They played fast and loose with the figures -NOAA whistleblower
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.
,,,
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.
Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.
The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
…
Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.
Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.
The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming
…
In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.
This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual weather stations by comparing them with others nearby.
However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was only just beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use. Now, more than two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.
Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.
Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’
The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.
…
…
He said he decided to speak out after seeing reports in papers including the Washington Post and Forbes magazine claiming that scientists feared the Trump administration would fail to maintain and preserve NOAA’s climate records.
Dr Bates said: ‘How ironic it is that there is now this idea that Trump is going to trash climate data, when key decisions were earlier taken by someone whose responsibility it was to maintain its integrity – and failed.’
NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
Last night Mr Smith thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. He added: ‘The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’
Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’
Read the entire extraordinary expose by David Rose here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XlWgDL48
Do Whistle Blowers get a cut of the savings? In some cases, when someone blows the whistle on government waste, the whistle blower gets paid a percentage of whatever taxpayer money his whistle blowing might have saved the taxpayers.
If I figured correctly, Dr. Bates ought to be in line for about an $8 billion payment per year for telling the truth. This Climate Change deception is supposed to cost taxpayers $80 billion per year, according to the article, so $8 billion is ten percent. 🙂 Good work, Dr. Bates.
The word is there are a lot of NOAA/NASA employess blowing the whistle. Dr. Bates may be just the first of many.
“But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”
Let us see that evidence then.
In Gods we believe, everybody else has to bring data.
Didn’t Karl admit it? “He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.” Someone pleads guilty and you want to mount a defense?
John Bates has a guest post at Judith Curry’s climate etc. https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Thanks for that link to that article by John Bates. That is exactly what I was looking for.
An article like that is completely different from “the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday “.
I look forward to the day mainstream media starts to identify and link to articles.
Thank you Tom Harley for the Dr. John Bates guest post at
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
This quote is of particular interest:
“Gradually, in the months after K15 [the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s] came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
*********************
“
Comment: I would be interested in Dr. Bates views regarding what drives what.
Excerpts below are from Veizer (GAC 2005). Dr. Bates also works on the global water and energy cycle.
As I proved in January 2008 (MacRae, icecap.us), dCO2/dt varies with temperature and its integral atmospheric CO2 lags global temperature by about 9 months in the modern data record. Quelle surprise!
Best, Allan
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
“Dr. Bates’ technical expertise lies in atmospheric sciences, and his interests include satellite observations of the global water and energy cycle, air-sea interactions, and climate variability. His most highly cited papers are in observational studies of long term variability and trends in atmospheric water vapor and clouds.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/06/the-bern-model-puzzle/#comment-982270
Excerpts from Veizer (GAC 2005):
“Pages 14-15: The postulated causation sequence is therefore: brighter sun => enhanced thermal flux + solar wind => muted CRF => less low-level clouds => lower albedo => warmer climate.
Pages 21-22: The hydrologic cycle, in turn, provides us with our climate, including its temperature component. On land, sunlight, temperature, and concomitant availability of water are the dominant controls of biological activity and thus of the rate of photosynthesis and respiration. In the oceans, the rise in temperature results in release of CO2 into air. These two processes together increase the flux of CO2 into the atmosphere. If only short time scales are considered, such a sequence of events would be essentially opposite to that of the IPCC scenario, which drives the models from the bottom up, by assuming that CO2 is the principal climate driver and that variations in celestial input are of subordinate or negligible impact….
… The atmosphere today contains ~ 730 PgC (1 PgC = 1015 g of carbon) as CO2 (Fig. 19). Gross primary productivity (GPP) on land, and the complementary respiration flux of opposite sign, each account annually for ~ 120 Pg. The air/sea exchange flux, in part biologically mediated, accounts for an additional ~90 Pg per year. Biological processes are therefore clearly the most important controls of atmospheric CO2 levels, with an equivalent of the entire atmospheric CO2 budget absorbed and released by the biosphere every few years. The terrestrial biosphere thus appears to have been the dominant interactive reservoir, at least on the annual to decadal time scales, with oceans likely taking over on centennial to millennial time scales.”
