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.
You know your hitting close to the truth when they protest so loudly.Good work
Henry chance says:
May 19, 2010 at 2:41 pm
My money is on NOAA finding itself the subject of budget vulnerability.
Folks are voting hard against lavish spending.
Who wants to be a forecasting millionaire?
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.)
Greenland is rising b/c of so much ice melt is taking weight off the continent. That study just came out of U. of Miami. 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. They are getting baked out. Glacier National Park will have to be called “The Park Known Formerly As…” Ski resorts in the Alps are extending lifts and trying innovative techniques to keep more snow on the ground & glaciers from melting away. Sea ice, while extent was decent this year, isn’t as thick as it used to be…old ice just isn’t there anymore & new ice melts away quicker. 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.
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.
Great to see some real science getting done – by the blogosphere. Science started out with dedicated amateurs, and it looks like the wheel has turned full circle. The Gubmint and grant-funded stuff is just noise now, no signal.
Tune it out, and concentrate on the real work.
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.
no commonsence thay have never heard of the word. the only word thay know is gov grants $$$$$$$$ and more
New Scientist is a comic, it hasn’t been worth reading for years.
OT – It’s much ‘worse’ than we thought, again. :o)
Nature – 19 May 2010
“”The complexity of malaria and the other vector-borne diseases is astonishing,” says Reiter. “To bring it down to just one factor — climate change — is totally unjustifiable.””
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100519/full/465280a.html
—-
I’m sensing backtracking by a lot of these alarmists recently.
“”” 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.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/in-rare-foray-into-policy-top-science-advisers-press-us-to-adopt-carbon-tax/article1574856/
It’s a full out assault…
These alarmists just don’t give up do they.
“Adjusted” and “homogenized” are the alarmists disciples of “unequivocal”.
I have a simple and very basic question; that maybe anybody with expert knowledge of the subject might be able to provide an answer for. I invite (seriously) any input you may want to offer.
If I wanted to go outside (some place), probably at night time; but mayber in daylight as well; and direct some “sensor” up at some presumably blank area of the sky ( or maybe even a cloudy region) and directly plot the spectral irradiance falling on some “target area” that can originate only from what atmosphere is visible above that sensor target, and hopefully includes almost all of the available clear sky solid angle; without any intruding objects; and with sufficient spectral resolution to directly resolve whatever line emissions, and also a thermal continuum; over the spectral range from say 0.3-0.4 microns to perhaps 100 (or even 50 microns) wavelength; who would I go to to find such an instrument; and about how much would it cost. I would want to be able to do this at ambient temperatures down at least to zero deg C, and maybe to -10 deg C (when conditions permitted that).
Any ideas; I already checked at Fry’s and they don’t sell one.
And yes this is a serious question. Even if such a setup is just not affordable to an ordinary denialist working stiff like me; I would be interested to know just what equipment is required.
I assume that some sort of Optical Mechanical chopper confarnation is necessary to isolate real input signals from the self emissions of the equipment.
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.”
Intuitively, poor station siting should matter, but McKitrick and Michaels saw little statistical evidence of bias in US land-based measurments, while most of the rest of the world had quite a lot of it. On the other hand, the continual back-correcting by NASA GISS that increases past US trends appears appears to be a prima facie case for bias.
My take away is that the satellites are the gold standard, and the most reliable record before that is CRU, who despite all the shenanigans correlate relatively well with the satellites during the period of overlap. The US agencies are altogether untrustworthy.
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….
Optical Mechanical chopper “confarnation”
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=confarnation&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=bff28e8e230e9c76
George E. Smith says:
May 19, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Duly noted… Where did you get this word?
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 :-#)#
Mike @ur momisugly May 19, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Whilst I agree with your sentiment, let’s face it: “It is unequivecal that the world will end” – yes, in several billion years but the statement is not wrong in this case. Politicians employ lanmguage and you must take it both seriously AND with a pinch of salt. This is how they get away with lying through their teeth and persuading you they are working in your interests. And AGW is a lie.
Statements like “the science is unequivecal” is a politicians trick, which is rather like a magician’s or conjurer’s trick; wave hand over to the left while the right hand is doing the work.
Distraction: Even if “the science was unequivecal”, does that mean we should, or could, do anything about whatever problem is being talked about?
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.
On a serious note, I would call some of the behavior Piracy, or theft without attribution.
But the real problem is not the politics, tho many see it that way, it is the satellite data, pesky stuff. It is the fact that country’s or more importantly economies that moved early to unproven renewable technologies without baseload generation potentials are suffering in their jocks.
The last and most important thing on topic to this post, even with the built in UHI being called Global warming in the land based sets, that is still only a one trick pony that can in reality be performed only once.
I know I know back in yer box Jack.
(I just read Delingpole’s piece talking about politics, but you know you have won an argument with a fool when he takes a shot at yer head with a limp wrist, that is axiomatic).
Politics no matter how convoluted and hysterical always has to take a back seat to reality sometime.
For the spelly tyranos
Global, Histerical and in reality.
Aaargh, me key board be sticky from rum.
[Fixed. R. ~dbs]
Sorry about the sidetrack 🙂
George E. Smith says:
May 19, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Excellent new word George, Confarnation – just needs a definition.
@ur momisugly 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.