CEI files suit on GISS regarding FOIA delays

From The American Spectator: CEI Suing NASA Over Climate Stonewall

By on 5.27.10 @ 10:57AM

This morning in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is filing suit against NASA, calling the erstwhile space agency to account for its nearly three-year stonewall of access to internal documents exposing an abuse of taxpayer funds to advance the global warming agenda.

Gavin Schmidt

Goddard Institute for Space Studies climate scientist Gavin Schmidt. (Image credit: GISS)

Along the way to this point, we have begun revealing how NASA is running a third-party advocacy website out of NASA facilities, at taxpayer expense, to assail “skeptics” and promote the highly suspect basis for a specific policy agenda.

This campaign also helped to elevate the particular fiefdom in question (James Hansen’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, or GISS) in terms of budget and stature. It has also elevated the scientists involved, professionally, at the expense of the taxpayer they are working to stick with the biggest economic intervention in our history (one I detail in my new book “Power Grab“).

In this process, if only thanks to pressure on NASA after a December 2009 news story about their games, we have already obtained important emails among 2,000 or so pages released. These include an admission to USA Today’s weather editor that NASA GISS is just a modeling office, using the temperature record of …CRU, the ClimateGate outfit. That means their “independent temperature record” is actually a recapitulation of one that …doesn’t exist, but was withdrawn as a result of ClimateGate when the custodians admitted they actually lost all original data.

more at The American Spectator: CEI Suing NASA Over Climate Stonewall

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jimmy Mac

Probably way off topic, but here’s my own take on the field:

Chris Horner seems somewhat confused about the nature of GISTemp. It uses GHCN, USHCN, and Antarctic stations for land temps and Reynolds/HadISSTv1 for ocean temps.
HadCRUT, on the other hand, uses its own set of stations (including most stations in GHCN) for land temps, and uses HadSSTv2 for ocean temps.
The insinuation that:

is truly bizarre. Its not to hard to take the various databases used and replicate GISTemp…
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture416.png

James Sexton

Rock on CEI!!!!

David, UK

These crooks need taking down. And the government whilst you’re at it.

Moderator: looks like I broke the html in my prior comment. It should have been:
Chris Horner seems somewhat confused about the nature of GISTemp. It uses GHCN, USHCN, and Antarctic stations for land temps and Reynolds/HadISSTv1 for ocean temps.
HadCRUT, on the other hand, uses its own set of stations (including most stations in GHCN) for land temps, and uses HadSSTv2 for ocean temps.
The insinuation that:
“”their “independent temperature record” is actually a recapitulation of one that …doesn’t exist, but was withdrawn as a result of ClimateGate when the custodians admitted they actually lost all original data.”
is truly bizarre. Its not to hard to take the various databases used and replicate GISTemp: http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture416.png

I hope there is not a short statute of limitations in the US, as there apparently is in England. It would be a shame to see these folks get off because of their actions.

Henry chance

Gavin Schmidt may have some time this weekend. They are very busy blogging. I am sure they have been deleting records and files. Lisa Jackson at the EPA said to not keep correspondence or records.

Maybe Zeke that is just the point. Think about it.

Allencic

Have some of the principals on the side of AGW been separated at birth? Does AGW climatology have some special appeal for dorky looking bald guys like Hansen, Mann, Romm, and Gavin Schmidt? They all look as if they’re related

Milwaukee Bob

Zeke at 9:55 am,
Zeke, woe be it for me to put words in anyone else’s mouth, but I think a more correct way to phrase what he is saying would be:
…..these include an admission that NASA GISS is just a modeling office, and contrary to their assertion of having an “independent temperature record”, we now know they are using the temperature record of CRU, whoes custodians admitted they actually lost all original data, which means the NASA GISS “independent temperature record” actually doesn’t exist.

Gavin Schmidt is such an incredible weasel. That picture does him no justice – you really need to watch video of him to fully observe his snake oil salesmanship.

stan stendera

Maybe the Schmidtbird will be forced to sing!!

DesertYote

NASA has a lot of explaining to do.
http://climate.nasa.gov/kids/bigQuestions/climateChanging/
Poor Polar Bear.
I don’t know why this stuff is not getting any more attention, but NASA deliberately telling our children lies is a big deal.

