NASA to Focus on Space Science: Senate Passes the NASA Transition Act

Guest essay by Eric Worrallnasa_logo

The NASA Transition Act 2017 has just been passed by the Federal Senate.

In the words of Congressman Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Science Committee, this act refocusses NASA away from climate, towards space science.

Lawmakers eye shifting climate research from NASA
Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter
Climatewire: Friday, February 17, 2017

Lawmakers are remaking NASA in order to leave parts of the agency’s earth science program untouched but remove its climate change research.

It’s still unclear exactly how lawmakers plan to transform NASA’s mission, but Republicans and Trump administration officials have said they want the agency to focus on deep-space missions and away from climate change research, which is a part of its Earth Sciences Division. That has created uncertainty about the fate of the Earth Sciences Division, which accounts for about $2 billion of NASA’s $20 billion budget.

At a House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing yesterday, Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said he wants a “rebalancing” of NASA’s mission. The lawmaker told E&E News he wants the agency to reprioritize its mission because the Obama administration cut space exploration funds.

Specifically, that could mean NASA’s work on climate change would go to another agency, with or without funding, or possibly would get cut. Smith and other Republicans avoided laying out specifics but acknowledged that earth science at NASA would likely face some significant changes in the near future.

“By rebalancing, I’d like for more funds to go into space exploration; we’re not going to zero out earth sciences,” he said. “Our weather satellites have been an immense help, for example, and that’s from NASA, but I’d like for us to remember what our priorities are, and there are another dozen agencies that study earth science and climate change, and they can continue to do that. Meanwhile, we only have one agency that engages in space exploration, and they need every dollar they can muster for space exploration.”

Read more: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060050245

The text of the bill passed by the Senate is below. The bill is very long, and I haven’t read it all in detail. But one point which stood out in my mind is the need for America to have its own space transport capability, rather than having to rely on foreign space services to transport crew to and from the International Space Station.

What does this new bill mean for climate science?

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith is clear that he expects NASA to continue to support other agencies with space based Earth Science services, but he doesn’t expect NASA to conduct climate science.

I suspect maintenance of the NASA GISS temperature series, NASA’s best known climate product, will be transferred to NOAA.

The NASA GISS series has long been a favourite of climate alarmists, because the way it handles temperature measurements produces the most exaggerated official warming trend.

The issue is the way the GISS series handles geographically sparse temperature readings.

Some areas of the world are not well covered by temperature monitoring stations. There are two ways of handling this, either you ignore those regions when computing the whole, or you use infilling – you attempt to infer the temperature in regions which aren’t covered by using readings from the nearest stations (nearest being defined sometimes as 100s of kilometres away).

Neither approach is a good solution – both have their disadvantages.

NASA GISS uses infilling, but this likely produces some serious temperature artefacts. Poor quality readings from a handful of badly sited temperature stations in a geographically sparse region, such as airport or urban temperature monitoring stations in the Arctic, can be amplified through infilling to have a grossly disproportionate impact on estimated global average temperature.

The WUWT post GISS Swiss Cheese is an excellent discussion of some of the problems with the GISS approach. There is strong evidence of a substantial difference between temperature readings from urban Arctic stations, and isolated Arctic stations.

Despite the problems, I hope the GISS series is maintained in its current form, though possibly by a new agency. The GISS temperature series is of historical interest, and deleting it would simply feed hysterical accusations of climate coverups.

But to provide some balance, I would like to see more effort to reconcile GISS with other series, maybe new series published alongside GISS, based on better data or methodology. I would like to know why GISS and the satellite measurements have diverged so badly. Satellite measurements theoretically address the problem of sparse coverage by sampling atmospheric temperature readings from most of the Earth, so the divergence between satellite measurements and GISS is a serious problem which should be investigated.

If the main culprit turns out to be a few rogue urbanised temperature stations running too hot in the Arctic, skewing GISS temperatures upwards, it would be fascinating to see an open discussion by government agencies of how to handle this, and the production of better quality global temperature estimates.

[UPDATE] I trust Eric won’t mind that I downloaded the PDF of the NASA Authorization he linked to above … then I OCR’d it to make it searchable. The link is below:

20170215_nasa

Searches for “CO2”, “Earth Sciences” and “climate” didn’t find anything …

Regards to all,

w.

