President Trump: The Latest Excuse for Losing Climate Data?

Computer circuit board and cd rom

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

An Australian climate scientist is concerned that President Trump might shut down US government servers which hold climate data being used to prepare the next IPCC assessment, which might prevent the next IPCC assessment from proceeding.

‘Everyone is vulnerable’: Trump presidency a risk to Australia’s climate science

A Trump presidency in the US could have serious impacts on Australia’s climate science and other research, with fears the cuts could be “CSIRO times 50”.

Donald Trump’s pledge to end US participation in the Paris climate agreement and expectations he will appoint climate change denier Myron Ebell to a key environment role has scientists bracing for fallout.

Australia’s climate research relies on many US programs, some of which have been targeted by the Republican-controlled Congress. President Barack Obama resisted cuts to agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration but he will leave office on January 20.

At the extreme end, a Trump administration could jeopardise global climate research efforts by withholding access to observational data that underpins climate models, with the output used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said David Karoly, an atmospheric scientist at Melbourne University.

“All the [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project] data is stored on US data servers,” Professor Karoly said, adding the US is the only place storing all that information.

Any interruption could mean the next IPCC assessment potentially doesn’t proceed, which “would be an enormous setback for climate science”, he said.

Others, though, noted that while earlier model data were singularly housed on servers belonging to the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore National Lab, the international Earth System Grid Federation now shares the load. The network is led by the US but has nodes elsewhere, including in Australia.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/everyone-is-vulnerable-trump-presidency-a-risk-to-australias-climate-science-20161111-gsneld.html

While I applaud US efforts to help David Karoly find his climate data, suggestions that a cut in funding would make access to data impossible seem a bit overblown.

We live in an age where data storage is cheap. For example, Amazon charges $0.02 / Gb / month for data storage, or $20,000 per petabyte per month (assuming no further bulk discounts are available) – more than enough hard disk for even the most bloated climate dataset.

If all the 20,000 climate participants in Marrakesh chip in a dollar each every month, climate data storage and access will not be an issue, regardless of US funding cuts.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
193 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cold in Wisconsin
November 15, 2016 9:12 pm

I’d be more concerned it it were kept on Hillary’s server.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
November 15, 2016 9:35 pm

True, but no matter what happens, erasing all that climate data that ahem.. “underpins” climate models won’t be any great loss, since it’s inaccurate to the point of useless or worse and they should bin the lot anyway.

Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
November 15, 2016 10:04 pm

and the nay-sayers are part of a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Note: I think it’s totally cool that I’m a tiny part of the vast conspriracy that took that Bitch Hillary and her criminal syndicate down.

asybot
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
November 15, 2016 10:08 pm

Trump knows ( as construction type guy) that anything that “underpins” and is bad will eventually bring the building down. ( maybe he should just let these “scientists” keep building their “tower” on terribly bad foundations and THEN after the building collapses completely say “Told you so”)

Mario Lento
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
November 15, 2016 11:32 pm

Joel: You are a deplorable in a basket!/sarc

paqyfelyc
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
November 16, 2016 10:45 am

Come on, ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N (November 16, 2016 at 12:53 am ) … yet another 2LoT rant … when will this BS end ? warmistas are not that fool, to violate 2LoT nowadays, even if some early one did a century ago.
One only show himself a fool to believe otherwise.

Joel Snider
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
November 16, 2016 1:22 pm

‘I think it’s totally cool that I’m a tiny part of the vast conspriracy that took that Bitch Hillary and her criminal syndicate down.’
Boy, here in Oregon it doesn’t FEEL like a vast conspiracy. In fact, I think it’s me and, like three other guys… and maybe a few other people in Eastern Oregon. Out here you can’t even safely drive into downtown Portland – certainly not after dark – what, with all these tolerant types out ‘protesting’ – or ‘acting on their free speech rights’ – which to my knowledge doesn’t include blocking freeways, spray-painting, vandalism, smashed windshields – some people have reported knives being tapped on their car windows – and then having citizens, calling for help from their cars, being told by the police (acting with the restraint demanded by Mayor Charlie Hales) to ‘just sit tight and let it blow over.’
SO, at this point, if there’s a ‘conspiracy’, where do I sign on?

Janice Moore
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
November 16, 2016 5:40 pm

And I just HAVE to burst in here to say…
THAT I AM STILL CELEBRATING!!! 🙂

TRUMP WON!!!

Merry Christmas, Bedford Falls! … Merry Christmas, you old building and loan! …

#(:))
“Joy to the WORLD” — I know it’s not even December….
IT’S ALREADY CHRISTMAS FOR ME!

#(:))
#(:))
#(:))

Joel Snider
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
November 17, 2016 2:12 pm

Janice: Perhaps it’s a defense mechanism on my part, but I’m holding off on the celebration until he’s actually in office – right now that seems like forever and a day.
Then… well, then, that party will be something to see.

AntonyIndia
Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
November 15, 2016 9:40 pm

Yes, because then the Chinese or Russian counterparts of the NSA or even various script kiddies could have “adjusted” them down, not only up like the “good guys” from the Five (Anglo) Eyes.

AndyG55
Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
November 15, 2016 10:39 pm

+10 🙂

Santa Baby
Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
November 15, 2016 10:55 pm

Policy based climate science is not needed in a democracy?

Geoff
Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
November 15, 2016 11:26 pm

Can be stored on an ISIS server in Nimrud. Just don’t draw any faces on the disks.

Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
November 16, 2016 12:48 am

Why? Everyone and his dog would have access, and the data would be backed up on her staff’s relatives PC’s.

lewispbuckingham
Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
November 16, 2016 1:33 am

No problem, the Chinese have hacked them already, just ask them.
Just like the BOM.

Roy
Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
November 16, 2016 2:59 am

It would be perfectly safe on Hillary’s server. Wikileaks would look after the backups!

Reply to  Roy
November 16, 2016 4:59 am

That brought a smile then a “hmmmmm?”.

Tim
Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
November 16, 2016 3:05 am

Or a pay – for – password?

Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
November 16, 2016 5:04 am

a fault tolerant distributed backup system.
Great description, ….. I loved it.

TA
Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
November 16, 2016 7:38 am

“I’d be more concerned it it were kept on Hillary’s server.”
There would be copies of the data all over the place if it was on Hillary’s server. We could probably buy a dataset from the Russians or the Chinese, or the Iranians, or North Korea, or a lone-wolf hacker.
All you had to do to crack Hillary’s security was create a legitimate-looking link and send it to them. Lots of people are capable of doing that.

Hot under the collar
Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
November 16, 2016 11:50 am

“I’d be more concerned it it were kept on Hillary’s server.”
Yes, but there’s plenty of storage space on it now!

