Today NOAA officially announced www.climate.gov It didn’t take skeptics long to find a sin of omission. WUWT reader Dave N. pointed this one out to me.
Let’s start with the lecture to skeptics in the Dec 31st 2009 story “What the future may hold” which is an article about sea ice extent. The climate.gov website has been in “beta” for a couple of months. It was announced first on WUWT on December 2nd, 2009. There has been plenty of time to correct this story. The story states:
“When you’re in a court of law, you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The people who have been focusing on the ‘cooling’ have not been telling the whole truth,”
It appears right below this graphic:
This NOAA.gov story for their new “ClimateWatch magazine”, is written by Michon Scott. It leaves out some important data that is obvious to everyone, skeptical or not.
The sea ice data, cited from NSIDC, stops in 2007. 2008 and 2009 sea ice data and imagery, available to even the simplest of curiosity seekers at the publicly available NSIDC or even Cryosphere Today websites, is not included in the graphic. Mr. Scott chooses the historical satellite record minimum of 2007 as the endpoint for comparison. This leaves a reader who is “not in the know”, with the false impression that sea ice has not recovered in any way.
Sometimes I wonder if these government types have any idea of just how blazingly stupid they look when they lecture skeptics, but purposely dig their own obvious data omission hole in the same article.
Here’s the 2008 and 2009 imagery. It took me all of about a minute of work to find it.
Above: Average, 2007, 2008 and 2009 Arctic sea ice extent. From NSIDC
Or how about Cryosphere Today, showing the 2008 and 2009 minimum days side by side?
You don’t need to work for NOAA to find this sea ice extent imagery.
There’s no excuse for NOAA not showing the 2008 and 2009 sea ice data or imagery in this story. None, zilch, zero, zip, nada.
Suffice it to say, this piece on www.climate.gov is propaganda with a lie of omission. It is not science because it omits a portion of the data that disagrees with the article’s premise.
So to Tom Karl, the new director of this machine, I use the again words written by your employee, Michon Scott with a single substitution.
“When you’re in a court of law, you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The people who have been focusing on the ‘warming’ have not been telling the whole truth,”
Rather than lecture us about “truth” while at the same time omitting data not in line with the premise of the article, I suggest that if NOAA is to have any credibility with this website, you should fix this omission and present the true and complete history of the sea ice record. The sooner the better.
For those that agree and wish to complain, a review of NOAA’s “Information Quality” policy might prove useful:
See it here: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/Policy_Programs/info_quality.html
For those who want to make the issue known to the newly appointed man in charge:
thomas.r.karl [at] noaa.gov
He might need a reminder that he works for us, not the other way around.
Henry:
To Palin lover-
Henry, here’s your chance to see what your problem is, if I can explain it half clearly: you think that because you hate Palin [“passionately” = irrationally], then anyone who doesn’t hate Palin must love Palin [“passionately” = irrationally]. You think that everyone is thinking like you are, except that you’ve just somehow managed to get it right and they haven’t. Because you are good and they aren’t, or something like that.
It’s the old mutually exclusive “good guy, bad guy” way of approaching reality, somewhat like those who think their Highschool’s team is good, and the other school’s team is bad, that’s all there is to it, and that’s as deep as it gets, i.e., not very.
But the completely other, more rational and scientific, option is to simply objectively analyze what people actually do, Palin and Obama for example. Keep the analysis always going and subject to any modification necessary, and see what happens, but starting from the beginning. It’s really much easier that way, as opposed to having to get locked into an early right-wrong/good-bad choice then defend it as things evolve.
You can see that the latter is what “Climate Science” did, which is why it is not doing real Science, and why it is totally uncredible at best.
All you have to do is back offf and relax, then look. If Palin degenerates into being “partners with god in matters of life and death”, while Obama suddenly actually starts to seriously push for Nuclear Energy as a very large step toward the solution to ‘jobs’, ‘the economy’, ‘energy’, and CO2 worries, then I’m almost certainly going to modify my views of them both.
Henry ( I forget which post) – I know something about the coal industry , and believe me , Obama does not “love” coal .
Obama loves “clean” coal. He knows there is no such thing according to EPA’s recent redefinition of CO2, so he is safe in proclaiming it. He knows it can’t happen.
I can’t help thinking that if climate change sceptics were organised into a properly constituted pressure group, a kind of “anti-Greenpeace” we could do so much. Lobby government, get time with Barack Obama, go and visit the guys in charge of this outrageous NOAA website and have a proper debate with them, hold press conferences, becone a contributor organisation to the fifth assessment report, even produce the “Alternative IPCCReport”…
But actually all we do is comment on these blogs and rant indignantly at each other. Preaching to the choir, you might say.
The good news is the US government has a law that forbids them from lying, including their contractors and grantees it’s called the Data Quality Act of 2001. I assume that it even covers the government’s new “global warming hoax” site. Here is a link == http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Quality_Act
And so how do they ‘fix’ the hole left by CRU and the rest? And what do they now call the ‘adjustments’?
It’s been killing me. I’ve got to ask.
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Space & Nuclear Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo
What does “Former NASA PI for Apollo” mean?
P Walker: ” I know something about the coal industry , and believe me , Obama does not “love” coal.”
He does, however, love votes….
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/statepro/imagemap/usaimagemap.htm
as do they all.
