Also Going Down: Carbon dioxide burial reaches a milestone

“It is very difficult to do such things perfectly – there will always be problems, as a practical matter.”
The experimenter is allowed to make corrections for his equipment but must document this carefully in his protocol. Hansen is not the indicated experimenter.
While seeming specious this explanation is sickeningly tendentious.

Consensus may well be important in applied science (medicine, engineering, et al.); but open and complete information is crucial in pure research.
Kuhn emphasized, in its practice, that these scientists were comprised, at the forefront, of those understanding the current paradigm, its heuristics, classic experiments, experimental ethics, etc., and could proceed to develop hypotheses to test the paradigm at its vulnerable points. They needn’t even be aware of other’s articulated beliefs apart from these elements.
It remained then for a secondary group, to use the former’s protocols to reproduce their results.
Consensus is only a byproduct, the process is what is important. Kuhn even declined to say that progress was a definable outcome of the process.

Jeff Alberts: “You’re assuming they even know about the microsite violations, or even care.”
I can’t answer that question. From memory, the ‘other side’ dismisses photographs as sufficient evidence of corrupted data and demands numbers. Of course the measuring instruments should be the best possible, and let’s hope the agency responsible raises its game. But uncertain data is better than no data.

One day there will be nanontech robotic microbes who will create diamonds out of CO2 and sunshine, then we can get on with our overdue ice age.

Evan Jones: “As for the lack of positive vapor feedback, see:…”
I am hesitant in using the vapor data since information on vapor content is one of the least understood variable which is very difficult to measure even with reasonable accuracy. If I am quoting correctly, the accuracy (or reliability) of vapor measurements could be as low as 25 to 30 % (I can look around for reference on some quantitative value) – it is highly time dependent (as well as on altitude and position)- now you see it and now you don’t (since the residence time is relatively short) and seems like you have to catch it at the right time. We may be underestimating vapor content – but we do not know enough to make a concrete determination one way or other. Pofarmer’s comment may be applicable here:
Pofarmer (05:02:05):quoting someone “”But uncertain data is better than no data.”” replied “O.k. That’s just pure stupid.”
On sea-level: Please see:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg
or go to http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php and pick one that you like, or use
or http://sealevel.colorado.edu/wizard.php for specific locations.
The overall trend is up, there is a dip from early – 2007 to now, but that does not appear to be any different that the reductions we observe in the past. I think we will have to wait several more years to see whether there is a downward trend, or it is just a short time phenomenon. I sincerely doubt there is a real change in trend, but I could be wrong. We will see.
Some critical references on Morner’s work.
Kench P. S., Nichol S. L., McLean R. F.
Comment on “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” by Morner, N.A., et al. [Global Planet. Change 40 (2004), 177-182]
GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 47 (1): 67-69 MAY 2005
Woodroffe C. D.
Late Quaternary sea-level highstands in the central and eastern Indian Ocean: A review
GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 49 (1-2): 121-138 NOV 2005
Woodworth P. L.
Have there been large recent sea level changes in the Maldive Islands?
GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 49 (1-2): 1-18 NOV 2005
Morner’s response was short and did not appear to defend well.
Evan Jones: (JM It is very difficult to do such things perfectly – there will always be problems, as a practical matter.)
“It can be done and is being done. The NOAA/CRN system covering the US is just such a system. Well sited (with photographs, no SHAP), automatic transmission of data hourly (No FILENET), Well distributed (no grid weighting).”
I am not really sure. For one thing they will have to do some averaging to go from data collected from 150 or so stations to an average U.S. temperature – they could use simple arithmetic average, then it will be an average of all the readings not really the average for the U.S., they could use an average scaling with the area a station covers, or they could use some function to interpolate temperature between stations and then average. In any way, a certain degree of manipulation has to be done from the raw data to be the final product.
Also if any of these stations are destroyed by flood, tornado, or when new stations come online, corrections are needed. For example Florida does not even have a working site, and only two at the end of this project to represent that large area. In 50 years these sites may not be as pristine as we have now (I assume all the sites we criticize now were started as good sites using the state of the art technology at that time, some of them may not measure up our standards now – this of course belongs Watt’s department). So, I am sure they already apply or will have to apply corrections. Now I agree with Gary Gulrud’s comment that relevant details of those corrections should be available to the public. It goes without saying that the probability of finding errors in their procedure (up or down) will be much higher if more people look at it. It will also increase the credibility of such corrections.
Gary Gulrud: “The experimenter is allowed to make corrections for his equipment but must document this carefully in his protocol. Hansen is not the indicated experimenter”
I somewhat agree with that comment. Hansen did publish a paper summarizing the logic and procedures for his corrections (I can check and post it if you don’t have it, but probably not detailed enough to reproduce the exact code), also I thought he released the code under pressure from McIntyre? Didn’t he? I didn’t keep up with all that. But at the end of the day, since all four temperature plots agree reasonably well (as much as we can expect, under all these statistical variables involved), I do not have as much suspicion on Hansen’s correction as many of his critics have expressed during these years. But I think, if he hasn’t already done so, he should release more information about his adjustments.
Gary Gulrud: “Consensus may well be important in applied science (medicine, engineering, et al.); but open and complete information is crucial in pure research.”
I agree with what you say, but I don’t see a distinction between the first and second clause. When I used the word “consensus” it is not like a group of people after a meeting deciding to have Chinese food for lunch vs. Mexican food. The consensus in science is based on knowing an appropriate level of relevant facts to reach that conclusion. I just am hesitant to stress the need to know COMPLETE information, because there is no end for something to be complete, we can always add more. I do not disagree with Kuhn at all, in his two books I do not think he addressed the issue of consensus in science. My view of consensus is one that is based on the required knowledge on the phenomenon on which they are developing a consensus.
Brendan H. has a point, that AGW critics in the past used uncorrected satellite data to discredit ground station measurements to show that AGW is not true and there is no warming. I think the group at Remote Sensing Systems helped to apply many of the corrections. It is unfortunate that Spencer/Christy data without corrections (sensor temperature, drift etc) was used by some to criticize AGW, it created some level of distrust (the corrections to the pattern they predicted were more significant that Hansen’s Y2K correction). RSS is still trying to understand the need/effect for corrections (eg. Mears, C. A., Wentz, F. J., The Effect of Drifting Measurement Time on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature, Science, 309, 1548-1551, 2005).
Sorry, we were supposed to discuss carbon sequestration and we diluted that with all these other things.
John McL