Bill P.
November 15, 2016 9:12 pm

Yes, but you are discounting the POLITICAL LEVERAGE that Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt create when generated by a CLIMATE SCIENTIST. Or so goes the Leftard conventional wisdom. And “climate science” is a political movement before everything.
This is the thing the Left doesn’t get about the election: people know the Left lies and distorts the truth to scare people into voting “correctly.” They know the MSM is in on the ruse.
Media Research Center just published an extensive polling dataset (ahem) that reveals even Hillary! supporters saw through the lies, and knew the MSM was participating.
Americans at least, don’t like to be manipulated and treated as if they are as stupid as Leftard elites believe they really are.
So what does the Left do once it’s obvious a whole lot of voters saw through the propaganda program, thumbed their noses and voted for Trump anyway?
MOAR!!!! Of course.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Bill P.
November 16, 2016 4:27 am

FUD is a falure. Brexit; Trumpit.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 16, 2016 5:02 am

I like Trumpit.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 16, 2016 5:45 am

I rather like Top Trump(s), a card game, originated in the UK in the 1970’s. The details on the better card, Trumps, or WINS!

John F. Hultquist
November 15, 2016 9:12 pm

“Climate scientists” often appear to be feeble minded. Bless their little hearts.

TA
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
November 16, 2016 7:46 am

“Climate scientists” often appear to be feeble minded. Bless their little hearts.”
It’s all that tension they feel in trying to save the world, and then along comes Trump an upsets the applecart. This terrifies them and makes them lose sleep, which causes sleep-deprivation, which causes confusion in the mind. Sleep-deprivation is a *very* serious problem for the Left right now.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
November 16, 2016 12:41 pm

Bless their little hearts? These climate “scientists” have been not only raiding the cookie jar for years but the entire kitchen. They should be shown for the little thieves they are and some severe punishments should commence.

Dean - NSW
November 15, 2016 9:14 pm

Simple, if they reveal the algorithms they have been using to adjust data, they can have some money.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Dean - NSW
November 15, 2016 9:39 pm

Even a cursory analysis of those “algorithms” would ensure they can have jail instead.

Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
November 16, 2016 12:42 pm

Sounds good to me.

rogerthesurf
November 15, 2016 9:15 pm

“a Trump administration could jeopardise global climate research efforts by withholding access to observational data that underpins climate models”
What a joke, judging from the inaccuracy of the climate models, I would say they are both guessing and bending the data.
No access to their data would have no visible effect on the output in my opinion.
If I was one of these scientists, I would be more worried about financing my research and keeping my job.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

ole jensen
November 15, 2016 9:16 pm

No big deal, even if all data is lost…
Just make up some new ones

gnomish
Reply to  ole jensen
November 15, 2016 11:01 pm

well what else would they use their supercomputers for? certainly not for storage….lol

Mario Lento
Reply to  ole jensen
November 15, 2016 11:34 pm

Couldn’t they do like they already do and just infill data?

Richard G
Reply to  ole jensen
November 16, 2016 2:14 am

If they just pull numbers out of their arse, they will be more accurate than what they are getting now.

Alan Ranger
Reply to  ole jensen
November 16, 2016 4:58 am
Patrick MJD
Reply to  Alan Ranger
November 16, 2016 5:16 am

More like this I think;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurley_(stick)
Get one of those wrapped around your head…

Ozwitch
November 15, 2016 9:18 pm

It’s David Karoly. Who cares?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ozwitch
November 15, 2016 9:35 pm

Exactly!

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Ozwitch
November 16, 2016 5:41 am

counting down for next whine from…hmm?
which one first?
ove hugh whatsit
or mr 98% crook?
guess Karoly will be the abc man of the day interview this week after this drivel
sigh ;-/

M Seward
Reply to  Ozwitch
November 16, 2016 6:28 am

I have David Karoly to thank for becoming a skeptic and starting along my way to being a denier. Grandstanding grubs like Karoly make being a denier the only moral position to take. I watched him sit behind one of his alarmist buddies, a Nobel Prize winner in medical biology no less, at a Melbourne University event as his rent boy put up slides listing flouride, vaccination, and the Holocaust along with CAGW skepticism and the word ‘denier’. Much of it was aimed at Iam Plimer, another professor at Melbourne.
It was utterly disgusting, cowardly (Plimer was not a speaker) and said all you needed to know about just what sort of low rent alarmist he was, IMO. I was gobsmacked by the slithering cowardice of it all. I had read Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth then not long published and while I did not buy everything in it could see the clear headed logic and reference to well know facts that contradicted CAGW. I guess I was just nainve as to just what CAGW was abut and just what sort of pond slime so many of the CAGWarmists and their fellow travellers and useful idiots were.
If David Karoly says the sun is shining, don’t believe him, he’s probably lying, IMO.

Mike the Morlock
November 15, 2016 9:24 pm

There is a even greater fear. After Jan 20 the “Data” may be real and not altered. Also a real audit might be done on all past data and the results released.
It is going to be interesting yes?

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
November 16, 2016 12:50 pm

THAT’S what I’d like to see, a real audit. I’m surprised the airports aren’t packed already with fleeing cheaters, but then I suppose it takes time to pocket all that loot, pack a suitcase and find one’s passport.

TheLast Democrat
November 15, 2016 9:28 pm

Why would a climate skeptic want to get rid of any of these data?

Simon
Reply to  TheLast Democrat
November 15, 2016 9:45 pm

Because Trumps position is not supported by the data. Actually come to think of it, does he actually have a position on climate change? He hasn’t really said anything that could be regarded as serious…. has he?

AndyG55
Reply to  Simon
November 15, 2016 10:46 pm

Actually Simon, the REAL data does support his position. TH, and several other people are constantly showing the REAL raw data and how it has been manifestly tortured to FABRICATE a warming trend.
And how it has been de-Wigley’d ie 1940’s peak SQUASHED out of existence.
Its all the crap with “e” next to it, and all the NOAA/GISS manipulations that need to be thrown in the circular file and bleached. !!
I expect that might happen “accidentally” once POTUS-elect start looking to investigate.
I’m sure one of the NOAA/GISS guys will know how to use BleachBit.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
November 15, 2016 11:10 pm

AndyG55
TH, and several other people? Who?

Alan Ranger
Reply to  Simon
November 16, 2016 5:04 am

“He hasn’t really said anything that could be regarded as serious…. has he?”
Maybe because he realizes it’s not a serious consideration in reality? Perhaps he lives in the REAL world.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
November 16, 2016 11:00 am

Alan Ranger
“Maybe because he realizes it’s not a serious consideration in reality? Perhaps he lives in the REAL world.”
Or maybe because he really doesn’t understand or care (which was my original point and I will retract it if anyone can find a sensible thing DT has said on the subject). Let’s not forget though he was more than happy to cite climate change as a problem when it suited him. What a guy?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436

clipe
Reply to  Simon
November 16, 2016 4:21 pm

The New York billionaire is applying for permission to erect a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort, Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare.
A permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland and reviewed by POLITICO, explicitly cites global warming and its consequences — increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century — as a chief justification for building the structure.