Americas Global Warming Terrorists
By Alan Caruba
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/02/americas-global-warming-terrorists.html
Wonder why US Congress and all of DC took recess this week?
Is white global warning making them a little flush about waiste deep?
Why did they all tuck tail and run back to Mia Mommy?
Why are DC police arresting frolicking fun-loving citizens for throwing white environmental cleaning at each other?
Let’s all make the new climate gate czar earn her pay scale. Simply write and ask simple questions like the onew above.
Since she mail never heard of google, send this link to shim: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/Policy_Programs/info_quality.html
thomas.r.karl [at] noaa.gov
Re: the IPCC, I just ran across this interesting page from the late, great John Daly: click
For all is illusion sayeth the… or at least as big an illusion as we need to fit our version of the truth! Maybe that is what hell is really all about…time will tell, unfortunately it will be those who come after us who will be paying the price for our selfish lifestyles! One swallow doesn’t make a summer! and one bad winter doesn’t change the fact that the polar icecaps are melting…melting…melting…fast!
God help us when they have….
Rob Anesly,
Hmm-mm. What was that all about?
Henry,
You are confused, Obama does not love coal, He just loves to spend our tax dollars even on energy sources especially if it is Illinois and he can reward his buddies from Chicago with 1+ Billion dollars from the stimulus bill. In reality he hates like coal but he needs it.
On the serious side, reality may have set in. Surely he must by now realize that he cannot bankrupt the coal fired plants as he promised during the campaign since the renewable energy sources will never meet our energy needs for many decades. In fact he recently brought up Nuclear energy
On potential problem though is that development of the technology may take decades and may never become commercially viable and the electricity rates will certainly skyrocket since capture and sequestration of CO2 will be quite expensive. As others indicated Bush stopped funding the project due to cost overruns and forced private industry to provide funding if the project were to continue. I notice that quite a few companies are kicking in now since their future may depend on clean coal.
Keep in mind that this is a research project and it has a long history of overruns. See below:
“The Department of Energy’s total anticipated financial contribution for the project is $1.073 billion, $1 billion of which comes from Recovery Act funds for carbon capture and storage research. The FutureGen Alliance’s total anticipated financial contribution is $400 million to $600 million, based on a goal of 20 member companies each contributing a total of $20 million to $30 million over a four to six year period. The Alliance, with support from DOE, will pursue options to raise additional non-federal funds needed to build and operate the facility, including options for capturing the value of the facility that will remain after conclusion of the research project, potentially through an auction of the residual interests in the late fall.
Tom B:
Refer to Oliver’s web site.
http://www.omatumr.com
He was principal investigator on a couple of research projects, one of them related to Apollo 15.
I note that they’ve changed their website. I wonder why they decided to change the image to show only the minimum extent for 2009, and not include all the other years?
It’s close to as bad as what they had before, since the extent has been growing for the past 3 years. Also just as bad, they don’t report that recovery. Looking at the animation, it simply looks like 2007 was a bad year..
Who knows? If we had satellites back in the 30’s it might have looked just as bad one or two of those years.
Smokey (19:17:09) :
Rob Anesly,
Hmm-mm. What was that all about?
Guilt, blame, panic, disasterizing, fear of life, self-hate, impotence, feelings of worthlessness, wanting to return to the womb or the Garden – the usual decompensation.
“Veronica (England) (13:12:33)”
Veronica, almost all that’s being and been done, except that a lot of us here don’t feel like bribing Politicians. Cap and Tax is dead here in the U.S., except for a certain dead cat bounce. Of course, we’ll have to keep helping them fail – you just never know about Zombies and Progressives.
Try this:
http://www.therealpictures.com/wuwt/propaganda%20at%20noaa.gif
Go to climate.gov and search for “propaganda”. The response is hilarious.
Look at http://www.climate.gov. Why does all of the data END at a convient place to emphisize global warming? Look at the main page dashboard Solar Irradiance graph for example. The portion shown looks steady – But, if you move the slider you see it was much lower 100 years ago. Why no graph of Solar Irradiance and global temperature on top of each other? Could it be that they would mimic each other almost perfectly? Oh, thats right, the sun does not cause global warming CO2 does.
And our/your kids look at this at school. How much do they look at.
Strange that none of your balanced, unbiased, genuinely sceptical readers seem to have pointed out the clear message of the graphic captioned “Above: Average, 2007, 2008 and 2009 Arctic sea ice extent. From NSIDC”.
That is, despite an increase in the minimum sea-ice extent from 2007 to 2009, the extent of older ice (shown in green) has shrunk rapidly. The implication is that while a thin (1 metre thick) coating of single year ice has extended in response to normal (e.g. ENSO-driven) weather fluctuations, the proportion of older thicker (3m) ice, and therefore ice volume, continues to plummet.
Combining extent and thickness data suggests a 70% loss of sea ice, by volume, between 1980 and 2008. For more detail and references see http://tinyurl.com/ashby-response/slide-26
Jonathan (21:01:40),
Naturally, you would cite a heavily biased blog that focuses on the Arctic.
The Antarctic is gaining ice – and anyway, it’s all natural variability – the exact same thing has happened repeatedly in the past, during pre-SUV times.
Time to get a clue… or read the WUWT archives, and get up to speed on the subject.