Science or Fiction,
Erm… I thing the irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data is that the misleading, ‘unverified’ data has also gone missing.
Scientific papers should be traceable in every step to the measured data.
In my profession I would be put behind bars if I behaved like Karl et co.
Isn´t there a law prohibiting government employees from doing these kind of things.
Just because there’s a law, doesn’t mean it will be obeyed. Or that the people who are supposed to enforce it, will do so.
In this case, the data you request is, in fact Karl’s own admission.
What I request is the irrefutable evidence that was shown to The Mail on Sunday.
Anyone who’s been following this stuff, and has a lukewarm IQ, knows that Karl’s so-called “Pause Buster” paper is bullshit.
And the Science Magazine editorial staff that worked the review and approval process should all be fired and new management hired.
Absolutely. But when it was first published I pointed out the flaws BTL on the Guardian.
Most responses were, “We have to trust the experts”.
Some people just yearn for a Strongman to follow. Even in intellectual pursuits.
Especially if they agree with him.
Those experts who say there is nothing to worry about from CO2 at 400 ppm, indeed that it’s a good thing, wouldn’t find the same degree of deference at the Guardian.
Another David Rose uber beat-up, calculated to bounce around the echo-chambers.
Here is the guts of the story from the Daily Mail: “A final, approved version has still not been issued.”
That’s it. That’s what this is all about. SMFH.
If the “final, approved version” differed substantially, then and only then there might be a news-worthy story. It won’t, but that doesn’t matter to alt-truthers like Rose.
Since you obviously don’t get it, McLd., here’s the David Rose for Those in a Hurry version:
That is, in a nutshell (leaving out a lot of significant detail to avoid confusing you), what this is all about.
Plus Karl’s violation of NOAA’s internal procedures.
Thank you, Mr. Knights — very good.
ADDITION to above (hoo, boy, sure hope ol’ McL. can handle this much information):
(above David Rose article excerpt)
(btw: re: your recent clever coining of “agnorant” (for arrogant and ignorant at the same time) — very nice 🙂 )
“..can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.”
In other words, NOAA isn’t practicing real science.
Thank you for “Climate Fraud for Dummies” run-down. I appreciate it.
You don’t need to replicate that fake Pausebuster to show that it is false. Proof is in my comment of February 4th at 9:04 pm. The only data set needed is UAH temperature curve for December 2016.
THIS isn’t “Another David Rose uber beat-up, calculated to bounce around the echo-chambers.” Mcleod, you disingenuous little man.
This is straighrt from the horse’s mouth.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Read it and weep, it’s all up for you frauds.
THIS isn’t “Another David Rose uber beat-up, calculated to bounce around the echo-chambers.” Mcleod.
This is straight from the horse’s mouth.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Read it and weep.
If you need cheering up after that read this, Dr Curry’s amicus brief in MM’s case against Mark Steyn.
‘Dr. Mann has transgressed scientific norms and offended First Amendment principles by bringing a defamation claim against Appellants for their pointed criticism of his scientific methodology. Dr. Mann’s suit is unsupportable both because of his behavior toward his critics, particularly amicus curiae Dr. Curry, which demonstrates that the debate over climate science is often contentious and because Dr. Mann engages in the debate often to silence rather than to illuminate. The Court ought not be party to stifling debate.’
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/2017.01.25%20Br.%20of%20Amicus%20Dr.%20Judith%20A.%20Curry%20Nos.%2014-cv-101%2014-cv-126%20%28D.C.%29.pdf
Nigel, the breif is on behalf of CEI/NR, requesting an en banc rehearing of the erroneously denied appeal of the trial judge’s failure to applynyhe DC AntiSLAPP. Steyn severed and wants to go to trial. That is pending resolution of this.
Apparently you’re comfortable with “settled science” based on “possible artifacts”. You can’t make this stuff up.
If an ENTIRE DATABASE calls BullS**t, maybe, just maybe, it’s about blatant manipulation… Is that “alt-truthy” enough for you to realize your argument is on the ground and spitting teeth?
Ah! you learned a new phrase…alt-truther. Do you wear a pant-suit by any chance?
tony mcleod February 4, 2017 at 5:18 pm
” “A final, approved version has still not been issued.””