Advertisements

324 thoughts on “NASA to Focus on Space Science: Senate Passes the NASA Transition Act

    • NOAA must be reorganized before they get any money at all. The emphasis on climate must be changed or reduced significantly. The main climate effort must be pure research because the current assumptions are wrong. The science is NOT settled, not even close – the proof is the failure of so-called “climate models” that are BS.

    • “I suspect maintenance of the NASA GISS temperature series, NASA’s best known climate product, will be transferred to NOAA.”

      NOAA is also known for its data manipulations.

      Without a total NOAA makeover that’s just asking for more of the same.

    • “I have no idea. It merely pleases me to behave in a certain way to what appears to be a cat.” Ruler of the Galaxy.

    • There’s no reason to revile anyone , well with the exception of podgy faced bully , Mickey the Mann perhaps, he does provoke some kind of visceral reaction every time someone is nasty enough to post his mugshot.

      Anyway this is long overdue and is the just reward for the point blank refusal to stop the politics and get on with the science. Since the lid was blown off all the machinations and corruption of science with the Climategate emails, there has been no sign of contrition or a will to get back to objective science.

      They stick to their self-appointed mission to “save the planet” by fair means or foul.

      The logical managerial step is to shut down GISS altogether.

      • “Definition of revile
        reviled; reviling

        transitive verb: “to subject to verbal abuse”

        There are more than one or two miscreants at GISS, culpable for their parts in the GISS travesty regarding modern temperature collection, maintenance, adjustments and propagandizing.

        e.g.; any/all of the loathsome NASA/GISS employees who spent work hours moderating, blogging or commenting on real climate, or work hours on any other blog.

        What we need to figure out, is whom are the downtrodden GISS employees who have lived in desperate fear of getting found out for their lack of alarmism sympathies.

        Those folks do need support.
        One thing is certain, those downtrodden employees didn’t get to visit international lush vacation spots frequently, representing GISS non-science.

      • Greg,
        They, like Mann, stick to their agenda outside Federal Government because of the vast amount of money that flows to universities to fund their CAGW (or whatever they want to call it) research. If Trump can cut off the money flowing to universities, they will quickly re-evaluate their focus on supporting people like Michael Mann. With no federal funding of Mann’s research, Penn State may reconsider the Earth System Science Center to be much less valuable than they have in the past.

  1. We need scientists at NASA who will take an unbiased look at the temperature data rather trying to fit it into a particular paradigm. When it comes to climate research, NASA, especially, should be looking into how space weather may affect terrestrial weather.

    • “In God we trust. All others bring data.”- attributed to W. Edwards Demming.

      It sure would be nice if NASA got back to this kind of thinking.

      • The Australian Bureau of Meteorology says this whan asked about sunspots:

        http://www.bom.gov.au/faq/
        Is there a link between sunspot activity and the weather? . … The Bureau of Meteorology does not currently track sunspots.

        Same disease as NASA?

      • I’m fine with cleaning out the warmists, but who do you replace them with? Unfortunately, the universities are turning out a bunch of empty-headed, fuzzy thinking automatons who can’t seem to distinguish between empirical evidence and something created by computer modeling. Anyone with a degree in “climate science” should immediately be excluded as a candidate.

    • Time for NASA to quit doing Fake Climate Science, stop creating Fake Climate Data and creating Climate Models based on Fake Assumptions.

  2. i can see why NASA should operate the earth surveillance satellites, but analysis of the data produced is outside their mission. Data from NSA and Defense department satellites should be also available in redacted form. GISS as far as it tracks climate should be part of NOAA, or a new agency combining the various US government weather tracking operations should be organized. That is not to say that there should be only one agency doing climate and weather, just that the data collection should be common to all.

    • Tom

      What’s wrong with only one agency doing climate & weather? Why do we need n-number sets of bureaucrats doing about the same thing? That just leads to expensive but totally unproductive turf battles.

      Federal agencies of the US government should be able to walk & chew gum at the same time.