Stephen Pruett

Zeke,
I think the “insinuation” is based on the fact that it has been popular among Gavin and others to argue that there are many (or at least 4) independent temperature records that all provide similar data. However, recent climategate revelations and related questions in subsequent interviews have revealed that all the major databases include at least some of the same data, and that the claims of independence have, at the very least, been greatly exaggerated.
What is truly bizarre (to borrow your phrase) is that the climate science community seems not to realize that this is a problem, particularly when it seems that the further we dig into the details about these databases, the more reasons we find to doubt their reliability. I have asked on RealClimate and in other places whether the raw data, algorithms by which it has been adjusted, annotated computer programs used to apply the algorithms, and annotations indicating the detailed reasons and justifications for each adjustment are publicly available. No one has indicated that this critical information is available for any of the major databases, and most comments I have seen suggest that it is not only not publicly available, but that it probably cannot be retrieved in an intelligible form at all. Certainly, “Harry’s” efforts to sort out such information from the CRU data, as revealed in a Climategate document, does not inspire confidence in the climate record.
Imagine the FDA considering approval of a drug based on a spreadsheet that did not include the raw data, but data that was normalized and adjusted. What would the FDA response be when told, we cannot determine exactly how the data were adjusted or why, but we are sure the people who did it were trustworthy and qualified? I think we all know what the response would be and should be.
If you can show me that all the information listed above is readily available for any of the major data sets, I will be happy to eat public crow. If not, the whole climate science community needs to wake up and start offering major mea culpas. Until this occurs, my opinion of the standards of scientific rigor in this field and the reliability of its conclusions will remain very, very low.

carrot eater

The last paragraph is just weird, and probably indicates that the author is not familiar with the land surface records at all. GISTemp has nothing to do with CRU or its record-keeping. GISS gets most of its land surface data from NOAA, and that’s all available to everybody. And if you really don’t like the numbers NOAA has, you can trace that data back to a step before them, if you’re willing to go to the library and go through the old record archive books, or if you want to sit there looking up CLIMAT reports online for the more recent data.
As Zeke says, you can go to NOAA, get the raw data for yourself, and recreate GISTEMP for yourself.

Mac the Knife

God Bless the CEI!
Let the Rule Of Law prevail, across our troubled land and around the globe!
1. The Laws of the United States
2. The Laws of Physics
3. The Laws of Chemistry
4. The Laws of Thermodynamics
5. The Fundamental Laws Of Honest Humanity
– Do not lie.
– Do not cheat.
– Do not steal.
I am revolted beyond sufficiency of words by the profound intellectual dishonesty exhibited by the Global Warming cadres, from lowest dissembling acolyte to high priests of hot air, et.al…..

Enneagram

All this is about GLOBAL GOVERNANCE these GISS guys are after, so this is a must read:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/ray-evans-quadrant-Copenhagen-march-2010.pdf
The UNFCCC’s COP 15, or Copenhagen as it was generally called, was supposed to
create a post-Kyoto world of decarbonisation (the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012).
This new world order would be created by means of a binding treaty in which the
nation states which now comprise the world’s polity were to surrender their
sovereignty in all matters involving the use of carbon-based energy. Since civilisation
in the West, since the mid-C19, has been based on the increasing use of energy for
our domestic, industrial and commercial life, and particularly for the transport of
goods and people within states and between them, and since the overwhelming
proportion of this energy comes from burning fossil fuels, notably coal, this new
world order, which we can describe as the Green Empire or Imperium Viridis, would
supplant the nation state as the basis of the world’s polity.

Ed Darrell

Who is funding the CEI project for FOIA requests to NASA?
REPLY: I don’t know what the total makeup is, there are a lot of independent donations, I do know that. But I also know it won’t matter what the answer is, as you’ll simply write another hate filled post and blame “deniers” and “big oil”. Your MO precedes you. Blogging on school time and their network today? Tsk.
You can read their about page here http://cei.org/about
-A

GISS revised temps.

Stephen Pruett,
If Climategate provided a revelation that all land temp reconstructions use GHCN data, well, folks sure must not have been paying much attention for the prior few decades :-p
GISTemp doesn’t exactly try to hide the fact on their website…
“The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations. The basic analysis method is described by Hansen et al. (1999), with several modifications described by Hansen et al. (2001) also included.”