You need to re- think. NOAA is not allowed to publish a unapproved version
The data is lost there can be no approved version. Are you naturally stupid or do you take a pill in the morning.
Sorry if this is bad manners but please turn on brain before operating mouth.
You are intelligent, start looking for a different and useful way to use that intelligence. Rhe world has to many real problems that need to be addressed, why do you waste your endeavor on a falsehood?
michael
Looks like tony’s head is in the (mc)clouds…
I like to call my “McClod”, because a clod of dirt has about the same intelligence.
Its a good name for him.
By “bounce around the echo-chambers”, do you mean like Cook et al 2013 . . the 97% paper?
If anyone can replicate the Cook paper or the Karl paper I expect everyone would be mightily impressed.
Let’s not forget Steig’s paper which created a fake warming trend across Antarctica, and Nature’s brazen promotion of this prior to Copenhagen in 2009. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/2/8/steigs-method-massacred.html
so why was the original version submitted ? particularly with the problems highlighted with software and hardware that resulted in a computer “breaking”.
your last line is very telling ,surmising there will be no difference without YOU having any evidence.however, in line with typical climate “science” i do expect the new version to show more warming, it has to ,to keep the tax payer sucking leech scam going.
But this isn’t the first time. Remember Climategate.
That exposed fabricated results that were rushed out before a Climate conference too.
How often do you need to be deceived?
What matters is that the pre-Paris version differs so markedly from reality.
Congratulations Tony!You are the equal of Karl in complete lack of personal integrity. He is a failed scientist ,a political hack and a sellout opportunist. Sleep well, your horrible anti-humanist cause is drowning
in it’s own diseased shit!
(above article by David Rose)
Indeed, it does.
(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/ )
Let the hearings begin. And the congressionally mandated debates and independent analyses.
And so it begins………..
I predict that we will see more and more of this type of whistle-blowing — in CliScii, coral reef studies, social sciences, etc — as the terrible pressure to :”conform or else” is seen to have evaporated with the change in government viewpoints.
Those not familiar with the issue can read mine essay touching on it at Journalistic Failure: Revkin on Watts/Peterson — June 14, 2015.
Anthony Watts has been totally vindicated in this matter. ClimateGate Two — let’s see if the floodgates open now that Bates has spoken up.
gads! — my essay….
For a more thorough discussion of the Karl/Peterson paper itself, see here.
The alpha version of spellcheck forsooth!
“floodgates”, “world leaders duped”, “bombshell”. Lol. Must be a bit of a slow news day. You guys are getting desperate.
Here is some real news:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=119.0;attach=41368;image
Sure, McL., whatever. I’ll take your “Look! A squirrel!” and raise you one “Look! A shipwreck!”
Typical, Janet. Your so invested in your alternative “facts” you can’t tell the difference between a squirrel and an Arctic sea-ice death spiral. Lets chat about it in September.
tony mcleod February 4, 2017 at 5:35 pm
Here is some real news: https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/01/20/russian-icebreakers-stuck-in-the-arctic-global-warming/
http://rbth.com/news/2017/01/31/new-russian-icebreaker-sets-off-for-debut-arctic-voyage_692621
there guy I fixed it for you do try to tell the truth a bit more often. The jig is up.
michael
Meanwhile in more important news, Janice! I have great news! About a long – time best friend!
When will it be?? (if I’ve guessed correctly)
Oh, boy, Pamela — I’m SO GLAD you wrote here. DO write just a bit more — even if cryptically…
HAPPY, SO HAPPY, for you (hoping I guessed right, I mean!)!!
Yaaaaayyyyy! 🙂
Sure wish I could be there. Hm. Maybe….. — is it after the passes are clear of snow/ice?
Pamela Gray February 4, 2017 at 7:21 pm
best hopes and wishes
but remember, none over us are the people of the past. Wear armor.
michael
Not who you think. This is a wonderful person who has always been my shoulder to lean on for 12 years and he sometimes leaned on my shoulders But we both were at different places till now. A decent family man raising adopted grandkids. Just like my grandparents did with me. Needed a shoulder to lean on recently and it turned out we were finally on the same page. Who knew?