      • My thought was that the Defense department should have the ability to do weather forecasting for a conflict zone, like Iraq. There is no good reason why the domestic weather service should be tasked with that.

      • “Javert Chip February 19, 2017 at 1:40 pm

        Federal agencies of the US government should be able to walk & chew gum at the same time.

        Bureaucrats are only able to walk and talk at the same time. Gum chewing is out.

        The main goal is to get government agencies out of seeking federal funds for personal opinions, activism, fake goals, same old business (i.e. same job, same chores, no responsibility).

        NASA needs to focus on rocket science again and eliminate the chaff.

      • The more agencies doing the same type of work is called feather bedding. Federal Employees Union love it.

    • All NASA needs to do is to light the match under the rocket that takes weathery satellites into space.

      Those things should be designed and built by the people who plan to use the data; and their budget should be paying for that.

      I’m sick and tired of reading about sparsely located temperature sampling sites and what NASANOAAGISS does with the noise they get from that.

      I think the early Bell Labs papers on Sampled data systems theory date from circa 1928.

      The very first lecture in any weather/climate “science” course should be a primer on sampled data systems theory.

      Undersampled numbers from sampled data systems are not even data; they are simply noise carrying no credible information.

      G

      • “All NASA needs to do is to light the match under the rocket that takes weathery satellites into space.”

        Since the shuttle was retired, they don’t even need to do that. It will be flying on a commercial launcher, though possibly from a pad at a NASA launch site.

      • George: I taught met/clim for years at a Canadian university. The first week I brought a hundred thermometers into class and asked each student to quickly make a temp reading and write it on a note card, and mark their row number. At the same time a physics colleague was there to use a calibrated and much more accurate thermometer at the front/center/back of the slanted lecture hall. It was amazing. The variance in student readings, the differences in readings between the levels in the lecture hall, and the differences between the student and more accurate reading of the physics instrument were revealing. Temps amoung students’ numbers usually varied by +-2C. The back of the room was often 3C warmer than the front, and the standard thermometers varied 2-4C from more accurate readings. I normally had >100 students in first year (yes- they knew not to handle the instrument by the bulb). When I gave them the results, they usually were amazed at the differences. I doubt that there is a warmest amongst them today. I wish I had kept the results – but have been retired now for 15 years.

      • @ R2Dtoo.
        It would have been interesting to average the many student thermometer readings to establish a room average and compare that with the average readings of the physics thermometer.

      • NASA puts together payloads (often from a number of separate projects), manages the launch facilities, puts the birds into orbit, ground tests the stuff, tracks the satellites once in orbit, sometimes deorbits them, operates tracking stations, commands the satellites, collects telemetry, monitors their health. and disseminates the collected data. Actually, the US has at least two largely redundant organizations doing those things — one civilian (NASA) and the other military (US Space Command). Do you really want 17 — or for all I know — 71 largely redundant organizations doing that stuff? That’s what you’ll get without NASA.

        OTOH, I can’t think of one single good reason for NASA to be collecting/maintaining a surface temperature data set.

      • R2DToo-
        Picotech make precision temperature equipment

        “Consider what you are trying to measure the temperature of. An example that seems simple at first is measuring room temperature to 1°C accuracy. The problem here is that room temperature is not one temperature but many.

        Figure 1 shows sensors at three different heights record the temperatures in one of Pico Technology’s storerooms. The sensor readings differ by at least 1°C so clearly, no matter how accurate the individual sensors, we will never be able to measure room temperature to 1°C accuracy”

    • “…the Defense department should have the ability to do weather forecasting for a conflict zone, like Iraq. There is no good reason why the domestic weather service should be tasked with that.”

      They do.

      “In America’s Navy, nearly every mission is affected by ocean and weather. It’s up to Meteorology and Oceanography (METOC) Officers to deliver timely, accurate data and forecasts to ensure mission success.”