I doubt DJT himself applied for permission…but it shows smarts to turn the tables on the alarmist by using their own rhetoric to get said permission.

clipe
Reply to  Simon
November 16, 2016 4:49 pm

Oh dear!
Green Party leader, Eamon Ryan TD, said the barrier poses “a real threat” to the sand dunes, pointing to research from a snail expert, Dr Evelyn Moorkens, into the impact it will have on a protected species, the Vertigo Angustior.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/doonbeg-says-yes-to-donald-trump-s-golf-resort-wall-1.2685465

Simon
Reply to  Simon
November 16, 2016 5:23 pm

Clipe
“…..but it shows smarts to turn the tables on the alarmist”
Ha ha, you are too much. It shows Olympic level hypocrisy.

clipe
Reply to  Simon
November 16, 2016 6:13 pm

Simon,
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/doonbeg-says-yes-to-donald-trump-s-golf-resort-wall-1.2685465
I doubt DJT himself applied for permission…but it shows smarts to turn the tables on the alarmist by using their own rhetoric to get said permission.

Janus_100@hotmail.com
Reply to  Simon
November 17, 2016 4:29 pm

You cannot be serious…

Alan Ranger
Reply to  Simon
November 17, 2016 4:48 pm

@Simon
“Or maybe because he really doesn’t understand or care (which was my original point …)”
Or maybe it’s because he does understand that it’s not a serious consideration in reality (which was MY point)

simple-touriste
Reply to  Simon
November 19, 2016 10:03 pm

“explicitly cites global warming and its consequences — increased erosion due to rising”
Simon, do you believe sea level change and erosion are the same thing, as almost all French journalists do?

Andrew
Reply to  TheLast Democrat
November 16, 2016 2:21 am

Eggsactly. Skeptics talk about data. Alarmists talk about everything but. It’s “98% believe” and “scientists project” and “new data adjustments that show a completely different conclusion about Da Pause as last week’s dataset” and “someone else says.”
The last thing they ever want to do is have me bring up a spreadsheet with the actual RSS dataset, multi-variate regressions and a string of other analytics hanging off it.

November 15, 2016 9:31 pm

Simply an admission that the data manipulation crimes at NOAA and NASA/GISS have global implications for continuance of the Climate Hustle.

November 15, 2016 9:32 pm

How is this not defamation?

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
November 15, 2016 9:43 pm

Because the slimy beggars are using the word “could” instead of “will”. What they wrote doesn’t allege let alone prove anything, but it still engenders some type of fear in the reader. Slimy.

FJ Shepherd
November 15, 2016 9:41 pm

I picked up on this bit from the article: “Any interruption could mean the next IPCC assessment potentially doesn’t proceed,” Would the next IPCC assessment not proceeding be such a bad thing? Maybe if the data was kept but withheld on purpose … I wonder if Trump reads this blog?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  FJ Shepherd
November 15, 2016 11:18 pm

What that means is they haven’t finished fudging the data yet.

Marcus
November 15, 2016 9:45 pm

..OMG…They seem to get stupider every day…Have they never heard of data storage ?? There are 100’s of ways to store data…Just don’t use Hillary’s server, it might get wiped with a clothe….

PeteW
November 15, 2016 9:48 pm

Isn’t it ironic ? The accusation of “withholding data” ? How many times did conspiracy to avoid FOIA data requests come up in the ClimateGate emails ?

Richard G
Reply to  PeteW
November 16, 2016 2:25 am

I seem to recall statements to the effect of ” why should we show you the data when your just going to try to find something wrong with it”.

Reply to  Richard G
November 16, 2016 5:14 am

Is Trump putting Phil Jones in charge of the data?
No wonder you’re worried, you may never see the (original) data again.

Russell R.
November 15, 2016 9:55 pm

President Trump ate my homework!

TA
Reply to  Russell R.
November 16, 2016 7:56 am

I saw an article earlier today where a woman was arrested for drunk driving and she blamed Trump. 🙂

NW sage
Reply to  TA
November 16, 2016 5:38 pm

That was Hillary (or maybe Nancy Pelosi)!

Greg F
November 15, 2016 10:00 pm

For example, Amazon charges $0.02 / Gb / month for data storage …

That is for consumer level data. Enterprise level storage is considerably more expensive, and, if you will excuse the phrase, significantly more robust.

AndyG55
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 15, 2016 10:37 pm

Until some politician get’s at it with BleachBit !

Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 15, 2016 10:46 pm

It is a bit more complicated than that. First of all, Amazon (and their competitors for the most part) have add on charges for things like IOPS. So, having your data is one charge and using your data is another charge. I could expand on this for several screens. The price is not what it seems at first blush.
That said, storage is pretty a rounding error when compared to the costs to the economy of windmill and solar panel insanity.
On the other hand, defunding the cost of storing the data doesn’t seem to be the accusation. The accusation is that the data might be withheld which is ludicrous. There are so many copies of it floating around, many of them not even held by government but at universities and other research institutes, that withholding them be a nigh on impossible task.

Greg F
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 15, 2016 11:27 pm

Amazon claims 99.999999999% durability …

There is a question of integrity of the data. Consumer storage lacks the ability to confirm that every bit you uploaded actually made it in one piece. Kind of important when your files are hundreds of GB’s (databases and virtual servers) compared to a typical consumer file in the MB range. A bit of corruption essentially bricks your backup and potentially renders your database or virtual server useless while the consumer looses a picture of their cat. On top of that try to get application support on consumer storage.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 16, 2016 3:18 am

accusation is that the data might be withheld
I found that extremely hilarious for some reason.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 16, 2016 7:35 am

I doubt very much that Amazon has separate disk systems for both consumer or enterprise storage. Even if they did, any news about Amazon losing customers’ files wouldn’t raise a red flag – it would raise red fireworks and Microsoft, Oracle, et al would launch an advertising campaign touting their services.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 16, 2016 10:59 am

I doubt very much that Amazon has separate disk systems for both consumer or enterprise storage. Even if they did…
Ric, if this is important to you, send me an email. Eric too. This stuff is not what it seems but it can’t be dealt with in a few sentences. Bottom line, buyer beware, read the fine print, all is not as it seems.

Cube
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 16, 2016 2:28 pm

Sorry Greg F, nonsense. And if you’re so worried, the industry figured out how to ensure accurate transmission and storage of data about a thousand years ago. (There’s a bit of sarcasm there Lief). If they’re so worried let them spring for their own server.

Greg F
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 17, 2016 3:45 pm

Sorry Greg F, nonsense. And if you’re so worried, the industry figured out how to ensure accurate transmission and storage of data about a thousand years ago.

Here is some ‘nonsense’ for you to read:
https://www.necam.com/docs/?id=54157ff5-5de8-4966-a99d-341cf2cb27d3
You also might want to search for “silent data corruption” to educate yourself.