Oh, Pamela — HOW COOL. After twelve years (!) your paths have finally come together (physically, I mean, not just words on screen/phone). Raising his grandchildren — GOTTA be a fine man (and I trust your judgment on that issue too, of course!) I’ll be praying for the best for you, two!! Very happy for you. PLEASE KEEP ME (US) POSTED!
Janice SMILING!
#(:))
(I LOVE hearing of such things — God really does have some pretty amazing grace for each one of us, pretty amazing…)
arctic sea ice death spiral. a phrase one would associate with children, not a so called member of a professional field . mr mcleod you need to get a grip on reality.
“tony mcleod February 4, 2017 at 6:10 pm”
Your friend Griff has made the same claim. I bet him and now I bet you a donation of $50 to WUWT that you and Griff will be wrong in September. That’s US$100 for me to lose.Put your money where you alarm is.
Tony, when are you going to accept the reality of the AMO and its effects on the Arctic. Your denial of real science is getting tedious.
Mike ‘alt truth’ Morlock says:
“Here is some real news: https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/01/20/russian-icebreakers-stuck-in-the-arctic-global-warming/”
Another total beat-up, reverberating around the blogosphere because it hinted at more ice. Bunkum of the first water Mike but you and your fellow alt-truth travelers lapped it up.
Eric ‘Clickbait’ Worrall says:
“this crossing hasn’t been attempted since soviet times – perhaps the risk of getting stuck in the ice is too high for this route to be a regular event.”
The reality is so different. The reason they undertook the voyage is that the ice is so thin and fragile.
From the article: “The ease of the sailing is seen as a sign that climate warming in the Arctic can open up shopping lanes even in midwinter.”
Captain: “very optimistic about them getting through the ice within a week’s time”.
Nothing to see, move along becomes:
Ice-breaker scandal, ships frozen in place until June, another killer blow to climate alarmists.
roflmao.. McClod, you are grabbing from the bottom the swamp there.
Seems that you DENY the science that shows the first 3/4 of the Holocene had much less sea ice.
Seems that you DENY the fact that the late 1970s was a peak in Arctic sea ice up there with near the end of the LIA.
Seems you DENY the existence of the AMO.
It seems that you are a CLIMATE CHANGE DÉÑÌÊR.
Richard M February 4, 2017 at 9:09 pm
Tony, when are you going to accept the reality of the AMO and its effects on the Arctic. Your denial of real science is getting tedious.
Richard, when are you going to realize the AMO is just a poorly understood, weakly defined signal and that there is bugger-all evidence it has any affect on the Arctic.
Watching all you guys clutching at any straw in the vain hope that one day the graphs will not ALL be trending upwards – that is becoming tedious.
“tony mcleod February 4, 2017 at 9:48 pm”
Which is exactly what you are doing. I think you are from Queensland, now that explains a few things.
Janice – love the imitation Cyrillic name for the ship.
Bravo.
R
When faced with the reality of the AMO driving Arctic temperatures all we get from Tony is denial. The logic is pretty easy. Why is the Arctic warming and not the Antarctic? There is no AMO in the SH. It is also well know that water melts ice faster than air. We even have evidence of cyclic ice loss during the LIA.
Add to that the almost perfect correlation between the ice loss and the AMO and this is not hard to understand unless you are living in denial. Tony is becoming a laughing stock.
By September, I expect Arctic sea ice will be doing just fine, and Ol’ Tony will push his impending death-spiral forward another year.
tony mcclod
riddle me this
what is the difference between a squirrel and an Arctic sea-ice death spiral?
tony mcleod February 4, 2017 at 9:35 pm
tony there is no such thing as “alt facts”
just facts.
1 ice
2 two icebreaker frozen in.
the rest is just spin. self serving opinion on your part.
no science on your part
but it is funny to see you squirm, you talk like a corrupt politician.
michael
Yet more evidence that mcLod has no idea what data is.
Whatever today’s data is proves that we are all going to die. Unless the data isn’t going his way, then it’s just weather, like it was for all of last year.
mccleod, upstream, said..
”You guys are getting desperate.”
And..
“Your denial of real science is getting tedious.”