      “Field Artillery Surveyor/Meteorological Crewmember (13T) …Overview

      The field artillery surveyor/meteorological crewmember is responsible for monitoring weather conditions so the field artillery team can fire and launch missiles accurately. Their role is crucial in the support of infantry and tank units during combat.
      Job Duties

      Operate meteorological, peripheral and computer equipment
      Perform astronomic observations
      Prepare meteorological balloons for launching
      Develop meteorology data, record field data, prepare schematic sketches and mark survey stations
      Perform maintenance on vehicles, radios, weapons and all survey equipment”

      http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/intelligence-and-combat-support/field-artillery-surveyor.html

      • 13T is an 8 week school and it only qualification is an EL score of 93 or higher; I’m sure you would find the level Meteorological knowledge quite disappointing; if you have cannon-cockers launching weather balloons, something has gone terribly wrong. In my MOS 54B we had to be able to compute Effective Downwind Messages, which is basically if you drop a fallout, from an a given altitude, falling through air layers of various wind speeds and directions, where would you expect the fallout to land. In practice we always got the EDM from the Air Force.

  3. If you’re going to use ground data, you’ve got to put the money into getting a geographical widespread network of high quality stations.

    In simple terms, this pigs ear of a ground station network will never make a silk purse. And rather than wasting time with something never intended for the current use we should either spend the money to get a purpose made truly global network – or simply launch some satellites to cover the poles and rely on the satellite measurements.

    • Yea, yea, I know this is settled science, but…

      How about a rigorous ground-up (pardon the pun) analysis of what actually needs to be tracked (tree rings probably don’t make the cut) and the most effective method of tracking? Why fund legacy ad-hoc measurements that either can’t be reconciled, simply are not reconciled or, perhaps, are simply fraudulent (tree rings, are you listening?)

      Once a best metric(s) and technique(s) is identified, then fund & deploy it(them). The time for ad hoc personal preference is long gone.

    • I vote for satellites launched by NASA and managed by Univ. Al. Huntsville
      (UAH). When I read USCRN data, I was convinced the USHCN data was useless.

      • Care to explain why you think the UAH analysis is the best? What about thse from RSS, NOAA STAR and U. Washington data sets? Why is the UAH LTV6 better than the U. Washington T24, (aka, the RSS TTT)?

      • Okay. Trying a second time, splitting my comment into two parts.
        ********************************************************************************

        In case you are not a tr0ll, ES, sincerely wanting to know (or for others who do):

        …. An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the satellite data are the best quality possible. Recent claims to the contrary by Hurrell and Trenbrth have been shown to be false for a number of reasons, and are laid to rest in the September 25th edition of Nature (page 342).

        The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms.

        The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time. ***

        (Source: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/ )

      • Second attempt to post the second half of my comment failed. Shrug. Have no idea…. (not one “bad” word in it that I could tell, only one link…. aaaaaaaaaargh)

      • Janice Moore, Your linked NASA article was dated 1997. The author is, surprise, surprise, Roy Spencer. Of course, Spencer loves his baby and back then, he still refused to admit that there were problems. Spencer repeats the old claim that the measurements are accurate to .03 K, which is the calibration for the instrument while it’s in the thermal vacuum chamber. That says nothing about the accuracy on orbit or the accuracy of the inter-calibration between satellites, including the effects of orbit decay, solar heating of the “hot target” and the change between the MSU and AMSU instruments. If the satellite data is so great, why are there four different results? Notice that the graph extends to 2000, which includes the big bump around the 1998 El Nino, which kills Spencer’s 1997 conclusion. And, the link to an article in NATURE is dead.

      • E. Swanson: You are mistaken in what you conclude from your mistaken reading of my cite. The 1997 article is a NASA Science News article which cites, thus adopts as true what it used of Dr. Spencer’s Nature article.

        (Note: that you cannot find the Nature article is of little import: you can easily find many other articles on the web (I am not going to do your homework for you) in which Dr. Spencer and or Dr. Christy explain UAH calibrations, etc..)

        Your question above was (you seem to have forgotten):

        Care to explain why you think the UAH analysis is the best?

        Answer: NASA thought it good enough for them.

        Now.

        The burden of proof has shifted to YOU to prove that UAH is not fit-for-purpose, is not reliable.

        It is not necessary to address the other parts of your question, for it is enough that UAH is reliable/skilled.

        If you think another of those data sets is better: tell us why.