Greg F
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 17, 2016 4:07 pm

Cube and Ric,
You might want to try a search for “silent data corruption”. Also the following might be beneficial.
https://www.necam.com/docs/?id=54157ff5-5de8-4966-a99d-341cf2cb27d3

November 15, 2016 10:11 pm

The computer-code climate data analyses have been with-held by the Hi-Priests of CAGW so many times as to question how the basic data are (ab)used. One smells self-serving rats, the more so that the hi-Priests deny access to their mannipulations & computationms!!
To the altruist, data measured properly & objectively are ‘hard data’ and shd be enshrined. How they get (ab)used is another matter.

Patrick MJD
November 15, 2016 10:25 pm
lewispbuckingham
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 16, 2016 1:43 am

In some way this is actually a problem for us all as Fairfax continues its decline.
We need honest researched verifiable competent reporting.
SBS, ABC, channel 9 [‘got someone to kidnap?can do’] are scraping the bottom of the online feed barrel and just putting it on the news telecasts.
The greatest of the Fairfax mastheads has just gone under.
http://spectator.com.au/2016/10/official-the-moment-the-age-died/
No wonder the internet is booming.

Lew Skannen
November 15, 2016 10:30 pm

What they need is a WOM. Write Only Memory.
I am happy to host it at half the price that Amazon will quote.
Write all your data there and it is safe. It will never be read again, which is appropriate given what utter rot it is.

AndyG55
November 15, 2016 10:36 pm

“Any interruption could mean the next IPCC assessment potentially doesn’t proceed, which “would be an enormous setback for climate science”,
Sorry Mr Karoly.. it is the IPCC reports and the IPCC itself that are holding back real climate research.
Losing the IPCC would be absolutely beneficial for real science, because one major stream of propaganda and politically based lies and misdirection would disappear.

Mario Lento
Reply to  AndyG55
November 15, 2016 11:36 pm

BINGO…

chris moffatt
Reply to  AndyG55
November 16, 2016 5:50 am

No reason why the IPCC reports/assessments should be delayed at all. Since when has the SFP ever relied on either the science or the data? And the WG reports can be bodged together much later and released, as usual, when no-one gives a rip anymore. The MSM will never read them and any dissenters will be pilloried per SOP.
I note the Karoly weasel words “could”, “might” etc and wondered if he wasn’t using some kind of proprietorial “disastrous result” model instead of facts. You know they must have one!

November 15, 2016 10:39 pm

Self awareness FAIL, do climate scientists realise how much they are reacting like priesthoods have always done to threats to their special status?

Gunga Din
November 15, 2016 10:42 pm

Anybody remember this?
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Even before the questionable adjustments, the “data” should have been in doubt.
There is no bedrock in the climate data. Just shifting sand.

AndyG55
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 15, 2016 10:48 pm

This map shows that nearly half the land surface has NO DATA. !!comment image

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
November 15, 2016 10:49 pm

And I bet they have basically zero idea of the quality of the data that is actually collected in many places.

urederra
Reply to  AndyG55
November 16, 2016 3:31 am

Anybody knows the percentage of surface stations placed at airports? It was an issue here at WUWT some years ago, but now nobody talks about it any more. I believe it was over 35% in Australia. Utterly non-representative of the continent (unless aussies have covered 35% of their continent with airports)

Patrick MJD
Reply to  AndyG55
November 16, 2016 4:25 am

For Sydney, Australia we have Observatory HIll, which was moved, and the airport. I won’t give you any gold stars for the one that is constantly quoted on hot days in the MSM. But as I posted below, the BoM uses 112 devices to calculate a national average, 1 device for every ~68,500 square kilometers and IIRC most are based at airports/urban areas.
There is also a thread here at WUWT called something like “March of the Thermometers”, which documents the removal of rural devices in favour of urban devices leading to a “skewed” result in favour of warming.

urederra
Reply to  AndyG55
November 16, 2016 1:28 pm

Thanks for the info, Patrick

troe
November 15, 2016 11:00 pm

The wailing will only increase. America benefited greatly from spending on basic research but that effort was hijacked by Al Gore in the early nineties. He personally facilitated turning NASA and other agencies into naval gazing earths climate. We have and will continue to pay the price.
Your point about existing data makes sense. It’s what the alarmist is hoping others don’t know.

urederra
Reply to  troe
November 16, 2016 3:40 am

And holding the launch of a satellite that could measure CO2 levels. And once it was launthed at third attempt, if memory serves, data seems to be withheld. O-CO or something is its name, I have only seen the data for the first 8 to 10 months I haven´t done much effort to find it, though. I only check this site.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  urederra
November 16, 2016 4:20 am

IIRC the very first one, built and launched by the Japanese crashed, on launch.

urederra
Reply to  urederra
November 16, 2016 4:41 am

So memory does not serve, thanks. Yeah, I knew that at least one ended up at the bottom of the Pacific ocean. I did not know that one was japanese. thanks for the info. I am under the impression that warmists did not like that particular kind of satellites.

Reply to  urederra
November 16, 2016 7:41 am

urederra, I suggest you check this site. Are you aware of the box at the top titled “Search WUWT”? enter |oco-2| in it and it will take you to https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=oco-2
It won’t take you to any recent results, I might prod them someday. The New Horizons people did a much better outreach job with Pluto.

November 15, 2016 11:17 pm

The accusation is that Trump might withhold data. This is patently absurd for two reasons:
1. Trump doesn’t control most of the data. How, for example, would he “withhold” HadCrut data which is held by UofEA in Britain?
2. The history of the matter is that it is the alarmists who have attempted to withhold data. Hansen famously complained that he shouldn’t have to release his data because someone would just try to find something wrong with it, and we also found out from the ClimateGate emails that there was quite the attempt to hide behind various laws and to delete email trails showing what they were doing. And don’t even get me started about the blatant deception in “Hide the Decline”.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 15, 2016 11:23 pm

Point 2. Wasn’t that Jones of the UEA CRU? What a great scientist! (Nitpicking either of them could have made that statement and both would apply).

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 15, 2016 11:25 pm

Doh! Yes, it was Jones, not Hansen.

urederra
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 16, 2016 3:51 am

Yeah, Phil Jones, the infamous one. (The famous one would be the footballer). But never mind, he has already published a paper where you can see that according to HadCRUT3, 1998 was the warmest year evah, but when they fiddle some things and produce HadCURT4, then 1998 was the 3rd warmest year evah.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/HadCRUT4_accepted.pdf

Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 15, 2016 11:24 pm

In fact, might I make a suggestion?
WUWT has a treasure trove of stunning threads exposing the malfeasance of the alarmists. These go back so many years ago that I imagine quite a few people who are now regulars aren’t even aware of them. So, now is the time, before Trump takes office, while the alarmists are slinging mud, to trot them out again and get them back into the public consciousness. There are SO many to chose from. Some examples would be:
Various ClimateGate threads
Bill Nye’s fake experiment aired by Al Gore
Hide the Decline
Yamal’s most Powerful Tree in the World
..and so on.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 16, 2016 1:37 am

@davidmhoffer
I would be interested in an informative resume about climategate. I’m a fairly recent confirmed sceptic and missed most of the scandal because it wasn’t reported properly in the msm.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 16, 2016 2:44 am

“The Informed Consumer November 16, 2016 at 1:37 am”
See the post made by Chris in Hervey Bay November 16, 2016 at 2:16 am to give you a glimpse of the sort of mishandling of data. You can do a search at WUWT to find the threads. Also point 2 in the post davidmhoffer November 15, 2016 at 11:17 pm made.
Climategate was a real eye opener all thanks to someone called “Harry”.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 16, 2016 3:03 am

@Patrick MJD
Much obliged, I’ll have a look.

Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 16, 2016 3:45 am

Patrick, I save a bunch of stuff from the ‘Harry_Read-Me.txt. Here is another, about Australia, where I live.
“Discovered that WMO codes are still a pain in the arse. And that I’d forgotten to match Australian
updates by BOM code (last field in header) instead of WMO code – so I had to modify newmergedbauto.
Also found that running fixwmos.for was less than successful on VAP, because it’s already screwed:”
.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 16, 2016 4:14 am

“Chris in Hervey Bay November 16, 2016 at 3:45 am”
Thanks for the reminder. The BoM processes are seriously flawed and IIRC use only 112 devices to calculate a national average, 1 device for every ~68,500 square kilometers. Year right BoM, not only is an average meaningless, 112 devices for a country as large as Aus.
I am in Sydney.

Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 16, 2016 4:53 am

After 7 years, November 17, 2009, it is revealing to go back and have another look at what was going on. Here is another example.
“I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO
and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I
know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh!
There truly is no end in sight. Look at this:”
So who really cares if the ‘data’ is lost or unavailable anymore. I thought we decided back 7 years ago that the whole climate change was a hoax. We thought then with all the evidence in the emails, that it was over, but, alas, it seems as though Donald Trump, in 2017, will close this chapter, once and for all.
Soon, Anthony will be able to close this web site and have a well deserved, long vacation.
.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 16, 2016 7:47 am

I heard that the HARRY_README file was getting hard to find on the Web (don’t believe anyone who says the Internet preserves data forever). So I added a coy to my web site. Recommended reading for any poor soul who’s had to port a large software package where the original author has joined a religious order.
http://wermenh.com/climate/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Mario Lento
Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 15, 2016 11:39 pm

Exactly. Everything that the liberals claim are things they are guilty of. Just listened to Harry Reid crying on the floor or congress about Trump causing chaos because he hates all minorities and black girls are fearful of his hate. The tripe enrages the left towards the right. It works to their advantage. And it must stop.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 16, 2016 2:26 am

I think what they are really afraid of is that the money pipeline will be shut down. The real problem will be the data won’t be ” adjusted ” to fit the the story when convient. We all have data, it’s easy to download. … ” where did you get that data? ” asked Sam Cougar. NOAA is my reply. Why would reported co2 ppm per year need to be revised for the last 60 years ? Why would temperature anomolies need to be revised for even the last 10 ? Because reality isn’t matching their models ? Does NOAA have data that a skeptic can access, but their scientist have different data ? The true data . Not the made up data downloaded from their site ? Oops, let’s scramble the egg. All of the egg is still there, but the sunny side is gone. See skeptics have no idea what they’re talking about. The yolk isn’t in the center.
I have to say it is takes true talent to keep inventing stories. Someday perhaps somebody could turn this into a children’s fairytale.

Reply to  rishrac
November 16, 2016 6:46 am

The tale is fabulous.

ATheoK
November 15, 2016 11:24 pm

“observational data that underpins climate models”

A) It isn’t observational data that underpins climate models, it’s bad assumptions and confirmation bias.
B) This is rich coming from David Karoly; losing observational data, losing luxurious international fetings is more likely.

Reply to  ATheoK
November 16, 2016 12:28 am

The climate models are undermined, rather than underpinned, by the observational data.

Alan Ranger
Reply to  tcprag
November 16, 2016 5:30 am

Beautifully elucidated!

ATheoK
Reply to  tcprag
November 16, 2016 2:15 pm

Well phrased!

gbees
November 16, 2016 12:04 am

I knew the scientist would be Karoly before I even clicked on your link. He’s such a twat.

Bengt Abelsson
November 16, 2016 12:33 am

It takes one to know one

November 16, 2016 12:36 am

Yes, David Karoly, things do go missing …. missing ocean heat,
hot spot in the troposphere, weather records underpinning a
1990’s global warming, (Phil Jones @ CRU, East Anglia) …

Brett Keane
Reply to  beththeserf
November 16, 2016 12:42 am

He needn’t worry, we are saving it for the legal proceedings…..

Streetcred
Reply to  beththeserf
November 16, 2016 1:23 am

ROTFLMAO !!

November 16, 2016 12:39 am

” Trump administration could jeopardise global climate research efforts by withholding access to”
THE $$$$$$$$ RESEARCH FUNDING GRAVY TRAIN
that’s the real issue
But they have to make it look good

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
November 16, 2016 12:42 am

If they’re really worried about losing the data, they should just sext it to Anthony Wiener.

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
November 17, 2016 10:52 am

**snork** 😀

Greg
November 16, 2016 1:09 am

At the extreme end, a Trump administration could jeopardise global climate research efforts by withholding access to observational data that underpins climate models, with the output used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said David Karoly, an atmospheric scientist at Melbourne University.

Climate models are not ‘underpinned’ by observational data, they are built up from “basic phyciss” , remember?
Neither is the sceptics, who this jerk journo at Sydney Morning Herald prefers to call deniers, who demanding archiving and open access to all observational climate data. It is pseudo-science activists like Mann, Jones et al who delete inconvenient data and declare that they would rather criminally delete the data rather than make it available for inspection and validation.
Projection much?

“All the [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project] data is stored on US data servers,” Professor Karoly said, adding the US is the only place storing all that information.

AH! so he’s not actually talking about observational data after all, he’s talking about synthetic “data” produced by broken climate models which underpin the manipulation of the observational data .

Robert from oz
November 16, 2016 1:10 am

Adjusted data is worthless , models of adjusted data even more so , what is the problem ?

Greg
November 16, 2016 1:11 am

MODS, perhaps it’s time to remove the word denier from the comment filter. It’s a bit difficult to comment on a post which uses the term if we are not able to quote it or comment on it.
[good point . . . mod]

Streetcred
November 16, 2016 1:22 am

Karoly should be more concerned that Trump will force transparency … no more funding to hide data!