P Walker

Ed Darrel – Why don’t you ask CEI ?
REPLY: That’s why I gave him the “About” link. His MO though is to make some comment here, then write about the answer, whatever it is. Ed is a lot like Romm, he usually makes a weekly rant against “deniers”. It’s kind of like Friday afternoons in Tehran, always predictable. -A

bubbagyro

carrot eater says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:23 am
Haha! Yeah, right. Nice try. You find “corrected data” only from any of these charlatans, and numbers that incredibly coincide with each other across agencies around the world. As the old saying goes, “one lies and the next swears to it”. BUT, no algorithms for the corrections, no raw sources, etc. Jones and Mann have said, “the dog ate the data”. That isn’t going to work anymore.
Hence the reason for the FOIs, and the lawsuits, many more I hope, going forward. There is merit in this lawsuit on many grounds, and the judges involved agreed to the merit or they would not allow the case.
More than a civil case, IMHO, these are criminal fraud cases, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Virginia courts, as the first of many states that will eventually jump on the bandwagon (much like the tobacco lawsuits), will soon ferret these weasels out, under criminal and civil penalties.

Anton

Zeke said …
“Chris Horner seems somewhat confused about the nature of GISTemp. It uses GHCN, USHCN, and Antarctic stations for land temps and Reynolds/HadISSTv1 for ocean temps.
“HadCRUT, on the other hand, uses its own set of stations (including most stations in GHCN) for land temps, and uses HadSSTv2 for ocean temps.”
Chris Horner is not giving an opinion, he is referencing a NASA e-mail in which the writer tells a “USA Today’s weather editor that NASA GISS is just a modeling office, using the temperature record of …CRU, the ClimateGate outfit.” This e-mail will, doubtless, be featured in the lawsuit.
When the “experts” at NASA make astonishing blunders, you focus on the person exposing them. Hmmm. Were have we seen this before?
Suck it up. This is just the beginning, so you might as well get used to it. Before this has played out, NASA, NASA GISS, NOAA, CRU, and the rest will be permanently, laughably infamous.

James Sexton

@ carrot eater
You’re almost correct, but NOAA doesn’t get most of it’s temps from CLIMAT, rather, they get it from GHCN. See here, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ghcn/ghcngrid.html#development
As I understand it, HadCrut uses GHCN also. While GHCN allows a FTP download, they’ve already mucked with it before one gets to see it. I quote from the page with the FTP download instructions……….”GHCN homogeneity adjusted data was the primary source for developing the gridded fields. In grid boxes without homogeneity adjusted data, GHCN raw data was used to provide additional coverage when possible. “……………………………nice, they used raw data when forced to.
Whether GHCN uses CLIMAT or not, I really couldn’t say, because, well, GHCN didn’t say. I believe the point in the suit is: we were told, once, that various independent data sets all confirmed similar findings. (Dramatic global temp increase) As one digs away, we’re finding that there weren’t so many “independent” data sets, rather, the same temps mucked with in a different manner to get the same results.

Tim Clark

carrot eater says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:23 am
The last paragraph is just weird, and probably indicates that the author is not familiar with the land surface records at all. GISTemp has nothing to do with CRU or its record-keeping. GISS gets most of its land surface data from NOAA, and that’s all available to everybody. And if you really don’t like the numbers NOAA has, you can trace that data back to a step before them, if you’re willing to go to the library and go through the old record archive books, or if you want to sit there looking up CLIMAT reports online for the more recent data.
As Zeke says, you can go to NOAA, get the raw data for yourself, and recreate GISTEMP for yourself.

Which has been done:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
and the results are worse than we thought.

Tim Clark

Zeke says: May 27, 2010 at 9:55 am;May 27, 2010 at 11:56 am
Are you missing the point. They both use the GHCN stations, 90% of the data. Then fudge independently. GHCN is not raw data.

P Walker

Anthony – I’d already posted the comment before I noticed that you had provided a link . Sorry . BTW , if it were not for Chris Horner , I wouldn’t have heard of WUWT .