        Otherwise, UAH as the currently accepted “best science practice” is good enough. Whether it is the best of the above list you cited is irrelevant to your question and to this thread’s topic.

        Again, to be sure you understand what I’m trying to say, here is the bottom line:

        You

        have the burden of proving that the generally accepted (NASA is a strong expert witness), “best science,” of UAH is NOT good enough.

        ***************************************************

        Caveat: Your careless reading of my cited source along with your very clear bias against UAH has damaged your credibility/competence as a witness. You will, thus, need to provide very strong proof to persuade your audience, here.

      • P.S. to E. Swanson — Also, please note that I tried to post the second half of my comment 2 times and failed. It may not have persuaded you, but, it would have been helpful, I think. I have no idea why it would not post — not one “bad” word in it and only one link.

    • It seems most of those thermometers are placed in locations where people want to know the temperature in those locations; rather than know the temperature of some wider neighborhood.

      Aircraft pilots want to know what is the Temperature humidity etc of the air they are planning to use to get of the runway into the air.

      They don’t give a hoot what the Temperature is 1200 k away from the runway.

      It should be illegal to use airport runway temperatures for any purpose but aviation.

      G

    • The Climate Faithful and their political masters are willing to spend hundreds of Billions on windmills, solar panels and other Green Utopia nonsense. So why hasn’t NASA or NOAA spent the few Million It would cost to put high quality climate monitoring systems in the places with sparse coverage like the Arctic or Africa?

      Are they afraid that actual date might limit their ability to adjust?

  4. I fully applaud this action. NASA has no unique core mission to study the atmosphere, even if it launches satellites that measure atmospheric parameters. GISS has been a total embarassment to the agency and is rife with corrupt/fraudulent practices. Close the GISS agency [bye bye, Gavin] and let USHCN/NOAA deal with historical temperature records [under STRICT EXTERNAL AUDIT]. After 1980, no data other than satellite data should ever be used for “global temperature history” summaries.

    And USGovt needs to explicitly document and expose the past fraudulent practices of GISS, USHCN, CRU, EPA, and other agencies in jiggering and cherry-picking data and analysis for political purposes.

    Clean the Augean stables. Drain the swamps. Throw the beggars out. NOW.

    • FWIW, I ported GIStemp to a PC and ran it. All it takes to keep it “going” is one person who knows FORTRAN, working about 40 hours up front to port it (or run it on a Sun box and skip the porting…) and then about one hour whenever you want a new run.

      It isn’t hard. It isn’t big, nor does it need a “supercomputer” to run.

      It has large blocks of code written in f77 and f95, so it isn’t like this thing has had a lot of rewriting done.

      Frankly, I have the code and if folks want to keep it running, I’ll do it for $50,000 /year and make a nice profit.

      Gory details of my first port, long long ago, here:

      https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

  5. The only problem see with Worrall’s conclusions & recommendations is they make sense. This will drive climate scientists nuts.

    OMG – a reconciliation of GISS & satellite data. Imagine the worms crawling out from under that rock.

  6. Mission creep or mission bloat are the phrases often used to describe what has happened at NASA. This perfectly sensible bill which refocuses NASA to it’s original purpose will be fought with a viscious war of words by the usual suspects who will characterize it as anti science. It’s sad how things get so messed up.

    • Don’t be so sure… The rocket and space exploration side of NASA will see the possibility of lots more money and may work to jetison the earth sciences people to another organization, as quickly as possible.

      I always like the optimism of Kennedy in going to the moon, which was great for the psyche of the country.

      The side tracking into earth sciences with it’s doom and gloom is part of what is now wrong with the country.