And..
“Watching all you guys clutching at any straw in the vain hope that one day the graphs will not ALL be trending upwards” […]
The Earth was once a glowing hot ball of magma. 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was at 8000ppm. 53 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was a swamp. In the greater view, it is obvious that the Earth is cooling, and that high levels of CO2 did nothing to prevent that cooling.
The Catastrophic Man-Made Glow Bull Warming due to the release of (much-needed) CO2 meme is dead. Move on. Find another ox to gore.
NOAA denizens like Karl and Peterson show us that government science is political by definition. Karl is a political operative, as is Peterson, Schmidt, and Hansen. The deserve to be fired and their pensions revoked. Their cheating is on the level of national crimes, and should be treated as such.
Does NOAA have an internal “inspector general”? If so, why didn’t he act? If not, it needs one. Anyway, a special prosecutor should be appointed to look into the agency. Ditto for the EPA, since Dr. Carlin has made similar charges to those of Dr. Bates.
Roger,
NOAA, USGS, NASA, EPA, NPS and the Department of the Interior in
general have ALL been riding on the Climate frenzy bus the past decade.
They’ve woven a support net that includes major academic institutions,
NGOs and international agencies.
Long ago some of us noted in comments here and at Climate Audit that
a number of these American researches and Scientists needed to be
hit with subpoenas for their federally funded data, depositions for their
choices of methodology, and public under-oath questioning and testimony
in front of a bi-partisan Congressional committee.
A lot of the academic “scientists” doing federally funded work have tried to
hide behind “academic freedom” arguments to protect their data from
public scrutiny. Some claim their work has “proprietary” properties.
Inspector Generals can’t really go beyond their own agency’s or department’s
parameters. That limitation leads us to…
CONGRESS !
Generally, the inspector general system during the Obama administration was castrated and completely ineffective. Inspectors general are appointment by the president or the cabinet secretary depending on the agency and are supposed to keep everyone honest despite the political winds. Something like 40% of the positions weren’t even filled during the Obama years, and the ones that were filled acted more like Soviet political officers than inspectors general.
I am waiting to see if the Trump administration will correct this and give the inspectors general the teeth to really do their mission. If they don’t, then the president isn’t really serious about draining the swamp.
Among the sober-minded there’s little doubt that the climate science cart is being pulled by the political horse. Fortunately, Donald Trump’s team will work to MSGA.
“A Miracle has happened.”
chuckle
Give America Great Data Again.
==========
It’s open season now on liberal hogs that have been eating out of the government trough for much too long. If the gentleman is treated honorably as he should, then we will see more people coming forward. Yay!
“Left, blowing up the graph show is disappears in 1961 artfully hidden behind the other colours. Right, the reason? Because this is what it shows after 1961, a dramatic decline in global temperatures”
Left
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/04/23/3CD7C58C00000578-4192182-image-m-95_1486249428566.jpg
Right
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/04/23/3CD7C72500000578-4192182-image-m-97_1486249524213.jpg
Thanks, Clipe.
I did not understand this bit in the DM article. Does this imply that the green temperature plot was deliberately truncated to cover the cooling? But the dates don’t appear to match. And what are the datasets being used?
This bit could have more explanation.
R
Yes. This the infamous hide the decline. There is a youtube video of Richard Muller lecturing on it. Worth watching.
Oh, you mean this was YAD-061 from Yamal.
The most influential tree in the world.
Yes, I remember that one.
R
Well done and thank you Dr. Bates…
Different values every time it runs is a very bad sign – it either means the code is using “uninitialised variables, which start with random numbers, or that the code is somehow picking up part of its product as an input.
Either way, these defects effectively turn the code into a random number generator.
GIGO
Garbage in, Garbage Out.
One of the very first rules of Data Processing.
I thought they made minor changes to the input data for each run.
Calling Judge Judy!
Who will be Trump’s science advisor (Director of the Office of Science and Technology)? That can be good for thought.
I know there is some discussion of some computer science kind of person, but . . .
How about Curry or Lindzen?
Or Rud Istvan.
There are rumors that DJT is focusing in William Happer.
