle prod to once again play a hocus-pocus game with data and studies. Your reference reminded me of a story I’d read at CA. http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/23/will-stephen-schneider-say-what-the-acceptance-date-of-wahl-and-ammann-2007-was/ . Yep, that was the one.
    It served simply as a reminder of the of the steady flow of tricks and hides of the CAGW group. I’d almost forgotten that one. Yes, it was probably an inside joke. And the joke was, once again, played on the world’s populace.

  55. Rob M says:
    May 19, 2010 at 2:44 pm
    Let me get this straight.The ‘warmist’ crowd use Mr Watts’ work in an incomplete state,against his wishes,yet, when research by a government sponsored body kept secret in defiance of a FOI act gets out into the wild,they cry “theft”?

    The hypocrisy of these people is breathtaking in it’s arrogance.
    I hope you do not mean watts is hypocritical!
    \harry

  56. Karen writes:
    “Greenland is rising b/c of so much ice melt is taking weight off the continent.” Blah, blah, blah, etc.

    Karen, dear, what you have written has nothing to do with science. What you are doing is looking for a smoking gun and the really sad part is that you and the Climategater morons believe that is how science is conducted. Permit me to explain how science is conducted.

    What I mean by science is best seen in the progression from Ptolemy, through Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo to Newton. Kepler was the first to do away with a whirligig model of planetary movement and replace it with a set of empirical hypotheses that enabled prediction not only of planetary motions but relative speed and distance from the sun. As with all empirical hypotheses, they were formulated as univeral generalizations. For example, Kepler’s Second Law states that a planet’s speed in its orbit is directly proportional to the area swept by a line from the Sun to the planet. Newton benefitted directly from Kepler’s work and deduced Kepler’s Third Law, about the size of orbits, from his Theory of Gravitation. Bringing together Kepler and Galileo, Newton explained that the same laws governed projectile motion on Earth and the regular motion of the planets. He explained that given a tall enough mountain and a powerful enough cannon, he could launch a satelite into orbit around the Earth. The point of this story about the history of astronomy is that, at some point, empirical science emerges from whirligig models and qualitative hypotheses grow over the decades into quantitative hypotheses that synthesize earlier results into higher level hypotheses. I do not see that climate science has gone beyond the whirligig stage. Of course, there are generalizations about the CO2 molecule, but everyone agrees that a random distribution of CO2 molecues in the atmosphere cannot produce more than one degree of warming. The fearsome warming has to come from the forcings. But the forcings can be known only if there are empirical hypotheses about them. I have used every opportunity to ask climate scientists for these desired hypotheses, as I am now asking you, and I have received worse than silence as a response. Are there empirical hyptheses about forcings? If so, what are they? If not, then why do climate scientists deny that they are in a pre-empirical, whirligig stage of climate science? Climate scientists have hunches about the melting of glaciers, the melting of arctic sea ice, the role of cloud cover in temperature, as do you, but none of these hunches can be relevant to the others so long as there is not a set of empirical hypotheses that ties them together, as Newton tied together Kepler and Galileo. So, please tell me, are there empirical hypotheses that can be stated as universal generalizations and used to explain forcings and predict their behavior?

  57. Stephen Skinner says:
    May 19, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    u.k.(us) says:
    May 19, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    “Lets not forget the exponential increase in the size of airports since the late 60′s, and particularly since, what, the middle 80′s. As we all know.”

    If this were the case I would expect to be able to pick out all the airports in those IR images of Earth. Instead the IR images show urban areas quite clearly with the greatest heat where you would expect it, in the urban centres. And no, airports have not grown exponentially in comparison to urban and infrastructure expansion. In fact in the case of somewhere like Las Vegas the international airport is within the urban area when in the middle 80′s it was outside.
    =================
    Not sure where you are coming from:
    What I’m saying is the thermometer is located at airports with ever increasing UHI effects do expansion of runways, additions of buildings, jet exhaust, etc. Combine this with your increasing urban sprawl, and the UHI effect keeps rising.
    I.E. a false warming signature at airports.

  58. @ John Robertson
    That’s pretty neat!! My place of birth………in the middle of the breadbasket of the world.
    linear trend: -0.054 deg F/y+-0.024 deg F/y (-19 yr/deg F)
    low: -17 deg F 1989 average high: 102 deg F average low: -1 deg F high: 112 deg F 1954

    Yeh,……just local.

  59. Confarnation is akin to ‘infernal contraption’… Perhaps meaning the ‘combination of bases that react to produce an inflated exponent in it’s reaction….

    I beat the world to the definition…

  60. OMG, it is worse than we thought.

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782

    See the blurry free text of the National Academy of Science’s report!
    It just turns my stomach. My word, they are still showing a Mann hockey stick and talking about the impact of 1 meter sea level rises by the next century.

    I fear they will try and push this disastrous cap and trade nonsense through.

    -Jay

  61. @ Theo Goodwin

    I thought Karen was being facetious…???….??? Please permit me, if you will………
    I believe a better response would have been……….. crap, I forgot how damned dumb people can be. lol, So, our continents are floating to the top???? Maybe islands capsizing isn’t such a strange idea….hahahahaha.

    I think she’d probably relate to that response better. Just a thought.

    Regards.

  62. Karen: Just between us girls – no one responded to you because you’re a twit and an embarrassment. But that’s OK – everything’s OK now.

  63. @Dave Wendt
    That’s a hoot, I’ve used part of that song as one of my favorite sayings. When observing something obviously stupid, I’ll sing the words, “If I only had a brain.”…..or when describing somebody doing something stupid, I’ll state they were doing “the scarecrow”. I usually get strange looks, but it’s a hoot for me!!!

  64. Jay Cech says:

    “I fear they will try and push this disastrous cap and trade nonsense through.”

    I’ve been wrong before, but I don’t think there’s any political will to fight that fight. I believe in the near future, our Prez will be preoccupied with explaining why he chose to mouth a state of the union in front of a foreign dignitary(an absolute outrage). Last night’s primary shows the electorate has had enough of the status quo. No dem is safe, no repub is safe, and they won’t tolerate a dem/repub. Buh bye Arlen, you middle of the road, stand for nothing, no sense of loyalty, political hack.

  65. Capn Jack says:
    “Politics no matter how convoluted and hysterical always has to take a back seat to reality sometime.”

    Orwell disagrees. “Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”…..”1984″
    Edmund Burke attached a condition…..”All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

    Cheers

  66. Jimmie, me matey, Politics like science has reversals at times.

    I am not that dumb that I would not put the rider, sometime. We are currently in a dark age, it’s been happening since 1994, at least in my observation. Orwell was out by about 10 years.

    But Orwell never saw the internet coming either.

    Free speech always sets people free. Me I done me some insurgency in me time. The deadliest weapon is the real truth not the perception.

    Aaargh, he he. (manly pirate giggle not quite a guffaw).

  67. The senators are hardly hapless.
    Unindicted co-conspirators is perhaps more accurate.

  68. Capn Jack
    heh, but it’s not like they’re going after the internet either, is it? What with the net neutrality act, fairness doctrine and equal time rule……I’m reminded of an American General who once said……”Don’t be ridiculous, they couldn’t hit an elephant at this dist……..”
    But you are correct about the free speech. We should endeavor to keep it.

  69. george smith. you can just google radiometry. start with the ACRIM and then hunt around google. Or you can search for papers that already document what you want. from measuring it in space to on the ground. nothing there as far as the skeptic agenda goes.

  70. Phil Clarke says:

    Yes, I did make a mistake about that mail. I first became aware of that mistake over on Kloor’s site what a month back or so,where I corrected it. Be aware of the timelines.

    I also made a mistake in one statement I made about Steve McIntyre in the book. Based on a climategate mail from a scientist, which I took at face value, I wrote that Mcintyre had done a press release about one of his papers. This was false. To my knowledge those are the only two substantial errors: One where I read Jones’ Joke as a serious request. The other where I believed a climate scientist who said something negative about McIntyre. You can of course make anything you want out of those errors. I offer no excuse. I take full responsibility. I could of course mount a series of bogus defenses and claim that people were sending me hate mail and claim that I have been driven to the point of suicide over it, but I prefer to simply say I was wrong.

    Next.

  71. James, In Australia, there has been an attempt at suppression on free speech.

    I was watching a debate on mandatory internet Government filtering. The left was most interesting in the debate, most vehement and strident about protecting free speech and liberarianism and so on yet blaming the opposition for what would be done instead of the current left wing government attempting to pass the policy.

    My take on the debate, is that the internet is like Adams said when describing the universe, it’s a really big place. It is also really difficult to suppress a lot of human activity or dare I dare I say interest. Curiosity is a human condition.

    I am loathe to admit it but I have done some minor work in privacy and security a long time ago (a major faux pas I admit by one in the piracy trade), the work was based in trust issues, more to do with business and finance.

    The problem with trust as a baseline, is that once you lose it you lose it forever.

    So a government that seeks democratic re election, tampers with fire in an attempt to silence free speech no matter how well intentioned.

    Take for instance in this debate AGW v true science. True science is outgunned financially, is outgunned from a media point of view and out gunned politically.

    Yet true science won the debate where it matters, in the polity itself the public.

    Unfortunately we expect the losers to go quietly into the night or extinction, it may take a decade.

  72. Once again, I do not think Global Warming per se is the real issue and perhaps the positing this question as such may be an attempt to force any opposition into an untenable false position of denial.

    I believe the real issue revolves around whether this process is primarily caused by human activity and whether we must mandate a global human behavior change to halt this in-progress anthropogenic climate change that will have all the disastrous consequences proclaimed by many scientists and a former Vice President of the United States.

    As far as I can tell, there has been no solid proof presented that those climate changes that we have seen are actually outside the range of normal climatic variability or that a massive reduction of human activity will guarantee a more benign climate.

  73. Anthony,

    You are definitely getting under their skin.

    My advice to them would be to simply ignore you. But perhaps it is becoming apparent there are some in authority who are expressing skepticism and citing you as a source. Have to do something about that…so…we set up another ‘authoritative source’, which is themselves, demonstrating how wrong you are.

    This is getting fun.

    In any event, cap and trade are dead. The entire complexion of congress is changing in November. With a dearth of advocates, the environmental movement won’t be able to pass gas, let alone a cap and trade deal.

  74. I don’t need any weather stations to tell me it’s been getting warmer recently. All you have to do is look to Mother Nature to see that.

    Actually when I look at Nature I see no warming.

    My area is flat over the last 40 years in average temperatures. Neither farmers nor gardeners report any changes to what grows and when it grows. The frosts are as bad as ever, and this year the fog is the worst in ages.

    The only warming is when I am told about somewhere else. And even then using adjusted measurements.

    Of course I know it has been warming very slowly for 300 years, but that isn’t due to CO2.

    Interestingly, the cited rates of heating, at less than one degree Celcius per century, as cited by the NOAA is never going to get the politicians in Apocolypse mode. Seriously, what person is going to go into crisis mode about a threat that small? Most of the US will be better off for such a small rise.

  75. This posting prompts me to resend a message to the surfacestations site.
    I’ve been very constrained with a family medical problem and so have not kept track of this. I’ve a report regarding the Cle Elum, WA weather station.

  76. It is simple. A poor siting study should be done:
    1. Select what is deemed a proper number of poorly sited stations; preferably ones that come up as classes 2, 3 and 4 should be equally represented.
    2. Put exactly the same kind of calibrated and certified station nearby in a location that meets class 1 standards.
    3. Of course, log the locations of the new comparison stations.
    4. Log data at the same TOB that is currently used at each statement for some proper duration – say one year.
    5. Compare the differences.

    Until someone does this, everyone can argue till they are blue in the face. Both sides will continue to laugh at the other side.

    Climatology is not rocket science. It is 90% statistics and 10% methodology. Proper siting comes under the methodology 10%.

  77. “The Evidence From NOAA”

    They spelled it wrong. Should be Noah.

    And the price of arks has increased exponentially.

  78. karen: May 19, 2010 at 4:05 pm
    I don’t need any weather stations to tell me it’s been getting warmer recently.

    That’s the way things work — when winter is over, it gets warmer. Problem is, in a lot of places, it hasn’t been getting as warm as it *should* be by now, and if AGW were correct, we should be seeing warmer temperatures sooner, not later.

  79. George E. Smith, May 19, 2010 at 4:44 pm:

    I have a simple and very basic question; that maybe anybody with expert knowledge of the subject might be able to provide an answer for. I invite (seriously) any input you may want to offer.

    If I wanted to … direct some “sensor” up at … any intruding objects; and with sufficient spectral resolution to directly resolve whatever line emissions, and also a thermal continuum; over the spectral range from say 0.3-0.4 microns to perhaps 100 …

    Within the range of 10 to 14 um, perhaps a Thermographic camera employing a cooled IR detector:

    Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermographic_camera

    Practical devices: http://www.flir.com/thermography/americas/us/

    .
    .

  80. “karen says:
    May 19, 2010 at 4:05 pm
    Ski resorts in the Alps are extending lifts and trying innovative techniques to keep more snow on the ground.”

    Snow cover in the Alps has been splendid these last few years, and more snow on the ground means better skiing and a longer season (lacking in April are skiers, not snow). The runs are much easier today, no bare spots, moguls mostly gone, and the carving skis turn by themselves. But (or therefore) snowboarding seems in retreat.
    Of course “climate change” was a good argument for installing snow cannons to cover the problem spots.

    (Please pardon me if your contribution was meant to be ironic.)

  81. #23, the “Airport versus NonAirport” one seen above, the airport one on the left is clearly captioned “NonAirport” on the graph.

    #36, “Plants and Animals are Acting as if it is Warming”, “Plants are blooming 1-3 days/decade earlier”. But the higher CO2 levels mean more favorable conditions for plant growth. Also, what plants were they looking at? Horticulture continues to move forward, hardier breeds are created that withstand cooler temperatures better. Were these factors taken into account?

    #12, they can’t even spell “environment” right. A presentation by a government body to Congress, and they can’t even run the spell checker first?

    Too much stupidity in there. I’m considering deleting it off my computer before it spreads. Given such high concentrations of pure idiocy mixed with political activism, one can’t be too cautious when dealing with such a toxic brew.

  82. Siting issues in this sampling should be at 100, we need moe at manufacturing level.

    we need moe, at .001 same as real service provision.

    We dont need a year we need a day. Site is the issue error is the issue.

  83. time is not the issue, the issue is site error, sampling is the issue mathematically.

    Not time.

    Time is not the issue statistically, for this test.

  84. We are testing for divergence, from proper to poor siting.

    Manufacturing does not rely on time. It relies on sampling.

  85. National Organization of Asinine Alarmists

    “You get what you pay for” does not apply to taxes paid to governments, obviously.

  86. It’s called calibration, it really is not a new concept.

    In one day, but for rigor take another benchmark, but one site is measuring the other under obserrvation conditions.

    You don’t need a year for instrumentation calibration and that is the issue and that is the discussion.

  87. Calibration to site.

    Normally before one takes a task on one does what one calls a scoping run.

    ie before effort is exerted 4 brand new Stevenenson measurement sites are set up randomly next to existing bad sites, they would run for a fortnight or a month.

    Random a dart board or a computer sim wont matter.

    Parameterisation of the decison factor for the test must be at anything above 97.5 because at 4 on 4000 sites, we can’t have anything less.

    So four sites rural at airport must be one click away at best standard.

    Then 100 stevensons would be set up.

    But as a Pirate and not a mathematician, I can’t say.

  88. The parameters are the same, when a bad site measures, it’s doppel ganger good site measures.

    With a hundred it would be over the same day, Mathematically and Statistically.

    The experiment is site by parameter.

  89. I was about to say.

    In the interests of Shrodingers cat and the deceit we deal with dont give the cat stranglers any heads up.

    Bummer.

    I dont know how much a brand new set inside the screen costs, but put me down for a hundred Australian dollars.

    I aint got many.

    4 mobile sites will do for the scope run.

  90. Of course there’s been warming over the last 300 years on average, regardless of any attempts to amplify the signal by Mann, Hansen et al. The reason we see all the various ‘adjustments’ invariably increasing the long-term linear trendlines is that, without them, there will likely be nothing of significance beyond natural variation.

    Every single adjustment builds on the quantity of ‘recorded’ temperature increase that cannot be explained by natural variation, and will therefore be attributed to human causes (if there’s no existing explanation, it msut be mankind, right?). This is why every single adjustment matters, why there are repeated adjustments over time and why every single one of them must be challenged.

  91. karen says:
    May 19, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    Greenland is rising b/c of so much ice melt is taking weight off the continent. …. Another study I just heard of that goes across parts of the globe is that some lizards are disappearing from the “hotter” end of their range….. All you have to do is look to Mother Nature to see that.
    __________________________________________________________________________
    Karen, many of those studies are part of a political agenda to take your money. WORSE those studies instead of doing the hard work of determining the TRUE CAUSE of the problem skip the hard part and just blame AGW. This means the environment suffers even more because of the dishonesty.

    An example of this can be seen in this comment by an expert on the “Unprecedented Warming in Lake Tanganyika”

    Pat Moffitt says:
    May 19, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    “…I have done a fair amount of investigation on the problems with the latid and clupeid fishery (sociological and ecological) in both Lakes Victoria and Tanganyika- outside this scope. There are any number of pressing problems with these fisheries and the impacts are potentially large to the local human population. For the researchers to “imply” that CO2 induced temperature changes represents a significant concern for the lake or the residents is wrong on too many levels….

    …..I would have had less of a reaction had these researchers mentioned the fact that nutrient addition would cause an immediate increase in the lake’s food production and the well being of the resident human population– whether or not climate change is real. Failing to tell the media that an easy nutrient fix is available or how CO2 ranks with the other problems faced in this region-in my view is unethical and immoral.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/unprecedented-warming-in-lake-tanganyika/#comment-393147

  92. It’d be nice to have a new googleearth .kml with just what’s left for surfacestations.org at this point. I think after my Iowa trip last weekend, I’m pretty well out of groups of stations I can hit in one day (which is typically how I prefer to do it).

    I’d be interested to see Mosher’s list of 239 “ruralest of the rural” stations –just to see if I’ve been at one or more of them. I still sigh over one in South Dakota that was several miles on dirt roads to get to it, nothing but 160 acre farms as far as the eye could see (and in South Dakota, the eye can see pretty far!), and there’s the MMTS just a few paces from the farmhouse.

  93. Oh, Anthony/Evan –I don’t know if you noticed, but I finally got a pic of the Pembina, ND MMTS (city office took it for me) and uploaded it. Be sure to read the comment I put on it too, as it places that pic in context of the other general pics of the site so far as where the MMTS is compared to the larger pics of the site.

    REPLY – Yes, I have seen it. Thanks. Definitely a CRN4. Saw the others as well. Help me out with Rockwell City, tough. Is it CRN3 or 4?

  94. What’s a NOAA anyway, I know who Noah was, shit I even heard about a bloke called Jonah, he got eaten by a fish.

    But what the fock is a NOAA.

    Is it mythological.

  95. As a current government employee, I demand that you correct the syntax in you grammatically incorrect statement:

    Once I took the test to be a “Govenment” employee, now I are one.

    to the properly engineered “Once I took the test to be a “Govenment” employee, now I is one”.

  96. This is just continuing evidence of their contempt for reality. Why have any guidance whatsoever on siting stations? We might as well put them inside an oil refinery.

    “Station siting apparently doesn’t matter, and the urban heat island doesn’t exist. If you have a station with a temperature sensor sited in a parking lot, next to a burn barrel, or an air conditioner, (all documented at surfacestations.org) it doesn’t matter. The data don’t need to be quality controlled, because the process used at NCDC can fix bogus numbers. The whole thing is ridiculous on its face, and the authors are showing either their incompetence or their contempt for science and the public. ”

    http://be-inimitable.blogspot.com/2010/01/team-psychology.html

  97. Not that I am a prude, or a card carrying member of the
    language police, but “Dog and Pony Show” is short for
    “dogs and ponies having sex with women”. If there will be
    a live bestiality show on the floor of the US Senate, then
    climate problems are the least of our worries. Now there
    is a bit of truth — climate changes _is_ the least of our worries.

    We use the phrase sometimes to indicate “offensive, orchestrated
    bizarre acts”, but what was going on in the Senate is just the
    normal stream of lies and corruption. Telling the honest truth
    on the floor of the Senate and doing so to affect rational change in
    government policy will be considered by many to be offensive,
    orchestrated, bizarre acts.

    REPLY: My working definition mirrors that of Wikipedia listed below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_and_pony_show

    Dog and pony show was a colloquial term used in the United States in the late-19th and early-20th centuries to refer to small traveling circuses that toured through small towns and rural areas. The name derives from the typical use of performing dogs and ponies as the main attractions of the events. [1]

    Performances were typically held in open-air arenas, such as race tracks or municipal parks, and in localities that were too small or remote to attract bigtop performances. [2] In the latter part of the 20th century, the original meaning of the term has largely been lost. More recently, smaller areas of the mid-western United States have come to know the term as ‘horse and pony show’. This term is not widely accepted in other areas of the country.[citation needed]

    The term has come to mean an elaborately staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince people. It is often used in reference to a series of informational events put on by a company or group. [3]

  98. Mr Karl is yet another should be scientist who has bought into the whole Schneiderish idea that the message is more important than the facts. If he was a scientist he would be very embarassed to have his name associated with this propaganda. Very sad.

  99. Frank:

    I have never heard that before!

    Anthony’s definition is the only one I have ever been aware of. LOL you may want to NOT tell us your sources.

  100. “”” Rob M says:
    May 19, 2010 at 2:44 pm
    Let me get this straight.The ‘warmist’ crowd use Mr Watts’ work in an incomplete state,against his wishes,yet, when research by a government sponsored body kept secret in defiance of a FOI act gets out into the wild,they cry “theft”?

    The hypocrisy of these people is breathtaking in it’s arrogance. “””

    Rob, it seems that somehow you are incapable of differentiating between “Private Property” Such as for example some Rap Artist’s latest jangle; or even Anthony Watts’ Weather Station Study; and Public Property that the taxpayers pay for; for example; “”” research by a government sponsored body “””
    My employer for example pays me to develop profitable products for ‘him’; which keeps me and a lot of others employed. If I use his facilities to come up with novel and patentable ideas, and he pays the legal costs of obtaining such patents; then reasonably he owns that which he paid for. If he chooses to give me some other financial incentive to develop new things; that us just icing on the cake.

    I think taxpayers reasonably have a right to free access to that which they pay effectively public employees to develop.

    If scientists don’t like working as public employees; then they should go and sell their wares to some private business that is willing to employ them; or even their own business; such as Anthony Watts has done.

    Taxpayers have little to no say in what public employee scientists work on; and that is probably as it should be, in most circumstances; but those who foot the bill should at least be able to see what they pay for.

  101. Whoops; seems like the keyboard got out in front of the brain there a bit. Rob please ignore the first part of my rant; it was that word “theft” that seemed so odd; that suddenly awakened the sleeper; sorry there Mate.

    The rest though still applies.

  102. Steve Mosher:

    Yes, I did make a mistake about that mail. I first became aware of that mistake over on Kloor’s site what a month back or so,where I corrected it.

    Really? Is it not the case that you were first informed that your accusation against Jones was a misread of a joke by Gavin on RC?: http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=3846#comment-171303

    But one should not be churlish about substandard research; it is gracious to concede an error, and of course one should extend that recognition of fallibility to others.

    But I am afraid the characterisation of this being just an ‘isolated error’ doesn’t really work for me. Here’s another pointed Mosher accusation from the same piece:

    Palmer [UEA FOI compliance bod], fearing an appeal wanted to do things “by the book.” Which in this case meant suggesting to Ammann that his mails were confidential.

    ‘Suggesting’? Here is the actual text:

    We are not sure what our university’s response will be, nor have we even
    checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or
    that we retained any that you may have sent.
    However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter. In
    particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you
    sent to us as confidential.
    Sorry to bother you with this,
    Tim
    [Osborne]

    Viewed through un-paranoid eyes, no ‘suggestion’ to Amman, just a totally innocuous enquiry. I fear Mr Mosher may acquire a reputation for over-stretching his accusations way beyond the limits of the evidence he has to support them. Such are the risks of interpreting partial correspondence, I guess.

    What I would really like to know is, in the tradition of observing even the minimum ethical journalistic standards, what efforts Mr Mosher made to establish the CRU scientists’ ‘side’ of the story? Did he even contact them before publishing his accusations of malpractice? Will we ever know?

  103. Thanks Jim and Phil,

    What I am really looking for is really a high (spectral) resolution Radiometer that can give direct numerical readings of irradiance at each wavelength; so it needs some sort of grating spectrometer built into it as well as an energy sensor.
    Climatologers and meteorologers talk about the atmosphere getting warmed by trapping of LWIR from the surface, and then subsequently re-radiating back down to earth to further warm the surface; isn’t that after all what their “feedback” is ?

    So I would assume that the first thing they have you do for a lab in Climatology 101, would be to take the radiometer outside, and measure the LWIR coming off the ground, and also that coming back down from the atmosphere or even from a cloud cover when you have that condition.

    I actually talked with some sort of climatologer who had gone to the south pole to make irradiance measurments, and he said he had tried to measure the radiation coming off the ice, and couldn’t get his radiometer to work properly.

    So just what do all these climatologers do, if they aren’t measuring such things. How the hell does Dr. Trenberth get his numbers for the earth’s heat budget; I assume he has a radiometer to measure all those components.

    Don’t tell me that this is another thing that Peter Humbug and his friends ‘measure’ on their Playstations and X-boxes.

  104. “”” Frank Perdicaro says:
    May 20, 2010 at 9:40 am
    Not that I am a prude, or a card carrying member of the
    language police, but “Dog and Pony Show” is short for
    “dogs and ponies having sex with women”. If there will be
    a live bestiality show on the floor of the US Senate, then
    climate problems are the least of our worries. Now there
    is a bit of truth — climate changes _is_ the least of our worries.

    We use the phrase sometimes to indicate “offensive, orchestrated
    bizarre acts”, but what was going on in the Senate is just the
    normal stream of lies and corruption. Telling the honest truth
    on the floor of the Senate and doing so to affect rational change in
    government policy will be considered by many to be offensive,
    orchestrated, bizarre acts. “””

    Wow you have a weird sense of the bizarre ! you mean you have never been to a circus, where some floozy has her little white and tan terrier doing a front ‘handstand’ on the back of a small horse while it canters around the ring to the applause of the crowd and all the littl childrens ?

    How you get from that to bestiality, is beyond my imagination !

    Don’t you know this is a family program here ?

  105. George E. Smith says:
    May 20, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for , but I recalled coming across this in David Barber’s “rotten ice’ study

    “Downwelling longwave (L↓) and shortwave radiation (K↓) were collected using an Eppley PIP pyrgeometer and PSP pyranometer.”

    I also bookmarked this when trying to figure out what they were talking about

    http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sgp/aerocloud_web/docs/10.1175_1520-0426(1998).pdf

    Evans and Puckrin did spectral analysis of DLR in Canada but their methodology and equipment was quite elaborate

    http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

  106. “”” Dave Wendt says:
    May 20, 2010 at 11:15 pm
    George E. Smith says:
    May 20, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for , but I recalled coming across this in David Barber’s “rotten ice’ study

    “Downwelling longwave (L↓) and shortwave radiation (K↓) were collected using an Eppley PIP pyrgeometer and PSP pyranometer.” “””

    Thanks Dave,

    It sounds as if what I was looking to do is actually darn near impossible to do; well at least it requires equipment far beyond my messin’ around budget.

    I guess the big probl;em is that EVERYTHING emits thermal radiation according to it Temperature, including the instrumentation used to try and measure that radiation. So you have to cool all of the equipment; and apparently anything above liquid nitrogen Temperture is a losing proposition if you want to measure thermal radiation from an atmospheric gas region. No wonder so many people simply refuse to believe that gases emit thermal radiation.

    Then the spectral selection problem means that somehow you need some Optics, including grating monochromators; and pretty much all of that needs to be reflective Optics; since there are almost no sanitary optically transmissive materials over such a borad range.
    And finally after frequency selection you pretty much have to have a bolometer type detector to measure such radiation. Photon detectors are much too narrow band. HP years ago used to make an ultralow thermal mass thermopile bolometer instrument; but even if still available it is way out of my pocket book range.

    so I guess we will have to fall back on using Black Body Spectral Limit envelopes, and guesstimates of spectral emmissivities, to approximate thermal radiations from this and that.

    No wonder so many climatologers stay with the statistical mathematics aspect of the “science”; the Physics seems practically beyond the ken of so many people.

    I see that Professor Will Happer of Princeton University; took the time once more to try and educate those dunderheads on Capitol Hill; well at least those handfull; that are even amenable to education.

    Professor Happer is a Prince of a chap; and a fully accredited expert on a lot of the atmospheric Physics of Climate science. He has been very helpful and patient with me; trying to regain some lost time; and then some time I never had.

    The AGWers charge that “skeptics are ill informed and uncredentialled is a rude and uncalled for as branding them lunatic deniers.

    The convivial acceptance of known AGWers at the IPCCC4 shindig was evidently similar to the reality that some deny; that the “Teapartiers” as they are called in political circles are not a bunch of radical kooks; mostly they are somebody’s mother, or grandparents.

    Showing the AGWers that we are happy to join with them in amicable discussion of the science of Climate or global warming if you want to call a spade a spade; will eventually lead to some fringes of the AGW community realizing; that they are the ones standing in the way of progress in Climate science.

  107. E.M. Smith:
    I’m not sure what the results would be, but ordinary IR thermometers are used for a milllion things. They are, essentially, bolometers, collecting IR and computing temperature from that with a log circuit.
    They can be had from Kragen at 3AM or ebay for 20$. They will read anything they collect in a conical viewspace.
    IR is blocked by most anything that’s a non-cubic crystal, so a prism for measuring specific wavelengths would need some CdS, or CaCl or crystalline carbon or something.
    That’s the view from the kitchen workbench, anyway. There is probably a vast area of sensing and measurement that contains other solutions and better ones- I just tossed in my .02 in case it might be useful.

Comments are closed.