James Sexton,
GHCN raw data is here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/v2.mean.Z
It is the same “unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network” that GISTemp uses as a base for land temps.
CLIMAT is the format in which stations report data to GHCN.
Tim Clark,
I’ve been able to get pretty damn close to replicating both GISTemp land-only and GISTemp land/ocean using the raw land data and the HadISST1/Reynolds ocean data (the ocean data uses interpolation and isn’t “raw” per se): http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture416.png
I’m still checking a few more things, but I’ll have a post up at Lucia’s place in a few days describing the steps necessary for the replication and providing the STATA code that does it.
REPLY: Zeke, I question whether that data at the FTP link provided is really “raw”. Since it has V2 attached to it, it implies that it has been processed. Do you have any proof that it is truly raw, and not processed by any adjustment algorithms at NCDC? – Anthony

crosspatch

They might just be playing the averages. La Niña conditions tend to result in active Atlantic hurricane seasons and if this is a fairly strong La Niña, we might have a fairly strong hurricane season.
Seems like a safe bet on NOAA’s part.

Well it’s about time… I don’t understand how anyone, with any view point, would trust the climate data coming from an organization that is led by the individual who wrote this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal
“Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them”
“The reason is this – coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet.”
“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
“When I testified against the proposed Kingsnorth power plant, I estimated that in its lifetime it would be responsible for the extermination of about 400 species – its proportionate contribution to the number that would be committed to extinction if carbon dioxide rose another 100 ppm.”
James Hansen is obviously extremely biased, why would anyone expect that the climate reporting from his organization would be objective?
Possibly the only thing that I agree with James Hansen on is this:
“Remember that history, and your children, will judge you.”

dragineez

If it is the government’s contention that these scientists were “moonlighting” and thus the records are not the government’s property, then the only reasonable response would be to sue them – personally – as individuals and present a similar document discovery request.

Anthony,
GHCN v2 refers to the collection set, rather than the adjustment. Its slightly confusing since USHCN v2 refers to the adjustment (compared to v1).
Specifically, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/ contains a number of files:
1) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/v2.mean.Z which are raw means from CLIMAT reports (and retrospective collection for earlier records pre-CLIMAT) with basic QC procedures
2) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/v2.mean.failed.qc.Z which is the data that failed QC
3) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/v2.mean_adj.Z which is the adjusted data
GISTemp uses the raw data for STEP0, but they do some adjustments in later steps.
As for how we know v2.mean is the raw data, well, we’ve done a few spot-checks comparing it to filed CLIMAT reports (see the discussion with Gene in the latter part of this comment thread, for example: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-global-landocean-reconstructions/ ). Also, everyone in the literature refers to v2.mean as “unadjusted” or raw. To be perfectly honest, some of the older data might have undergone adjustments by national MET offices prior to being collected by GHCN, though this would mostly affect pre-1960s data when things weren’t as standardized. There is a good discussion with Torn8o and AMac in the discussion thread over here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/another-land-temp-reconstruction-joins-the-fray/
REPLY:Thanks. I’d like to repeat it. It has been my understanding that the RAW file still undergoes some adjustment and infilling, such as TOBS and FILNET, and thus isn’t really raw. Just so I can convince myself, where did you do the CLIMAT spot checks? -A

Enneagram

Don´t ask, don´t tell GISS, they won´t come out from the closet!

James Sexton

@ Zeke
Sigh, I’m used to being ignored, so I won’t take it as a slight. However, I’m surprised you read only part of my post. I’ll repost. From the page that has the link you provided, ”GHCN homogeneity adjusted data was the primary source for developing the gridded fields. In grid boxes without homogeneity adjusted data, GHCN raw data was used to provide additional coverage when possible.“ This implies, that when you download from the FTP site, the data your getting is homogenized “adjusted data”. As Anthony pointed out, the “V2” is a dead giveaway. Unadjusted or raw data doesn’t have different versions.