  7. The so-called “satellite temperature” measurements don’t exhibit the same trend as the surface data for several reasons:
    1. The measurements (TMT for example) don’t measure the temperature of the surface, whereas the GISS series does.
    2. The satellite data is contaminated by the known stratospheric cooling. Efforts to correct for this effect introduce other problems, such as increased surface contamination, etc., and these corrections are based on theoretical models which add further potential sources of error.
    3. The satellite data is gathered at fixed times of the day, instead of a daily average often computed as the average of the high and low temperatures recorded by the thermometers on the surface.
    4. The satellite data suffers from several problems, such as orbit decay and drift.
    5. Besides, there are now 4 groups providing satellite data and they do not agree.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1

      • I disagree. The comparison between the satellite data and balloon data uses a conversion of the balloon data via simulation of the theoretical equivalent satellite measurements. That equivalent is based on modeled emissions. The balloon data selected to be “co-located”, that is to say, only balloon launch sites located below the satellite ground track at the time of balloon launch is used. The balloons are launched at 0:00 and 12:00 GMT, thus only 4 orbits out of 14 a day can be so selected. Thus, the other 10 orbits of data are thrown out. Besides, the resulting balloon data has peak influence above the 500 hPa level, which is above the half way mark thru the atmosphere.

      • Conclusion: Despite all the “science is settled” talk, we don’t even know enough about “the now”, let alone about “the past”, for Governments to make policy, regulation and laws based on “man’s carbon pollution” is changing anything about the temperature or the weather.

      • But Giss doesn’t even agree with Giss
        ===========
        Stalin and GISS. Adjusting the past to match belief.

      • Growing up, Stalin was always ridiculed in school as “the example” of the evils of Communism for his practice of rewriting history. GISS now promotes rewriting history as an example of the virtue of government run science.

        Clearly Stalin had bad PR. He wasn’t rewriting history, he was homogenizing history. And homogenizing is good for milk, so it must be equally good for historic temperatures as well.

      • I have two thermometers about 25 feet from each other. They are both in the shade. At any given time one is always 2 F warmer than the other. So I swapped them. It’s the spot they are in, not the thermometers.
        Measuring temperature precisely is difficult in an atmosphere where things are changing. If they can’t nail down that it’s even going to rain in California, they shouldn’t be doing forecasts for 100 years from now. They shouldn’t be making statements that have economic and political outcomes. None of the current information is useful. It should have stopped with ” stronger more frequent hurricanes. That’s the new normal, get used to it ” .

      • GISStemp is NOT a temperature series. It is the GHCN Temperature series, manipulated and smeared around into grid cells. That isn’t temperatures, it is a “data food product” from averages of temperatures from GHCN blended with a bit of USHCN averages of temperatures.

        You can simply shit-can GIStemp and never notice.

    • E Swanson

      You make the interesting, but perhaps unintentional case that there is no generally accepted method for measuring global warming.

      Before spending trillions fixing the so-called CAGW problem, we ought to at least be sure we can measure it.

      • I was attempting to question the claim that the satellite data should exhibit the same trend as the surface data. I would like to see some scientific evidence in support of this claim.

        As for measuring global warming, there are many other indications of warming, such as the steady decline in the yearly minimum of Arctic sea-ice, the loss of permafrost at high latitudes, the migration of plant and animal life toward higher latitudes in the NH as the region warms, the measured warming of the deep oceans, etc.

      • E Swanson

        My intention wasn’t to be critical of what you said; I was expressing my opinion that the measurement process for modeling, the diagnosis of CAGW, and the proposed cure (i.e. MONEY, lots of MONEY) are highly suspect; some of them have to be flat wrong.

        As a retired CFO, this is such an obvious “emperor has no clothes” issue that, while I appreciate the impressive brain power (frequently displayed in WUWT threads) expended on analyzing the data, it’s all for naught. Just because you have don’t have good data does not mean you don’t have a problem, it just means analytically, you don’t really know if you have a problem (further implying you don’t know the proximate cause, or if your remediation activity is fixing the problem).

        At bottom, there still is no generally accepted “acknowledged to be accurate” way to measure global warming (let alone claimed CAGW).

      • E Swanson
        I was attempting to question the claim that the satellite data should exhibit the same trend as the surface data.

        Both datasets agreed closely till about 1998, as indeed the IPCC said they should. It is only since then that heavily adjusted surface datasets have leapt ahead.

        As for measuring global warming, there are many other indications of warming, such as the steady decline in the yearly minimum of Arctic sea-ice, the loss of permafrost at high latitudes, the migration of plant and animal life toward higher latitudes in the NH as the region warms, the measured warming of the deep oceans, etc.

        Blah Blah. The Arctic was just as warm in the 1930s, and animals migrated south when the NH cooled in the post war years.

