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.
Bitches like us.
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.
As a current government employee, I demand that you correct the syntax in you grammatically incorrect statement:
Once I took the test to be a “Govenment” employee, now I are one.
to the properly engineered “Once I took the test to be a “Govenment” employee, now I is one”.
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
Not that I am a prude, or a card carrying member of the
language police, but “Dog and Pony Show” is short for
“dogs and ponies having sex with women”. If there will be
a live bestiality show on the floor of the US Senate, then
climate problems are the least of our worries. Now there
is a bit of truth — climate changes _is_ the least of our worries.
We use the phrase sometimes to indicate “offensive, orchestrated
bizarre acts”, but what was going on in the Senate is just the
normal stream of lies and corruption. Telling the honest truth
on the floor of the Senate and doing so to affect rational change in
government policy will be considered by many to be offensive,
orchestrated, bizarre acts.
REPLY: My working definition mirrors that of Wikipedia listed below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_and_pony_show
Dog and pony show was a colloquial term used in the United States in the late-19th and early-20th centuries to refer to small traveling circuses that toured through small towns and rural areas. The name derives from the typical use of performing dogs and ponies as the main attractions of the events. [1]
Performances were typically held in open-air arenas, such as race tracks or municipal parks, and in localities that were too small or remote to attract bigtop performances. [2] In the latter part of the 20th century, the original meaning of the term has largely been lost. More recently, smaller areas of the mid-western United States have come to know the term as ‘horse and pony show’. This term is not widely accepted in other areas of the country.[citation needed]
The term has come to mean an elaborately staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince people. It is often used in reference to a series of informational events put on by a company or group. [3]
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.
Frank:
I have never heard that before!
Anthony’s definition is the only one I have ever been aware of. LOL you may want to NOT tell us your sources.
“”” 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.
Whoops; seems like the keyboard got out in front of the brain there a bit. Rob please ignore the first part of my rant; it was that word “theft” that seemed so odd; that suddenly awakened the sleeper; sorry there Mate.
The rest though still applies.
George
Here is an example of a Thermal Camera in use.
Steve Mosher:
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.
Really? Is it not the case that you were first informed that your accusation against Jones was a misread of a joke by Gavin on RC?: http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=3846#comment-171303
But one should not be churlish about substandard research; it is gracious to concede an error, and of course one should extend that recognition of fallibility to others.
But I am afraid the characterisation of this being just an ‘isolated error’ doesn’t really work for me. Here’s another pointed Mosher accusation from the same piece:
Palmer [UEA FOI compliance bod], fearing an appeal wanted to do things “by the book.” Which in this case meant suggesting to Ammann that his mails were confidential.
‘Suggesting’? Here is the actual text:
We are not sure what our university’s response will be, nor have we even
checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or
that we retained any that you may have sent.
However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter. In
particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you
sent to us as confidential.
Sorry to bother you with this,
Tim [Osborne]
Viewed through un-paranoid eyes, no ‘suggestion’ to Amman, just a totally innocuous enquiry. I fear Mr Mosher may acquire a reputation for over-stretching his accusations way beyond the limits of the evidence he has to support them. Such are the risks of interpreting partial correspondence, I guess.
What I would really like to know is, in the tradition of observing even the minimum ethical journalistic standards, what efforts Mr Mosher made to establish the CRU scientists’ ‘side’ of the story? Did he even contact them before publishing his accusations of malpractice? Will we ever know?
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.
“”” Frank Perdicaro says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:40 am
Not that I am a prude, or a card carrying member of the
language police, but “Dog and Pony Show” is short for
“dogs and ponies having sex with women”. If there will be
a live bestiality show on the floor of the US Senate, then
climate problems are the least of our worries. Now there
is a bit of truth — climate changes _is_ the least of our worries.
We use the phrase sometimes to indicate “offensive, orchestrated
bizarre acts”, but what was going on in the Senate is just the
normal stream of lies and corruption. Telling the honest truth
on the floor of the Senate and doing so to affect rational change in
government policy will be considered by many to be offensive,
orchestrated, bizarre acts. “””
Wow you have a weird sense of the bizarre ! you mean you have never been to a circus, where some floozy has her little white and tan terrier doing a front ‘handstand’ on the back of a small horse while it canters around the ring to the applause of the crowd and all the littl childrens ?
How you get from that to bestiality, is beyond my imagination !
Don’t you know this is a family program here ?
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
The presentation seems to have “disappeared.”
“”” 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.
E.M. Smith:
I’m not sure what the results would be, but ordinary IR thermometers are used for a milllion things. They are, essentially, bolometers, collecting IR and computing temperature from that with a log circuit.
They can be had from Kragen at 3AM or ebay for 20$. They will read anything they collect in a conical viewspace.
IR is blocked by most anything that’s a non-cubic crystal, so a prism for measuring specific wavelengths would need some CdS, or CaCl or crystalline carbon or something.
That’s the view from the kitchen workbench, anyway. There is probably a vast area of sensing and measurement that contains other solutions and better ones- I just tossed in my .02 in case it might be useful.
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.
Watt’s link did disappear. The PowerPoint can be found here
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/faqs/20100506-Global-Warming-Karl.pdf