No surprise, Time uses the D-word for Gelernter and Happer:
http://time.com/4653507/donald-trump-science-advisor/
Where is Mosher?
[snip lose the accusations -mod]
Pathetic.
Down at the pub with Griff ? Drowning their sorrows ?
I make a guess at North or South Korea?
Does not matter which, they can be homogenised.
::grin::
====
Who?
“The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed,”
Problem. They never argued this.
2nd problem. Their treatment of the SST has been independently verified using Satelllite data, Argo Data,
and Buoy Data.
3rd problem.. GHCN is a red herring in all of this as is Pha
Jan 4th 2017. Scientific American
Various studies have debunked the idea of a pause, or hiatus in global warming – the contention that global surface temperatures have stopped….
Who is “they”?
…and you were a part of the NOAA to witness this how?
…meant fo Mosher.
Mosh writes, “Problem. They never argued this.”
Huh?
Have you been drinking too much this Saturday night Mosh?
http://i63.tinypic.com/347zm0o.png
The cropped screen shot (above) is the final 2 paragraphs of the Karl, et al, Science, 2015 “PauseBuster” paper under discussion.
It’s a typical Mosher fallacy distraction, where he dices up some unknown meaning for a word in play.
Typical straw man or “red herring” distraction fallacy.
Then, Mosher will follow up replies by further distracting any arguments put forward.
Which reminds me of taking children to birthday parties at Chuck-E-Cheese, where they play the “whack a mole” game and others.
Nick,
Uh your desparation in trying to defend the undefensible Karl PauseBuster paper is showing.
“… it is virtually impossible to replicate the results in K15.”
http://i64.tinypic.com/4uw03r.jpg
Give it up Nick. It’s collapsing before your eyes.
Oh boy, ATheoK, I just put this up @ur momisugly the Bish’s before I saw your comment. There is something distinctly clownish, evil clownish if you will, about all this:
Super Abund Karls
Could be Chuckie, Chees, or Charles;
Pay now for the quarrels.
==========
In Germany, especially with us, the drink is called Moschd. And is a very high-percentage mixed drink of apples and pears. There is a direct comparison to Karls Pause buster datas. He compared apples with pears and took the rotten. Bad Moschd.
LLets take up that screen shot. He is using the super El Nino of 1998 to calculate global temperature. This is impermissible. ENSO is comprised of pairs of El Ninos and La Ninas which is why computer smoothing works to clear the background. It is fairly certain that they originate from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, but this I cannot say of the super El Nino. It is twice as high as the five El Nino peaks belonging to ENSO in the eighties and nineties. Its peak is also narrower and it is not accompanied by a La Nina. It came and departed at the end of the nineties but left behind a warm batch of water that raised the temperature at the beginning of the 21st century by 0.4 degrees Celsius over the eighties and the nineties. This created a number of “warmest ever” temperature claims. Hansen, for example, noted that nine out of ten warmest temperatures in the world all belonged to the first decade of the twenty-first century. To him that proved it was all caused by the greenhouse effect which is impossible because the elevation took only three years to complete. As soon as this warm patch wwas in place it started to cool because it had no energy source. From 2002 to 2012 there w2as an steady cooling that lowered global temperature by a tenth of a degree Celsius in only ten years. Beyond 2012 the warming curve turns up again in preparation for the El Nino of 2015/2016 that was on the works. That cooling amounts to one degree Celsius per century, higher than the observed warming of an entire twentieth century that had just concluded. Warmists are dreaming of a return of warming after the current El Nino is finished but what we expect to get is a continuation of cooling interrupted by the El Nino. You can judge where it will end up by extending the straight line between 2002 and 2012 beyond the last El Nino. The bottom limit to this cooling will be original low level temperature that existed in the eighties and nineties before the IPCC got started with their fake warming there. Arno Arrak
Steven Mosher February 4, 2017 at 6:02 pm
“Their treatment of the SST has been independently verified using Satelllite data, Argo Data,
and Buoy Data.”
Then why write the paper Etc
oh do answer.
michael
remember “cannot be reproduced.”
I hear ice cream truck Co. are hiring.
michael
remember “cannot be reproduced.”
David Rose lies. Bates did not say that. And it isn’t true.
