From The American Spectator: CEI Suing NASA Over Climate Stonewall
By Chris Horner 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.
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 That means their “independent temperature record” is actually a recapitulation of one that …doesn’t exist, but was withdrawn as a result of ClimateGate when the custodians admitted they actually lost all original data.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
For the last time data from 1885 given in ASCII format is CLEARLY NOT RAW DATA! They didn’t have computers in 1885 so the raw data can only be in hand-written tables of temperature readings. Scanned versions of these could be considered raw data, but not the ASCII tables of the same. You cannot do any kind of sensible spot-check of the ASCII data provided unless you at least have some access to the hand-written temperature readings.
If you look at the ASCII data alleged to be raw you will, however, learn all kinds of things about that “raw” data which you would find disconcerting, such as:-
1] Much of the data obtained from outside the developed world is so patchy with so much missing data that no sensible attempt could be used to extract a trend from it.
2] The missing data is simply annoted “-9999”. A useful indication of why it is missing is not given.
3] For stations in the developed world, much if the missing data is actually from the last decade (e.g. that old favourite Darwin Australia)
4] The data is quoted allegedly accurate to 1/10th Celsius. This is despite the fact that max/min thermometers are only marked in gradations of 0.5Celsius normally and even the best modern mercury thermometers meeting DIN58654 only have graduations at 0.2Celsius intervals. It seems highly unlikely that data collected 100years ago in the more remote parts of the world can be quoted to anything like 0.1Celsius, given that it is not necessary for weather monitoring (you would need to be able to read a column of mercury accurate to within 0.1mm – that’s quite a talent). More than likely many of these readings are conversions from Fahrenheit to Celsius with the decimal point occuring as a result of long-division. Without the real RAW hand-written data it is difficult to check this.
5] The annual averages take these figures and then average them out over the whole year, which smooths out all the variation in temperatures in a quite unreasonable way. It would be preferable to take the temperatures from, say, the 1st July in the northern hemisphere and 1st Jan in the southern hemisphere (i.e. summer temps when CAGW is allegedly at its worst) to present the annual data with the underlying natural variability still intact.
Ryan.
The full text of the CEI complaint can be found at:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/nasa-complaint.pdf
It’s well worth a read.
The requests are numerous, the statute mostly Presidential FOI order, which has no weight in state Jurisdictions.
NYC has the worst record for FOI in the US. That is why legally Nasa’s Real Climate blog site is based there, NASA owns the Real Climate site in that it’s employees operated it on Government time, 24 hours daily.
NYC has the worst law for RICO and also has the worst Law for Fraud against Government
Oops Gav of NASA
May I recommend the truth,
You hit a mate of mine hard, you put me mate to the [snip] wall, lost everything.
Gav, toast.
E.M.Smith says: May 27, 2010 at 6:29 pm
So, want to really help move truth along? Publish a link to a detailed description of the change in processing that began in the 1988-1993 range as the “duplicate number three” records began replacing the “duplicate number 0, 1, and 2″ flags on new data.
That time range is interesting, as it seems to coincide with the introduction of the MMTS sensors, and the UHI they caused. What are your thoughts on the #3 records, have you covered this on your site? I should have time to swing by this weekend.
That time range is interesting, as it seems to coincide with the introduction of the MMTS sensors, and the UHI they caused.
MMTS caused UHI?
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/91613.pdf
REPLY: True, UHI isn’t caused by MMTS, he made a boo boo in phrasing. OTOH, since you brought it up I’ve got a paper in the works that shows the opposite, comparing CRS LIG thermomters with MMTS. -A
EM Smith,
While the number of duplicate records does increase over time (and, interestingly enough, not all duplicates have the exact same data; some have gaps and others do now), your focus on duplicate 3 is somewhat misplaced.
Percent of GHCN records with dup3 by year: http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture421.png
Temperature reconstruction with and without dup3 records: http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture422.png
Ironically, excluding dup3 slightly increases the trend in recent years vis-a-vis a GHCN reconstruction using all records.