Analitik
November 16, 2016 1:29 am

Someone send this handy tool to David Karoly, so he can access raw data.
Courtesy of Tony Heller
Pulling Back The Curtain Version 1.10

Griff
November 16, 2016 1:30 am

It isn’t about the cost, is it?
It is about whether a political decision might be made to stop collecting or publishing the data.
The surface temperature and sea ice data will continue to show a warming world.
this could be viewed at contradicting the viewpoint of the new administration.
As an additional factor many in the new administration would clearly believe the data was faked or misrepresented.
The only honest thing to do, in terms of science, is to keep collecting and publishing the current data. I hope all here who are interested in science will support and encourage that viewpoint.
If there is any doubt about the data it must be transparently investigated… which means an investigation team selected across the spectrum of views.
E.g just putting Lindzen on it would be biased to one viewpoint (and we need to keep non-scientists off the team).

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
November 16, 2016 1:42 am

“Griff November 16, 2016 at 1:30 am
The only honest thing to do, in terms of science, is to keep collecting and publishing the current data. I hope all here who are interested in science will support and encourage that viewpoint.
If there is any doubt about the data it must be transparently investigated… which means an investigation team selected across the spectrum of views.”
Except if your name is Phil Jones and you work at the UEA CRU where you can select the data and questions yourself and have only one view.

Reply to  Griff
November 16, 2016 2:20 am

@Griff
I think your last couple of paragraphs are a reasonable solution, but it seems to me it’s unlikely to happen as it would likely be considered chucking good money after bad.
Besides, the data has been biased to one viewpoint for decades now, what’s wrong with a bit of balance? Nor do I suspect Trump et al hold beliefs much more radical than lukewarmers, it’s the gravy train and crippling of US commercial progress he’s more concerned about. At the expense of what? Almost daily threats from climate alarmists for the last 40 years or so that global disasters will start next year.
The public is bored sh*tless with it mate. The western world no longer believes anything bad is happening and the developing world only wants cheap energy to drag them out of poverty.
And if the msm were starved of scare stories they might have to do some work and actually report positive aspects of increased atmospheric CO2 and temperature like the planet greening by 14% in the last 30 years and the lowest incidence of US tornado’s since 1954, during “the hottest year ever”.
Like most of the planets general population, I’m not a scientist, but I would like the opportunity to see both sides of the argument, based on accurate data. That’s why I’m forced to visit sites like WUWT and Climate etc. which I resent. But it wasn’t them that induced my scepticism, I just didn’t think things could possibly be as bad as broadcast over msm, so I looked for some answers.
By constantly crying wolf, the alarmists have shot themselves in the foot. They have even made the incoming POTUS a sceptic, perhaps because he’s an optimist. But this is a good thing as we may now get to hear a balanced argument instead of being swamped with irresponsible, unrelated scientific studies of how too much home knitting impacts the climate, and it gets published because it has ‘climate’ in its title.
We have all had enough browbeating and the western world is breathing a huge sigh of relief, but won’t admit it because they are still crippled by the sandal wearing liberal leftist’s condemnation of them as heretics and Trump as an evil overlord. But that will change, if there’s one thing I have learned in life it’s that the lower one’s expectations are, things can only get better.

Reply to  The Informed Consumer
November 16, 2016 1:33 pm

Your comment was a joy to read. Brilliant observations.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
November 16, 2016 4:02 pm

Thank you sir. I don’t get most of it because I’m not educated, but I would like it explained to me by people who do know. I suspect most of the population of the planet would like the same. I only retain a few facts I know are true:
1. CO2 is a trace gas (basic schoolboy chemistry, but I still had to look it up again 40+ years after leaving school).
2. Man’s CO2 contribution occupies 0.0004% (4ppm? right?) of all atmospheric gases so it’s incredibly diluted and whilst it’s a greenhouse gas, it’s still only 3% of all greenhouse gases, including, of course, water vapour.
3. No one understands clouds (water vapour).
4. After 40 years of research by thousands of scientists, with billions of $/£, no one has proven conclusively that CO2 causes temperature rise (outside a laboratory). Einstein proved relativity with a fraction of the resources. Isn’t proving AGW flogging a dead horse by now?
5. The planet is, right now, at around the coldest it has ever been in its history.
6. CO2 is around the lowest it has ever been in the planet’s history, and whilst both have been as low as they are now, it’s only now they coincide, never (meaningfully) in 65M years of researched history.
7. At 400ppm atmospheric CO2 we are only 250ppm away from the extinction of life on the planet (except I guess from microbes and bacteria).
8. We are 800ppm away from where plants go haywire and grow almost visibly.
9. A warm planet is better than a cold planet because we can irrigate with warm water, we can’t irrigate with ice.
10. A warmer planet will release billions of acres from northern hemisphere permafrost and allow cultivation and food production for a growing population.
11. A warmer planet will mean more evaporation of the oceans into the atmosphere depositing more rain.
12. Equatorial regions have both rain forests and deserts, there is no reason to believe temperature rise would encourage one more than the other.
13. When my wife and I moved into our house 25 years ago, the lawn needed cutting around once every two weeks, now I’ really pissed off that I have to watch her mow the lawn twice a week whilst I sip my Gin and Tonic.
14. Arctic/Antartic ice is only useful for cooling said Gin and Tonic. It serves the planet no other purpose other than as a research medium for scientists.
15. Polar bears will eat you, they are Brown bears in disguise.
16. Climate science works on averages. At no point in time will the average data represent the factual data other than by coincidence.
17. Scientist’s aren’t the problem here, politicians are the problem and the scientific community needs to get off its ars*, show some b*lls and defend their integrity. Uneducated miners did it, whey can’t they?
18. Scientists bear the responsibility of representing the uneducated masses. We uneducated masses bear the responsibility of making sure they are fed and housed in order to represent us in an unbiased, professional manner. We do our job.
Scientists will rip apart what I believe, but that doesn’t matter, There are billions that feel like me, there are only a few million (thousand? climate interested) scientists and if they can’t convince a dunce like me that they are right, then they are wrong. Perception is reality.
Cigarette packet science. Best I can do, sorry.

Reply to  Griff
November 16, 2016 3:04 am

The data is faked and misrepresented already. C/AGW has done an excellent job of that. Whose going to be on the board to oversee transparency ? I know ! I know ! A peer reviewed panel. I disagree with C/AGW so somebody like me wouldn’t be on the panel. That’s what you mean. … ( and of course if I were, I’d be a token of one, with mental and psychological problems ) see how easy this is to fix !
You know what I haven’t seen in the last 15 years is whether 97% of all scientists still agree. You know what else I haven’t seen is whether the benchmark for 95% certainty that temperatures will be at a certain level at a certain amount of co2 is still valid. I think not.
Let me put it to you this way, I’m a skeptic. I can’t write a coherent paper because they keep scrambling the data. Mine won’t get published because of that. However, if someone else that uses doctored data supporting C/AGW, it’s glossed over and does get published. Just making an argument is difficult. The only solution I have is to shut it down. It’s become so political that I wouldn’t even know where to start to fix it.

hunter
Reply to  Griff
November 16, 2016 6:59 am

And keeping Mann on it us institutional corruption. This entire gambit by the climate obsessed is a red herring. Only one side in this has been caught hiding, deleting, losing, adjusting, data. And it wasn’t the skeptics. Only one side of this has refused to share data, and it wasn’t the skeptics. This faux panic is a bunch of rent seekers worried about their rent. Trump has given no indication of how America will lead the way in ending the climate consensus social mania. The article we are discussing is simply guilty people worried about getting caught and looking to cover their tracks. Mr. Trump can’t start bringing rationality and integrity to climate science too soon.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Griff
November 16, 2016 7:56 am

Griff:
**The surface temperature and sea ice data will continue to show a warming world.**
Will?? Now you are making stuff up again.The REAL data show the facts – that it is not warming. That is why NASA cools the past and warms the last 20 years – to show “man-made” warming. Only Trump knows this of all the world leaders.