Anthony,
There are no specific TOBS adjustments or FILNET for GHCN, those are USHCN only. As far as checking how raw GHCN is, find a specific weather record that is adjusted in the non-raw version (say, Central Park in the early part of the century) and check its value in the unadjusted version.
Similarly, you could look at the raw GSN data at http://gosic.org/gcos/GSN-data-access.htm and compare it to v2.mean.
You could also email NCDC and ask them :-p
REPLY: I’ll have a look. I’ve spent a lot of time on USHCN, and its adjustments. Not nearly enough on GHCN’s nuances. Chiefio has been doing all that. -A

carrot eater

You can view CLIMATs here:
http://www.ogimet.com/gclimat.phtml.en
The web page is not really set up for downloading a bunch of data, but you can do spot checks.
The Japanese (JMA) also collect data, and they say they (in post 1990 period) go from CLIMATs directly, thus eliminating the GHCN/NOAA middleman.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/index.html
This seems to be true, as the JMA includes some stations that the GHCN v2.0 does not.
Anthony, for the GHCN, raw means raw. Or at least, it is the monthly averages sent in by the individual countries. There is no such thing as TOB or FILNET for the non-US stations in GHCN, anyway.
TOB and FILNET do however exist for the US stations in the USHCN. But you can easily download the USHCN raw file before those steps. And the adjusted file has flags for values that come from FILNET, so you can take them out if you want.
What GISS reads in for the US has TOB, homogenisation (Menne 2009), and FILNET. GISS then looks for the FILNET flags, and removes most (but not quite all) of the FILNETted values.
What GISS reads in for the non-US is raw, same as what the individual countries send in.

James Sexton,
The passage you are quoting refers to the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) Global Gridded Products, which is indeed not a raw/unadjusted dataset. However, v2.mean is not gridded, nor adjusted. Peterson and Vose (1997) provides a good overview of GHCN v2 (no paywall): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_overview.pdf
The NCDC GHCNv2 site is here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php

carrot eater

James Sexton
“As Anthony pointed out, the “V2″ is a dead giveaway. Unadjusted or raw data doesn’t have different versions.”
Then you’ll be really confused when GHCN v3.0 comes out later this year (or maybe next year). The raw data in v3 will be the same as the raw data in v2.mean. But there will probably be more of it, as they collect stuff that wasn’t electronically reported as CLIMATs after 1990, and also the adjusted data in v3 will be adjusted using a new algorithm than that in v2.mean.adj.
REPLY: That will be a good test, to see if the data changes. A number of changes between USHCN1 and 2 were noted. Of course NOAA never predicates anything on the raw data, only the adjusted data. Press releases touting hottest/coldest on record globally come from GHCN adjusted. As we’ve seen from Karl’s powerpoint, GHCN V3 adjusted is already warmer and GHCNV2 – Anthony

James Sexton

Zeke
OIC, thanks!

Actually, there is a good testable question there: for stations in USHCN v1 that are also in USHCN v2, was there any change in the data in the raw.avg files?
Bear in mind that USHCN (not talking about GHCN now, which is a completely different beast) provides three levels of data:
1) raw
2) TOBs
3) F52 (TOBs + Menne inhomogeneity adjustments)
Sounds like a new project to work on!
REPLY: Another question to test is why all these adjustments have a net positive bias. Also Zeke, why have you stopped putting Hausfather on your posts here? AFAIK you are the only climate regular that started out posting full name, and then went into the closet. -A

carrot eater

Anthony,
“A number of changes between USHCN1 and 2 were noted.”
There were changes in the *adjusted* data between USHCN v1 and USHCN v2. After all, the adjustment methods were changed considerably. But the underlying raw data would not have changed. In USHCN v2, the raw is quite easy to access – it’s in the file named raw.
“Of course NOAA never predicates anything on the raw data, only the adjusted data.”
They think the adjusted data is closer to the truth; otherwise they wouldn’t bother. But the raw data is still there for you to work with, for both US and GHCN, and people like Zeke have done a lot of study, working exclusively with the raw data. As it happens, for GHCN v2 as a whole, the raw and adjusted are about the same, when it comes to the global average. So globally, adjustments don’t really even matter. But if you take certain regional subsets like the US, then you see some difference between the raw and adjusted.
And there are some papers where they show both the raw and adjusted data.
REPLY: And therein lies the rub, we don’t believe the adjusted data (USHCN1 or 2) is close to the truth. -A