Thanks for responses, and the situation with the climate data is perhaps not as bad as I thought, but it’s also not consistent with standards in other fields. We could potentially be investing huge sums that will measurably hurt all of us based on pretty haphazard data sets. The differences among the major ones are also a little disconcerting, though I know some are very similar over most of the record. I suppose what I am looking for, what would restore some of my confidence in climate science would be for the field as a whole to say, you know these data sets are not as good as they should be, and many papers cited in IPCC reports used adjustments that cannot be reproduced because the data or the code or both are not available. We are going to collectively go back and in an open manner confirm that all raw data are correct (by comparing to original documents) and discard those that can’t be confirmed, decide on the best procedures to adjust the data, document the adjustments carefully, make it publicly available all in one place, and show it in the next IPCC report. I have not heard of an effort like this; is there one, and do you think the community has any interest in this? I know this would be costly and would take some time, but I think as long as there is reason to doubt the validity of the data sets, it will not be possible to get the public behind any legislative measures. Defending the data sets when there are obviously some very real problems (even if you regard them as minor) only makes the climate science community less credible. The other credibility issue is the pervasive effort to “tell a tidy story”, but that’s a topic for another time. However, on that as well an admission of error would be a really nice place to start. Otherwise, credibility will not return and people like me who were on board with alarmism, will not be persuaded back into that camp. Many of these people could be persuaded; they don’t have a lot invested in this and are ready to be convinced one way or the other. When they see a defensive group of people who don’t want to admit there are any problems, most who are on the fence get suspicious. The bottom line is that the response of the climate science community to climategate, as much as the climategate revelations, has and continues to decrease the credibility of the field.
Stephen Pruett….
Huge sums have already been invested in this fight, for that is what it really is you know. 1.8 Trillion has already been spent in less than 10 years by the US Government on this. The UN has spent that much or more, it has all gone to the same poeple. Why do you think they are fighting so hard to keep this rediculous charade going?
However, on that as well an admission of error would be a really nice place to start.
How about an admission of uncertainty. The further back in time you go in the physical record, the greater the uncertainties that accrue. Not only due to different instrumentation and different data gather methods, but also to decreasing spatial coverage (fewer stations, bigger gaps). And if you look for them, its not hard to find the global anomaly graphs with the errors that the authors willingly recognize.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
Otherwise, credibility will not return and people like me who were on board with alarmism, will not be persuaded back into that camp.
I would hope that you don’t feel you have to be ‘camped’ with a pro-alarmism or anti-alarmism tribe. I am quite comfortable learning and experimenting with the data and methods of AGW without being an alarmist (although I am pretty aggressive against those who use their own ignorance about a subject to suggest malfeance on the part of others – we are all ignorant about some things. Watts, Smith, myself included. Ignorance should be used as a door to learning – not a club to beat others).
And error for GISTEMP
Note the green bars
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Gavin Schmidt’s website “Real Climate” is a roos, fraud and propaganda machine in my opinion. As a meteorologist, I have tried to engage him, Ray Ladbury and others to debate critical points they make as well as refute many of them only to have my posts surgically edited or deleted completely when you can prove they made incorrect statements or pin them down to demonstrate they are wrong. They also have a nasty habit of taking any part of a post you make through editing, and if they can find a way to take part of a statement you make that is incomplete without the rest of the paragraph that they then can turn around on you they will do it relentlessly followed by some sort of a snarky insult that is usually directed by Ray Ladbury whom I fondly refer to as “Mr. Honeybucket” because he is so full of himself which is 90% crap.
In my history of blogging of many years, I have never seen or experienced such a phony, false and self serving website full of bad information as this. I would not trust a thing that comes out of Gavin’s or Ray Ladbury’s keyboard, especially there, and I wouldn’t be surprised if our tax dollars are funding it. It is nothing more than a full time propaganda machine visited and posted on frequently by all the special interests protecting climate research and promoting cap and trade.
For those of you making strident political statments, I come here for the ‘science’ part of the larger political and socio-economic discussion. I have been reading this wonderful open forum and discussion daily for many months getting here due to Chris’ posts on BigGovernment.
Anthony, forgive me:
If anyone here wants to effect the political change in the USA, work to elect a non-politician to Congress this Nov. Reset the ‘lobbiest’ form of government. A really simple goal, is to bring 3 others to the polls who have ‘common sense’. Moving a mountain can be accomplished one grain of sand at a time.
On a positive note:
From a scientific, climate standpoint, we have MANY years to proove that CO2 does not effect climate change in any appreciable way, since nothing being proposed will reduce CO2 due to fossil fuels, until they run out!
From: ECE Georgia on May 29, 2010 at 7:19 am
Not exactly true, as rising energy costs due to otherwise-ineffective regulations, including the indirect costs as in rising prices on goods and services from providers with increased energy costs, are already leading to reductions in consumption thus reductions in human-based CO2 emissions, quite often among the most vulnerable like those who are poor, elderly, and/or ill.
As witnessed during the recent winter in the UK and across Europe, such high energy costs lead to reduced use of heating among the elderly, which then lead to permanent reductions in CO2 emissions by individuals.
spent most of the morning digging in to this workshop –
1st – even though they don’t agree – carrot eater and zeke should be commended for coming by and be willing to work on (dont say argue) the various points…..
As a non stats non science (although familar with both) guy the question of the issue with the CEI lawsuit seems to be that (and these are quite different, though related, issues:)
1) The GISS original data base and adjustments, have not been published….
2) The location of the temp sensors has changed and/or deleted….
3) Is there a bias towards warming in the record….
What Zeke are carrot eater are arguing, (if you go to their website http://rankexploits.com/musings/author/zeke/)
will give you a interesting statistical reconstruction of the GHCN database information
which seems to point to saying that the GHCN database was not unfairly or wrongly manipulated (i.e. the statistical regression) to show a “warming bias”….
Is this correct ?
Howoever, some pesky questions remain, not convincingly argued….
The question as to whether the data was “pre-manipulated” (for want of a better word…) whether – the Temperature averaging and Temperature “picking” was done in such a way to show warming bias – where the numbers the original readings, or were they adjusted… the answer seems to be “maybe”… Temperatures were averaged, or backfilled, or gridded and then presented as “original.” It seems that there is some question whether the area that each station represents is an accurate average of an average…..and even if this is valid….)
There is some question whether hi temp/lo temp would produce a bias towards warming – it is not the same as “mean” – but is what is used to show warming… ?
(I think this is valid – but would appreciate any clarifying statements)
There is a question of the number of Temperature stations taken, which changed sharply in 1990s (downward) would produce the same readings, or rather would show a “warming bias”
Zeke and Carrot eater have proposed that a statistical historical check has been done, and found the numbers coincide – in other words – the fewer new stations are statistically the same as the many “old” stations (although I don’t think the confidence levels could be the same….) Could this amplify warming ?
Is this correct ?
Finally, does the Temperature record show and urban heat bias toward warming that is somehow amplified by the above questions ? This is one of the oldest argument against the AGW hypothesis… I realize that Hansen (1997 ?) tried to answer this – but also that these answers cannot be taken as gospel…… Is there any more information on this that I am missing ? (This relates to the placement of the temp sensors)
Have I missed something ? Have I correctly summarized the points of contention ?
regards
mackinacnick says:
June 1, 2010 at 10:43 am
If you have any questions regarding temp anomalies and missing data or poorly placed weather stations I would encourage you to go to ■Surface-stations Gallery
■Surface-stations Main on Mr. Watts links above and you will see the history of bad sensor info and placement and this is what they are using for data.
Take particular attention to the Tucson, AZ picture. All the pictures are very telling but I can attest to Tucson. I’ve been in Tucson and lived in the area. I know that it has grown exponentially and the years of growth have a direct correlation with the temperature readings in the articles expressing temps in Tucson going higher than the rest of the nation.
Also if you want I can give you links to a study that was done in Barrow Alaska for the results of UHIE in an area.
Even a small community of 200 in a very small village near the North Pole shows that UHIE plays a large role in temperature readings and rather than account for them the other side simply scoffs and pats us on the head and tells us we’re too stupid to really understand. Jone’s peer reviewed article on UHIE effects is a good example of how corrupt the review process is and why peer review material isn’t what the warmist side tries to build it up to being.
You can go to my blog http://tinyurl.com/29mywmo and contact me if you want me to give you the info on that study in Barrow, AK.
mackinacnick said:
Just how far wrong are the readings from Tucson over the course of a year, and how wrong are they for a decade? How much does Tucson’s reading skew a claim that “temperatures have risen in the U.S.” over any period of time?
How do Tucson’s skewed temperature readings compare with the Department of Agriculture’s plant hardiness zones map? Is the map wrong, for Tucson?
What do you compare Tucson’s readings to, to know the Tucson readings are wrong?
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/waiting-for-the-new-president-doctoring-data-on-global-warming/