Dodgy Bros want there used car lot back Mosh.
Michael, it takes a basic understanding of physics to run an ice cream truck…you know basic stuff like temperature? Otherwise the stuff melts. I wouldn’t let one of these Warmist Scientists near my ice cream truck!
Nick,
See my reply to you above. got misplaced on the wrong reply.
“charles nelson February 4, 2017 at 9:47 pm”
They can’t like keep the product cool, interface with customers and play jingles all at the same time. That can’t be modeled, too many variables. The only constant is money.
It would be lovely to see emails between BEST (a non-profit, far-left, AGW support organisation) and NOAA and CRU. 🙂
Well, apparently Muller’s daughter has snapped to the fact that the climate hyperbole was the problem. There are some people’s daughters whose papers I may have to start reading again.
=============
Mosh writes:
Is this before or after the Buoy Data was adjusted upward to match the “more respected” data from shipping’s bucket and engine intake data?
In my reading of Karl et al, that was one of the biggest red flags in the paper. While it may have been expedient to adjust a single dataset instead of what are probably several data sets from shipping interests, it meant complications in dealing with buoy data for years to come, to say nothing about changes in ratios of bucket/intake data vs buoy data.
However, this — if verified — together with ‘ClimateGate’ e-mails, really does irredemably expose the egregious scams to which we tax-payers, World-wide, have been exposed by the Politico-Scientific charlatans for their nefarious and self-serving purposes.
This has the makings of a the *ultimate* “Tipping-Point” … a complete Crisis in Scientific Credibility, beyond which all funding from the public purse should STOP DEAD AS OF THIS INSTANT. President Tump … lead the way!
Stops until we start again afresh, with reinstating proper scientific-research-establishments TARGETED WITH NULL-HYPOTHESIZING ANTHROPOGENIC WARMING — IN THE PALEO-CLIMATIC CONTEXT — AS A SINE QUA NON FOR FURTHER PUBLIC FUNDING. [Someone pls enhance my text here.]
it’s a matter on a par with the Inquisition & Galileo. (And who was RIGHT!))
Okay, Mr. King, here you go.
The new regime can start with the $350MM sent to Berkeley.
Judith Curry has posted the full story at her blog Climate Etc:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Complete with diagrams and the backstory. Great stuff and thank you Judy!
HEAR, HEAR!!!
Isn’t it reassuring to know that these so-called “Climate-Scientists” have a distinct propensity to squirrel-away their data, obtained as a result of public-funding (so it’s *ours*, right?) in order to be able to fiddle the data-sets (sorry! — homogenize them) beyond scrutiny and trot-out new “findings” based on the ‘remediated’ data to counter the latest skeptical-challenge. It’s reminiscent of the Conjurers’ Arts … new revelations to-order!
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK JUDITH! Mann’s ad-hominem attack on you [I can’t find the quote] speaks far more to his insecurity than yours!!!! A growing insecurity, perhaps! His Credibility Index (my subjective measure), withers by the incoming report, including his doubling-down on critics … such as Mark Steyn. (A propensity for litigiousness sits-ill with a supposed Man[n] of Science; it bespeaks a certain …. desperation?
The frantic clinging to the flotsam & jetsam of a discredited, and useless scientific wreck ?)
Dr. Bates cites [at the curry blog] the NOAA CDR of total solar irradiance as an example of a well-documented data set. Unfortunately, the data are deeply flawed and the methodology dubious, so the data are not usable and should be an embarrassment for NOAA. I discuss the issue here:
http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-F107-and-TSI-CDR-HAO.pdf and in shorter form here http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-Magnetic-Field.pdf
My conclusion:
• There is no support for a variable TSI ‘Background’
• The current Climate Data Record [CDR] is not helpful to Climate Research
• The CDR should not be based on obsolete solar activity data
• I expect strong ‘push-back’ from entrenched ‘settled science’, but urge [at least] the solar community to be honest about the issue
Wow! Another instance of poor science at NOAA! Which reveals a horrible flaw in post graduate programs leading to a research degree. There are standards for research design and replication that now seem moth balled in some dusty attic. Candidates stream through a broken dam unfettered by any requirement that they know what makes for gold standard research practices. And I think I know why. The drive for money has sped past ethics and quality at the speed of light. Alas, there are few if any ways to oversee granting and doctoral committees. Their role is to advance their pet projects and be damned with competing proposals, even if those proposals rise to excellence. It is a sick infected system and I cannot envision an end to it.