Griff
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
November 16, 2016 9:30 am

No Gerald, the real data shows it is warming and 2016 is the hottest year in the record.
the arctic sea ice data is transparently showing a continuing decline and record lows

Kamikazedave
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
November 16, 2016 10:14 am

Warmest year on record, Griff? Tell me, how long is your record?

Javert Chip
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
November 16, 2016 3:24 pm

No, Griff.
The “massaged” data shows 2016 as the hottest year – no one seems to know what the unadjusted data shows (even so, the planet is recovering from the Little Ice Age).
Since you’re evangelizing GOBAL warming, explain why total sea ice (arctic + Antarctic) is also at a high.

TerryS
November 16, 2016 2:09 am

“All the [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project] data is stored on US data servers,” Professor Karoly said, adding the US is the only place storing all that information.

Let me translate that for you:

“We want money to set up data servers to store data held in the US just in case they deny us access”

Chris in Hervey Bay
November 16, 2016 2:16 am

Hey, if Karoly and others are short of data, they can do what Harry did, remember,
“Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have :-)”
So they can do the same, just make it up !

November 16, 2016 2:19 am

No observational data underpins climate models. They are fiddled to try to match with climate models not underpinned- that would mean deleting your entire model and starting afresh.

tony mcleod
Reply to  cloa5132013
November 16, 2016 4:13 am
tony mcleod
Reply to  cloa5132013
November 16, 2016 4:14 am
Cube
Reply to  tony mcleod
November 16, 2016 3:06 pm

Tony, What is this?

Richard G
Reply to  tony mcleod
November 16, 2016 11:44 pm

It looks like the temperature at 90N in kelvins but looks to be stuck around day 100.

Berényi Péter
November 16, 2016 2:22 am

One more reason to keep climate data in a git repo. Unfortunately it does not only make possible to create as many local checkouts as you wish, but it also makes impossible to tamper with data retrospectively without a trace, a major drawback for enthusiastic activists.

November 16, 2016 3:00 am

Save this too:comment image

November 16, 2016 3:04 am

Save this one too:comment image

son of mulder
Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
November 16, 2016 4:16 am

I love this one. Put AGW religious zealotry into your scientific pallette and it’s pretty clear that correlation is causation in this case.

November 16, 2016 4:13 am

Obviously these global warmists have vivid imaginations in places other than climatology.
A typical case of a global warmist worrying about anything and everything. This is why we get all of these articles that predict negative future events backed up with nothing more than flimsy logic and never any data. What a pathetic life such people lead.

Reply to  arthur4563
November 16, 2016 7:16 am

“This is why we get all of these articles that predict negative future events backed up with nothing more than flimsy logic and never any data. ”
Not really.
I’m pretty sure it’s the same reason Al Capone killed people to sell booze.
It’s the money.

Gamecock
November 16, 2016 4:36 am

We gather and store weather data. How does it become “climate” data?

Alan Ranger
November 16, 2016 4:38 am

First I read the banal ad hom “climate denier” label.
Then I see the name Karoly – a nutcase routinely avoided by many I know at Melbourne Uni – not necessarily because of his loopy alarmist nonsense … just because he’s a nutcase.
Finally I see the source – the Sydney Morning Herald.
When will all this extreme leftist alarmist propaganda cease to be treated as anything vaguely related to science?

November 16, 2016 4:51 am

One really big transparency initiative Trump can do, is simply make the Raw data more readily available.
Climate science has always made accessing the raw data so difficult that basically no one can be sure they have a geniune raw temperature database and its always so convoluted its impossible to be able to use it.
Some insiders are given better more useable ones and that is the problem right there.

Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  Bill Illis
November 16, 2016 5:08 am

What raw data ? Phil Jones, of the UEA-CRU admitting that it was lost, didn’t have enough storage space or some such rot. You can bet all the other raw data has gone the same way, and if it hasn’t, it won’t be long. BleachBit anyone ??

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
November 16, 2016 5:12 am

He admitted the raw data was lost in office moves in about the mid-1990’s. Which is a brave admission IMO because it means ANYTHING from then on is based on made up stuff. In the private sector, you’d be fired at best. At worst, be put in gaol!

GBDixon
November 16, 2016 4:53 am

Those servers are expensive. The new administration might wish to re-purpose them to store cat videos as a value-added measure.

CheshireRed
November 16, 2016 5:02 am

Withholding access to the data won’t be the problem, matey-boy. When Trump provides unfettered access to sceptical scientists to scrutinize NASA/GISS and NOAA’s data-handiwork in full….THAT’S when you should be worried.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  CheshireRed
November 16, 2016 6:26 am

Perhaps the story reveals a more sinister plot. The warmists will erase the data to protect their lies and blame it on Trump. This is how they work.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 16, 2016 7:21 am

Progressives do tend to “project” their own positions all the time.

Griff
Reply to  CheshireRed
November 16, 2016 9:28 am

Bring it on… though we need to be sure that those scientists represent all viewpoints and we can trust them to be objective…
when Berkley Earth went through the same exercise with skeptic funding they found no problems with the data, no bias due to urban heat effect and that yes it was warming.
I’d expect any honest examination of the data to find the same

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
November 17, 2016 4:15 am

You really ARE funny Griff. Comical in fact!

joel
November 16, 2016 5:16 am

Who needs data? We have computer models, which are better than the data since the models are perfect whereas data is messy. Computer models can predict global temperatures for decades to come. Try doing that with data!

November 16, 2016 5:43 am

De-funding climate hysteria seems like a good idea.
I work in an industry which is $75B a year growing to $170B a year by 2020 – and we don’t have the budget for regular industry-wide trips to Tahiti, Paris and what not for “conferences”.
It is abundantly clear just from this that “climate science” is far more about schmoozing with politicians than it is about actually accomplishing scientific or technical work.

November 16, 2016 6:22 am

“observational data that underpins climate models,”
Oxymoron?

hunter
November 16, 2016 6:38 am

The climatocracy is in full blown hysterical panic mode. The IPCC, in it’s actual science, already agrees that not much bad is happening
It is only the rent seeking political hacks, and those obsessed with the apocalypse who are rejecting the science. And as for refusing to share data, well there is only one side in this that has a record of destruction or suppression of data, and it is not the skeptics.