      • Paul Homewood claims that “the Arctic was just as warm in the 1930s” ignoring all the discussion on this site about how bad the surface temperature data is. Tell us, how many sites were located out there on the sea-ice in the ’30’s? For that matter, how many land sites in your data set?
        You guys are so funny. There are 4 satellite data sets! To which are you referring to? How about the trend calculated for the RSS TTT, the NH trend is 0.223 K/decade and the NH Polar trend is 0.274 K/decade.

      • E. Swanson February 19, 2017 at 2:05 pm

        All of the examples you have listed are interesting but irrelevant to the discussions as to whether the recent warming is from natural or human causes. Since we know arctic was even lower during WW2 present low levels don’t cut the mustard for an argument of human cause.

        michael

      • Javert Chip wrote “At bottom, there still is no generally accepted “acknowledged to be accurate” way to measure global warming (let alone claimed CAGW).”

        Just because you don’t want to accept the data (which, like any measurement, has error bars) does not prove that there’s no problem with CAGW. As I noted, there are other indicators of climate change, all of which point toward warming. Like the blast of record high US maximum (485) and minimum (666) temperatures Friday and Saturday last week. There are reports of temperatures in the high ’90’s F in OK, etc. Don’t worry, it’s just WEATHER.

        It’s been fun guys, gotta go, it’s happy hour…

      • E Swanson

        Exactly which data are you saying is the accurate data? As conflicting as some of them are, they cannot all be accurate. That’s before you even begin discussing error bars.

      • tony mcleod February 19, 2017 at 4:01 pm
        If it made sense it would still be wrong.
        From.

        Your link is irrelevant. I have shown you and Griff about the arctic convoys from pacific northwest to Murmansk. Don’t accuse others of your personal inabilities.

        Start with P.Q.17 Then get a copy of the complete transcripts of the telegrams between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.
        Soviet public records from the war are not reliable. The Soviets were trying to keep knowledge of the route secret. Just as we did and the Brits. The public did not learn of Ultra-Enigma until the late 1970s

        It really does not matter because all of the information that the CAGW pushers tried to suppress will now be out there. What do you think will happen when students begin to challenge CAGW university Professors with the actual “fact”? Real documentation from real freighter and tanker trips. Complete with ship names and captains names. Scream and throw the kid out of class? Try to belittle the student?

        You tony, make no sense and are wrong. Bye bye I’m sure there is a burger joint that will value and appreciate your “climate change” resume.

        cheers

        michael

      • E. Swanson
        > As for measuring global warming, there are many other indications of warming, such as the steady decline in the yearly minimum of Arctic sea-ice, the loss of permafrost at high latitudes, the migration of plant and animal life toward higher latitudes in the NH as the region warms, the measured warming of the deep oceans, etc.

        Cherry picking. Yearly minimum global ice is not declining, global permafrost is not declining, there is no obvious migration of plant and animal life to higher latitudes. Movement to higher latitudes is most readily and accurately measured as the tree line, and the tree line is not moving. Trying to estimate the northern limit of butterfly populations is absurd, and is just global warming activists pulling data out of their rectum.

        You see a hundred feet of glacier fall into the sea, and say “Proof of global warming” and do not notice that ten other glaciers each advanced ten feet.

      • Arm-waving degenerating into ad hominim, but no evidence. Is that the best you can do?

        Is it Soviet unreliability or CAGW suppression preventing you from supplying the evidence. Come on, there must be some actual data or a map or something for you to make that claim.

        Do that and it might be believable. And if you don’t like the graph and source I posted, why not?

      • satellite data should exhibit the same trend as the surface data
        ===================
        They should not. lower tropospheric temperatures should warm faster than surface temperatures, if AGW theory is correct. However, what we are seeing is the opposite. Surface temps are rising faster than lower tropospheric, which indicates the cause of warming cannot be CO2.

      • E Swanson asks, “Like the blast of record high US maximum (485) and minimum (666) temperatures Friday and Saturday last week. There are reports of temperatures in the high ’90’s F in OK, etc. Don’t worry, it’s just WEATHER.”