Stephen Pruett: However, recent climategate revelations and related questions in subsequent interviews have revealed that all the major databases include at least some of the same data, and that the claims of independence have, at the very least, been greatly exaggerated.
Climate-gate may have brought this to your intention but it wasn’t ever ‘secret.’ All major global temperature processors use GHCN because the CLIMAT data which GHCN uses to construct its modern temperature record and the review process used in selecting historical data, makes it the highest quality data set available.
However, precisely because of this ‘one source’ issue, I’ve begun translating the SYNOP data set, GSOD, into a format for use by the handful of ‘official’ and numerous ‘independent’ global temp programs.
http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/gsod-global-surface-summary-of-the-day/

Anthony,
I dropped the last name because its long and unwieldy when I post a lot on a blog (e.g. over at Lucia’s). I’ll make sure to add it in for my future posts here, since I know you dislike folks with strong opinions not going by their full names :-p

carrot eater

“Another question to test is why all these adjustments have a net positive bias. ”
Globally, they do not have much of any bias. Only in some locations like the US, they do.
If a whole bunch of stations change their TOB in a similar way, then you’ll get a bias. That can be quantified, sitting at home. A good bit trickier is the systematic shift from LiG to MMTS units. A whole bunch of stations switched over a certain period, but it’s hard to predict ahead of time, what sort of change that will bring to any given site.
“And therein lies the rub, we don’t believe the adjusted data (USHCN1 or 2) is close to the truth. -A”
Believe what you like, or you can do the math and get into these things. The TOB adjustment is well founded; you can sit there with hourly data and come up with your own TOB adjustment schemes if you like. The rest of the homogenisation in US v2 gets popped out of the pairwise method of Menne 2009. I haven’t had the chance to really study that yet, so I can’t comment on how good or bad it is.
But in any case, the raw data are there for you to play with, and Zeke and others have done a great deal using the raw data.

AlansPower

People this is urgent : http://climate.nasa.gov/kids/bigQuestions/climateChanging/
We know they set a “fail-safe” for the future of their plain (we have a man into Al gore’s group now-thx to former BofA dummy).
So they decieded to CHANGE kid’s mind. They realize nobody would pay attention now.
Then 10 years from now they would try lying again and everybody would agree with them bcuz they’ve grown believing in that.
I’m inviting everyone/anyone to fight for our kid’s future.
Let’s build another website exactly like the Nasa developed to lie to our kids, and make it a VIRAL through out the internet and show FOR KIDS, with kids language, that NASA’s website is a LIE.
How about that? Who’s with me?
alanspower@gmail.com
THIS IS URGENT PLS!

Paul Jackson

from v2.temperature.readme

This is a very brief description of GHCN version 2 temperature data and
metadata (inventory) files, providing details, such as formats, not
available in http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcn/ghcn.html. …
The three raw data files are:
v2.mean
v2.max
v2.min
The versions of these data sets that have data which we adjusted
to account for various non-climatic inhomogeneities are:
v2.mean.adj
v2.max.adj
v2.min.adj

TOBS occures in the daily files from daily_readme.txt

README FILE FOR DAILY GLOBAL HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK (GHCN-DAILY) …
These variables have the following definitions:
ID is the station identification code. Please see “ghcnd-stations.txt”
for a complete list of stations and their metadata.
YEAR is the year of the record.
MONTH is the month of the record.
ELEMENT is the element type. There are five core elements as well as a number
of addition elements.
The five core elements are:
PRCP = Precipitation (tenths of mm)
SNOW = Snowfall (mm)
SNWD = Snow depth (mm)
TMAX = Maximum temperature (tenths of degrees C)
TMIN = Minimum temperature (tenths of degrees C)
The other elements are: …
TOBS = temperature at the time of observation (tenths of degrees C) …

I’ve never seen a TOBS in a daily file, but I haven’t looked real hard, just getting a directory listing of the .dly files bring my computer to it’s knees. I’ve been trying to load all of it into a postgresql database, but it’s a slow-go, the data doesn’t seem to rigorously follow the published formats between different file types. Another thing we need to watch out for is I’m not sure what the definition of a mean temperature actually is or if it’s consistent between different sources. The most common seems to be halfway between Tmin and Tmax which is temporally erratic and I’d think statistically indefensible

