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:
…they now show this for the author, heh.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So except the heat, there are other things in the pipeline. Staying tuned.
Non-govenment employee.
So….are you going to repeat Spain´s economic figures due to “green policies”?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/leaked-doc-proves-spain%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98green%e2%80%99-policies-an-economic-disaster/
Is it not time to change and forget Al Gore´s personal business needs?, is there too much money involved?, what is it so important that you can´t tell it?
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
“Govenment”? Is that some sort of democratic republic entity for witches?
…and Juraj beat me to the punch.
[snip]
Thanks Anthony.
Download works fine so far.
Nice write up on your work:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/anthony-watts-tour-of-australia/#more-8554
Swing by New Zealand if you get a chance, weather ain’t so great, but thats Global coolin’ for ya.
Aha! In the pay of Big Government. These results are obviously can’t be trusted
Lieutenant Columbo surely. I may not know anything about statistics but…
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)
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.
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.
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
Interesting. That rural/urban gap is a tad smaller than the one I found, though he is likely using v3_adjusted instead of v3_raw: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/in-search-of-the-uhi-signal/
Nice to see that GHCN v3 is coming along quickly; it will be interesting to see how many additional station records have been added.
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?
I read. I laughed.
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)
From the London Evening Standard
Why PowerPoint makes us stupid
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23834798-why-powerpoint-makes-us-stupid.do
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?
Anthony , a couple of the slides don’t come up for me .
The presentation doesn’t come up either .
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]
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.
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.
“”” 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 ?