Evan Jones: “As for the lack of positive vapor feedback, see:…”
This is what NOAA has to say.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
“…we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.”
Somewhere, and I cannot really track it now, I read the accuracy is only about 30 % or so. This is a problem, unfortunately we have not devoted enough resources and work to develop a tool to measure one the most important feedback mechanism. I hope this will be corrected in the future.
BTW: I do believe knowing something is better than knowing nothing (I was just making a mild joke with my quote in my previous post)
I do not really understand the CRN procedure. If it is purely a geometric grid, that may not represent the real altitude adjusted (also wind adjusted) equivalent stations for obtaining a (or the) U.S. average from a simple arithmetic averaging. Which means some type of modeling must have gone in there in determining the locations. In places like Oregon and Washington, if you travel few miles east (like to Bend Oregon) the temperature can fall substantially. So, I am not sure how they are adjusting for such rapid transitions. At the end I hope it all comes out OK, at least I hope everything will be transparent.
I enjoyed our discussions very much. Keep up your work with a skeptical AGW view. It will keep the other side honest. But I still hope both sides could develop a little more trust and remove all the suspicions about the other groups. We will discuss again sometime in the future.
Gary Gulrud: “..Your point is a non sequiter..”
I assume you are using the strict logical formalism here (if A is true, then B is true, since B is true, therefore A must be true; which may or may not be true). That is why I asked for at least one counter example to show something in science that came about to be a rule (or scientific truth) without consensus. I mentioned statistical thermodynamics, we can add quantum mechanics, string theory, uncertainty principle, Boyle’s law, Maxwell’s law, etc., etc. all of which are in pure science. For example, the uncertainty principle evolved due to the endless discussions between Einstein and Bohr (Bohr had to constantly modify the details even until 1930s), and most of the arguments were simple thought experiments (not real experiments), and it kept evolving until a formulation is reached to a stage that is accepted by most scientists in the field. I don’t know what we call that, if it is not refinements for consensus. Most of the public and many scientists have never seen an atom (atomic force microscope and scanning tunneling microscope are relatively recent developments – and even with that only few people working with those devices really see atoms), but slowly and slowly atomic explanations (especially in chemistry and physical chemistry) became recognized as the fundamental explanation, without even seeing it. It did not happen overnight, it took years of consensus development (based on evidence, of course).
Take for example the continental drift theory: Abraham Ortelius (in 1956 or 1957) initially talked about it, developed more fully by Wegener (in 1912), but widespread recognition of this theory came in 1960 or so, and now progress in geology and evolutionary biology etc is based on the continental drift theory. Since the theory was not established before 1960, even though the theory was later shown to be correct, it was not always used for other investigations, thus diminishing the progress of science. It is the general consensus that made continental drift theory a scientific theory and facilitated further progress based on it, etc. Until someone can point out a concrete counter example, it is difficult to believe otherwise. But if someone could show a good counter example, I will be happy to change my view. Kuhn’s subject is scientific revolutions, or paradigm changes.
“Scientific revolutions over turn consensus, prima facie. If I were writing such a book I might consider it given that consensus is irrelevant”
Please look at some of the scientific revolutions: Replacing Sun for Earth as the center of universe, Gilbert’s work in 1600 that gave the foundation for magnetism and electricity, Isaac Newton’s development of calculus, particle wave duality of subatomic particles, development of quantum mechanics, general theory of relativity, …. .There were skeptics all around when such developments came up, and it took years and years before it really became a theory. It took consensus.
“…but without an MD/PhD and post Doc with a top PI you have no background in pure research, the target of our discussion. Therefore abstract allusions to experience are unpersuasive.”
At some level science, engineering and medicine, all become almost the same. Engineers working in nanotechnology are essentially doing physics and chemistry, medical research involves significant amount of biochemistry, medicinal chemistry, molecular biology, etc. and many with applied training work also in basic sciences (including me, I have Ph.D. students and post-docs). So, such classifications will not always apply, that only Ph.D. in science can have background in science. I understand fully what you are saying, that there must be (and natural to have) accepted guidelines and procedures when medicine or engineering is practiced. Sure. But, I believe there is more.

Pofarmer: “But uncertain data is better than no data.
O.k. That’s just pure stupid.”
Let’s see. I’m on a busy city street and want to catch some public transport. I ask the nearest passer-by about bus frequencies and he shrugs his shoulders. The second passer-by tells me that a bus leaves from ‘around here every ten minutes’.
According to you, both answers would be “pure stupid”. But by choosing the uncertain data I would have a much better chance of getting to my destination than you, who would be left on the sidewalk searching in vain for certain data. Before you knew it, a mugger would have sensed your helplessness, and you’d be stranded without a penny.