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

So except the heat, there are other things in the pipeline. Staying tuned.
Non-govenment employee.

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

…and Juraj beat me to the punch.

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.

Lieutenant Columbo surely. I may not know anything about statistics but…

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.

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

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)

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?

The presentation doesn’t come up either .

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.

“”” 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 ?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Looking back;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/climatgate-pielke-senior-on-the-ncdc-ccsp-report-strong-arm-tactics/
Columbo? Why not Kojak?

“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.

You know your hitting close to the truth when they protest so loudly.Good work

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.)

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.

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.

New Scientist is a comic, it hasn’t been worth reading for years.

“”” 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.

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

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.”

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….

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 :-#)#

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.

For the spelly tyranos
Global, Histerical and in reality.
Aaargh, me key board be sticky from rum.
[Fixed. R. ~dbs]

@ 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.

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?

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.

@ 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.

The trends in Slide 21 are bogus:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/05/tom-karls-trends-are-wrong-at-least-in.html

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

They misspelled Capitol Visitor Center on the title page.

Global warming is robust. True, except for the ro.

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.

“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.)

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.

We are testing for divergence, from proper to poor siting.
Manufacturing does not rely on time. It relies on sampling.

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.

Forget Everything.
The issue is calibration under parameters.

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.

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.

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

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.

We call this shit safe worken.

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.

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

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.

“”” 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.

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.

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

“”” 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.

George E. Smith says:
May 19, 2010 at 4:44 pm
http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf16/extended_abs/stoffel_t.pdf
Could start there.
DaveE.