Is Tom Karl in “legal jeopardy”. It would be so good for “science” if he was.
You mean like the “social cost of Tom Karl”?
I reckon that could fly for the very same reasoning.
BE, I thought about this and did some law checking. Couple hours worth. I unfortunately do not think he is in any legal jeopardy. The Information Quality Act applies to NOAA, not Karl personally. He is not a professor abusing an NSF grant; he is a government employee. His pension is secure under law; it has been granted. The Congressional subpoena contempt originated from the NOAA top administrator, not Karl.
The main value here is probably political, given the new administration. Trump tweets fake climate data fake climate news. Rep. Smith reopens the contemp of congress inquiry demanding emails between Karl and Holdren. New admin cleans NOAA house. Refocus NASA on space and shut GISS based on the Tony Heller analyses that Myron Ebell has. That sort of thing.
I have literally just made some popcorn!
🙂
“… the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.”
Also, “process the software” seems an odd way of saying whatever it was intended to mean.
This sounds like gross incompetence or stupendously stupid. Or it could be a criminal act.
I have an external backup drive on a Win-10 system. I wonder what they were doing and what with?
Very odd indeed.
A 1st year high school student mistake……once only, if they have even the slightest brains !!!
The academic research software I used to work with was stored in several different places
On site, and off site. Always version numbered etc etc
Main data was stored on a read only (for us , anyway) multi-redundancy RAID server.
Working data always backed up to external drives that were disconnected at night.
Tom Karl can’t have thought his work was important enough to back up..
Or it was DELIBERATE. !!
Every major system I have worked on had procedures in place to automatically back up everything.
That was even true for desk top computers.
Even small companies that I have worked for (less than 20 employees) knew the importance of backing up everything.
“This sounds like gross incompetence”
Or just David Rose. If you read Bates own account at Climate Etc, he just says that a computer failed (it happens) and someone made a joke. There is no serious claim that anything was lost.
Nick, it’s time for you to just STFU
I dunno, it’s sort of fun wiping the sweat off an argument he’s rode hard and abandoned wet.
=======
“Anthony Watts February 4, 2017 at 11:23 pm”
He is ex-CSIRO, these types don’t give up easily even in the face of real evidence.
May I respectfully disagree Mr watts?
Nick is doing fine work here,as he always does.
Defending the indefensible and digging ever deeper.
Soon he may match Brad Keyes in a level of satire and parody of the “Very Model of a major climatologist apologist”.
Anthony, I hear your frustration but please don’t cut Nick off. For people like me who don’t necessarily understand it all at the first sitting, Nick’s comments are really useful.
They let me know, in the simplest terms possible, what is not the correct argument and he makes the most “interesting” strawmen.
Saves a lot of time for me.
BTW just wanted to add my thanks for the brilliant work you do. I rarely, if ever comment. But I always read. Every day.
Thank you.
Anthony,
Indeed, because if he doesn’t you might have to eventually acknowledge that your BOMBSHELL isn’t quite the BOMBSHELL you thought it was. That would, I imagine, be quite inconvenient.
Anthony,
Nick Stokes is good for WUWT as a kind of AGW consensus foil needed to make a dramatic contrast to the merits skeptic position.
Keep him.
John
Anthony Watts,
Your advice for Nick to STFU I agree with because he has got in too deep and is now trivialising.
The danger is that readers might think that you are giving an order, not advice.
My opinion, FWIW, is that Nick should not be shut down. He can give cogent, informed, useful views on matters of interest, a different slant that can be useful. But often frustrating.
Frustration is not grounds for a ban. But of course, it is your blog, your say.
Cheers. Geoff
While I can not say for certain what is meant, I have seen instances where the same program (code) gives different results on different computers due to how the computers handle things like rounding, precision, etc. A project I worked on required that reports provide the code and identify exactly what computer was used.