Gail Combs

Enneagram says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:39 am
All this is about GLOBAL GOVERNANCE these GISS guys are after….
_________________________________________________________________________
Correct
Millinium Project:
“ The Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) was launched in May 1998 and adopted in June and November 2001 by ESA and the EU Councils, respectively. It is an initiative to promote sustainable development and global governance through the supporting of environmental and security policies…”
The following is from the Clinton era: (The 25×25 Initiative is sponsored by the Energy Future Coalition, a project of the UN Foundation)
“House Concurrent Resolution 25
“The official title of the resolution [H. Con. Res. 25] as introduced is: “Expressing the sense of Congress that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the United States should provide from renewable resources not less than 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber.”
WHY 25X25 IS GOOD FOR YOU”
“American’s farms, ranches and forests – our working lands – are well positioned to make significant contributions to the development and implementation of new energy solutions. Long known and respected for their contributions to providing the nation’s food and fiber, an emerging opportunity exists for crop, livestock and grass and horticultural producers, as well as forest land owners, to become major producers of another essential commodity – energy.”
And yes the “working land” this is talking about is private property. This is why the USDA has tried to shove Premises ID down the throats of US farmers for the last several years.
Originally written to prevent government from trespassing on the people’s right to contract, the Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, that
“No state shall … pass any … law impairing the obligation of contracts, …” It is this constitutional provision that allows the Federal government to implement Federal programs by using so-called “Cooperative Agreements” (basically, a certain type of contract) in lieu of legislation. Commencing in the late-1950s, the Federal government began to contract with other jurisdictions to implement Federal programs where Congress does not have legislative authority.
In 1976, the U.S. government signed a UN document that declared:
Land … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice;
D-1. Government must control the use of land to achieve equitable distribution of resources;
D-2. Control land use through zoning and land-use planning;
D-3. Excessive profits from land use must be recaptured by government;
D-4. Public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform;
D-5. Owner rights should be separated from development rights, which should be held by a public authority.
This document was signed on behalf of the U.S. by Carla A. Hills, then secretary of housing and urban development, and William K. Reilly, then head of the Conservation Fund, who later became the administrator of the EPA.
Land-use controls found their way into the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, “Our Common Future,” which first defined the term “sustainable development.” The meaning of sustainable development here defined was codified in another U.N. document called “Agenda 21,” which was signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. This document recommended that every nation create a national sustainable development initiative.
“On June 8, 2007, Under-Secretary of Agriculture Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, Iowa, said, “We have to live by the same international rules we’re expecting other people to do.” He is referring to the International Criminal Court.
” The ICC is in part modeled on the Vienna Diplomatic Relations Conventions text where [premises] is defined globally and with a global use intended with no recognition afforded to the rights of private individuals, national laws or protections, or the rights or recognition to private property ownership.” http://nonais.org/2009/01/16/bulletin-board-200901/
This is why farmers who have educated themselves are very angry.
And finally President Clinton took the UN NGOs a step further. By Presidential Executive Order the USA was divided into ten regions. These regions are governed by an unholy mix of unelected government bureaucrats and NGOs. The regions were set up by President Nixon but implementing “regional governance began in earnest with the Clinton-Gore administration. “On the heels of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development , came the President’s Community Empowerment Board, chaired by Vice President Al Gore,” http://www.rense.com/general63/ree.htm
These quasi-governmental regional authorities are slowly transforming the US from representative government to government by United Nations sponsored and directed NGOs and appointed bureaucrats.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

Is carrot eater still saying disgustingly insulting vile things about Anthony, the Chefio, and others over at Tamino’s site, as I sadly personally witnessed a few months back? Now Gavin gets mentioned, and he/she/it promptly pops up for polite discussion.
carrot eater’s message is always the same, GISS is infallible and fully accurate, Hansen is God, and Tamino is a perfect genius. All attempts at “discussion” end with ‘You lack the wisdom and education to understand the great brilliance of Hansen and his work!’
Which is two major reasons right there why I don’t give a flying SNIP about whatever he/she/it has come here to say.

Dave McK

@ Paul Jackson
What to do is plot only one datum from each day taken at the same time of day relative to solar noon.
There is no homogenization, averaging or whatnot and it shows a proper sample, apples to apples.

Van Grungy

Gail,
I do believe that the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the most hated documents ever created.
God bless Americans.