Mike Rossander
November 16, 2016 8:53 am

If the underlying observational data had been properly released and disclosed, this wouldn’t be a problem. Now they may pay the price of hiding the data behind “proprietary” claims and FOIA obstructionism. I’m finding it hard to be sympathetic.

littlepeaks
November 16, 2016 8:54 am

OT — when I worked for the U.S. government, my buddy and I talked about coming in on a weekend and turn one of our servers into a “Doom” server. (We never did that, and our talk was pretty much tongue-in-cheek). We both liked to play Doom though (at home, of course). We really were busy at work.

Gunga Din
Reply to  littlepeaks
November 16, 2016 9:30 am

The most fun I ever had on a computer was playing “Doom” with a friend over a dial-up modem.
We played it for fun.
These guys play computer climate “Doom” for profit and power.

Terry
November 16, 2016 10:21 am

If I were them, I’d not worry about getting the next IPCC report out, I’d worry about the IPCC and the UNFCCC even existing in a year from now.
I don’t think they have a full appreciation of what just happened in the US election.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Terry
November 16, 2016 12:58 pm

I believe the U.S. provides about 25% of the UN/UNFCCC/IPCC funding. Will China/India/EU pony up the difference if President The Donald follows through on his pledge to get us out of climate change agreements?
The legal requirement for us to leave the IPCC because of the Palestinian admission, ignored by President Obama, could be a big factor to be considered by President The Donald. Might conservatives in the U.S. Congress be all over this in the future?

November 16, 2016 1:29 pm

Professor David Karoly is a darling of the Oz media. In my guest post here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/08/great-barrier-reef-bleaching-study-karoly-et-al-april-2016-part-a/ in which he took the lead out of five authors as an expert on mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. Their study reached kindergarten conclusions that nevertheless went globally viral. Here is an extract:
“It is not the first time that Karoly has taken the mantle of co-authorship in a field where he apparently has zero expertise, seemingly in order to advance his mantra of CO2 driven planetary doom. For instance, he was co-author in a UniMelb biology paper ‘Early emergence in a butterfly causally linked to anthropogenic warming’ that found from unnatural hatchings in a lab that when the data were transcribed to the temperature record for Laverton, (a declared UHI affected suburb of Melbourne) the poor creatures would be emerging ten days too early.
For your entertainment I quote from his email reply to me on some issues that I raised in his role as a biologist [spelling error o not e]: “…our study on the temperature trends and the changes in phonology of the common brown butterfly…” In effect he was declaring that increasing levels of CO2 were changing the voices of the butterfly and when I teased him on it he claimed it was a typo, although if he intended e instead of o they are far apart on qwerty keyboards. Oh, and many readers may be aware of the ‘Gergis et al’ hockey-stick saga.”

Peter Sable
November 16, 2016 2:16 pm

Lose the data? Heck, Trump should open source the entire GISS/NOAA temperature analysis software and data, as well as all historical data sets. After all, the taxpayers paid for it.
I really want to see what the 1890-1990 temperature trend looks like for every temperature set release SINCE 1990.

ScienceABC123
November 16, 2016 2:19 pm

Just to be clear…
Are we talking about the raw data? You know, the data that is no longer available and is believed to have been permanently deleted.
The “value-added” data that was adjusted from the raw data? You know, the one where all the adjustments aren’t identified.
The “new and improved” data? You know, the “value-added” data that has been further adjusted. With all the “new” adjustments hidden.
As far as I’m concerned the only the raw data has any value.

staspeterson BSME, MSMa, MBA
November 16, 2016 3:03 pm

Well said “ScienceABC123”. If only Trump will reprogram the annual 100 billion expenditure to something useful. Like a new effort to build a modern superconducting tokamak in the USA with $5 billion or so, (ARC anyone?) and send the rest to reducing the deficit and paying off the Debt.

willhaas
November 16, 2016 3:58 pm

The next IPCC report does not matter because the science is already settled. All future funding for the IPCC or for climate research in general should be eliminated because the science is settled and there is nothing new to be learned.

Mindy Morken
November 16, 2016 4:37 pm

“climate change denier Myron Ebell”
I’ve done a lot of web searching, but have not found where Myron Ebell has denied that climate changes.
What I think I hear them saying is that “Myron Ebell denies the value of spending trillions of dollars trying to snuff out tiny deltas in the levels of an atmospheric trace gas whose link to any kind of catastrophic change in long-term weather is tenuous at best and is not well supported by the data”.
That’s what I think they mean by “denying climate change”, but I could be wrong.

November 16, 2016 6:07 pm

David Karoly is a part of the group which includes that well known scientist Tim Flanney, the expert on the tree kangeroo of Papua New Guinea. Flannery was appointed by Julia Gillard as a Climate Commissioner, and he saId “The rains which will fall will never reach to the ground” or words to that effect.
As a result the Labour Premiers spent millions on De-sal plants, most of which are now mothballed.
In fairness Perth does have a water problem so may need them, and Adelaide at the end of the Murray,. with all of the States upstream taking what they can get away with, we may one day need it.
But as is normal in Australia we have dry spells then we have floods, it has always been so, long before CO2 became the fasionable thing to jump up and down about. And right now those dreadful things called Dams are mostly full.
Michael Elliott

Amber
November 16, 2016 8:05 pm

There was never going to be another IPCC Report . One of the main players is too busy fighting off sexual harassment allegations and the real honest scientists won’t be used again .

Rob
November 16, 2016 9:33 pm

As mentioned, it was Hillary’s “Home Brewed” Server(s) that were the issue

November 17, 2016 3:35 am

Any person that wishes to be called a scientist must ensure all their experimental data is kept safe. To be negligent with archiving all your data ensures that you are not a real scientist but just a mere amateur tinkerer and should be stripped of your professional position.

James
November 17, 2016 9:11 am

Sounds great to me. Trump will shut down Junk Science production world wide!

Stu
November 17, 2016 10:56 am

Good grief… I could write the next IPCC assessment myself. We all going to die.

JIM
November 22, 2016 1:22 pm

Think about this: The US government employs thousands of people under its (our) mandate for environmental and climate protection. Do we ever wonder what all of these government employees are doing for us?
There are just a few “faces” that front for NASA, NOA, EPA, etc., that purport to speak for the thousands of governmental analysts.
I had the opportunity to glom over the “grey literature” from EPA, NSC, and many other three-letter Federal agencies for my PhD background research. What I found was just blaw, blaw, blaw, WITH NO ESSENTIAL CONTENT WHATSOEVER.
We have allowed the Federal Government to pad itself with thousands of non-productive employees that contribute nothing to the USA as a whole. In DC, these non-productive Federal employees are being paid up to $300K – $ 400K for essentially doing NOTHING.
This must be terminated.

%d bloggers like this: