James Hansen of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies issued a letter (the second this week) in response to the correction of temperatures that was recently done as a result of the work by Steve McIntyre illustrating problems with temperature data processing for the US record sets.
I provide the letter (PDF) link here http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf without any comment of my own, except to say that it is in fact from Hansen and published on his web page which you can see here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
Yes…and it was a minute mathematical error that wrecked a very expensive Mars probe. Hank is correct regarding public statements made by NASA employees…how this guy hasn’t been fired is a mystery.
Well said, Evan. I’d be especially interested in seeing Dr. Hansen’s data/algorithims, etc. showing how he adjusted for such things as car exhaust, jet exhaust, AC exhaust, burn barrels, BBQ grills and seas of ashpalt under and adjacent to monitoring stations. I’m not holding my breath.
> […] how this guy hasn’t been fired is a mystery.
Maybe he’s a useful idiot.
It’s beginning to take shape … First they hide the data behind the hockey stock fraud, then they try and hide the site locations of the USHCN, then they won’t release the software that compiles the data from the USHCN stations, then they call the ones who question ….
I see a trend and it doesn’t point to the argument is settled. I would think that if the data and the pointed to results were solid, sharing would be what they would want, but hiding and obfuscating points to …
In his artice “Scientific reticence and sea level rise” (2007) Hansen writes that while he was being questioned by a lawyer from the auto industry, he had to concede that he is no glaciologist. And to boot, he also had to admit that he doesn’t know a single glaciologist who would agree that sea level was likely to rise more than a meter this century in the (unlikely) business as usual –scenario.
“Name one”, asked the lawyer. “I could not, instantly”, Hansen remembers. Now, one would expect that he names the names later in the article – but no, he mostly quotes himself, and spins into philosophical musings about the “reticence” of everybody else. This must be somewhat embarrassing for the scientists at GISS. Or maybe not?
Maybe he’s a useful idiot.
Anon, I question the “useful” part.
Okay, I am confused.
Anthony and others, are you saying that the data is skewed and the Earth is not warming?
Or that the data is skewed so humans are not the cause?
I understand your problem with the data but I am trying to see how this fits into a larger argument.
Thanks.
For those who haven’t seen this, take a look at the following link:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
The “Lights Out” letter is now, apparently, NASA’s official position paper on the USHCN temperature corrections. Unbelievable!!
Correction – the “discussion” document is the infamous “A Light On Upstairs?”…
This is funny. I was “home” on Consimworld (the wargaming blog from whence I hail), and in one of the personal blogs thereon, the GW discussion came up and I mentioned the surface stations, their violations and the need to address the raw data. And that it was imperative that the surface stations be photographed, inspected and rated.
So get this:
He went on about how expensive such a project would be and if I would be in favor a raising taxes to see it done!
I then had the pleasure of pointing out it ws an all-volunteer effort, and occurring as we sat there. (So maybe I’ll try to sign him on: he lives in Seattle and that station still needs a look-see!)
From the Hansen letters:
“It is also a biblical paradigm that the Earth, Creation, is an intergenerational commons, the fruits and benefits of which should be accessible to every member of every generation.”
Shouldn’t then, the data and results of one member’s research be available to all members of every generation?
Hansen, give us the data, so that we can see what you do, so that we may all believe like you do.
Let Hansen take this simple true or false test.
1)Validation by desired result is acceptable.
2)A test with non-falsifiable bias is still valid.
3)A good scientist should not have to endure attacks on his work.
If he or anybody else answers true to ANY of these questions they are not scientists. They are political hacks.
Hansen, give us the data, so that we can see what you do, so that we may all believe like you do.
Henry, kinda gives new meaning to the term, “leap of faith”, doesn’t it?
Bravo, Henry, for pointing that out.
I guess Hansen would be then hoist on his own petard (I rarely get the chance to use that!).
Caveat – I am not a Bushbot, and in fact, have had a litany of issues with the man’s policy points over the past 6 plus years …. with that out of the way…. Hansen clearly suffers from not only Bush Derangement Syndrome, but also Fox Derangement Syndrome and Washington Times Derangement Syndrome. In fact, he suffers from “Anyone Who Does Not Agree With My Very Narrow Version of Reality” Derangement Syndrome. Sad. Yet another corner of NASA, fraught with severe issues. It’s a big personal let down for me, I was a wide eyed kid who built a Tester’s Apollo 11 model …. that along with many other childhood idealisms has bitten the dust …. part of growing old is the series of losses and disappointment with one’s fellow Man, that one experiences with every passing year.
“I’d be especially interested in seeing Dr. Hansen’s data/algorithims, etc. showing how he adjusted for such things as car exhaust, jet exhaust, AC exhaust, burn barrels, BBQ grills and seas of ashpalt under and adjacent to monitoring stations. I’m not holding my breath.”
What I’m beginning to think is that they adjusted good data of the compliant stations upward to match the bad data of the noncompliant stations.
With heavier overall upward adjustments to the post 1980 era
So, yes, it looks to me as if they adjusted the data ass backwards–two different ways.
I had read excerpts but not the entire letter. This is completely unacceptable coming, as it does, from a senior civil servant. In the private sector this would in all likelihood result in a firing for cause.
bigcitylib said:
Michael Smith,
Your right, the Tuvalu Islands are really looking forward to another few degrees and we in The West would be arrogant to deny it to them.
You are committing the fallacy of begging the question. You simply assume the truth of a premise that is part of your “proof” — namely, you assume as proven that temperatures are going to rise a few more degrees, that Greenland’s and Antartica’s ice will melt causing the seas to rise and flood places like Tuvalu — and then, having assumed the truth of this scenario without proof, you offer its consequences as a reason why we do, indeed, have the right to select an arbitrary temperature and force it one everyone else. That’s utterly fallacious and proves nothing.
The scenario you assume to be true is what the controversy is all about. Do you expect us to simply forget that? Who, exactly, do you hope to persuade with such lame tactics?
Some people have fun trying to decide if the real data were being hidden by the government scientists (a dog bites man story). I have much more fun using data to do a regression – in this case, to project temperatures in the future, say, in 2050. The bottom line is that US temps in 2050 are projected to be about the same as in 1995-2005. Yawn. I put the details on the blog:
http://regressionsrus.blogspot.com/