        Here is the obvious answer, …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=261.19,35.46,1350/loc=-100.575,35.086

        So unless E Swanson can explain how a bit more CO2 can alter surface wind patterns, then he has no argument.

      • ferdberple February 19, 2017 at 5:45 pm

        Which is why a CO2 driven global warming hypothesis is no longer supportable, according the most widely accepted models.
        Its a wonder the hypothesis still has legs.

      • “There are reports of temperatures in the high ’90’s F in OK, etc.”

        You are using this as an argument to prove human-caused global warming?

        I live in Oklahoma. It is not unusual for us to get such temperatures. A low-pressure system to our west can pump up a lot of warm air into Oklahoma over a very short period of time, as happened in this case. Currently, that 99 degree temperature has dropped to about 60 degress. I guess that looking at it from your perspective, that must mean human-caused global cooling has started to kick in.

      • Mike the Morlock February 19, 2017 at 4:47 pm
        tony mcleod February 19, 2017 at 4:01 pm
        If it made sense it would still be wrong.
        From.

        Your link is irrelevant. I have shown you and Griff about the arctic convoys from pacific northwest to Murmansk. Don’t accuse others of your personal inabilities.

        Start with P.Q.17 Then get a copy of the complete transcripts of the telegrams between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.

        Your geography/history is at fault, the Arctic convoys during WWII did not leave from the Pacific NW, they were Atlantic/Arctic convoys, PQ 17 which you refer to left from Iceland!

    • SST Argo buoy data is only measured once every seven days. The ocean covers two-thirds of the Earth’s surface. You are barking up the wrong tree, E. Swanson.

    • whereas the GISS series does
      ======================
      nope. GISS measures above and below the surface, depending on whether you are by land or by sea. the satellites all measure above the surface.

    • You’re just wrong, Swanson, the readings of GISS aren’t surface readings. They’re a ”product” of altered data. End of story regarding that.

      The satellite can’t be contaminated by stratospheric cooling- regardless of who told you they can be.

      The times the data are collected are unimportant. There is an entire space age checking small change bullshit like that. There is no ‘sunrise’ and no ‘sunset.’ The people who designed the instruments know what they’re capable of.

      The satellite data doesn’t suffer from several problems such as orbit decay and drift, those are well known parameters designed around before they were even launched. Since you’ve never worked on or in instrumentation of any time, Swanson, and are nothing more than a paper expert who hasn’t ever worked on anything,

      nobody here expects you to understand that.

      Your hand wave referring to a paper written by yourself, which is paywalled, is effective proof the paper’s fake. If it were real, it would be out in the public venue where real science goes when it’s important.

      Paywalled generally = fake paper.

  8. “NASA GISS uses infilling” One should never fabricate data to be used as input for other analyses or models. The data one fabricates is almost always wrong for complex systems and there is enough ‘garbage in’ to be exponentially amplified by the models already, one does not need to put more garbage there.

    • The approach NASA use is rather akin to asking people to look at their garden thermometer bought from some cheap DIY or ebay, with an appalling accuracy, often set up next to people’s houses and then they average a lot of them in the totally mistaken belief that it will somehow improve the accuracy.

      The right way to do it of course, is to spend the money, put in the right equipment designed for the job in hand, to routinely calibrate and check the sites, and to ensure total geographical coverage.

      But the people who do these measurements don’t care at all if the data is totally corrupt and totally unfit — because it gave the desired warming.

      The whole lot really needs throwing out and starting again and I don’t just mean equipment, but also the appalling people who allowed such a useless totally inadequate system to develop, then had the audacity to come onto blogs like this and defend the indefensible.

      • There’s a minor problem with your suggestion. We can’t go back and re-measure the past with your new and improved thermometers. Perhaps your Scotts scientists have developed a time machine?

        The data available is the only historical data available. In the US, the thermometers used were high quality lab instruments which were regularly calibrated. They were also located in shelters to shield them from the direct sun and from rain or snow. The data is far better than a garden thermometer, like the one I used to have hanging outside on a tree until the wind blew it away…

      • E Swanson

        There’s a minor problem with your suggestion. We can’t go back and re-measure the past with your new and improved thermometers. Perhaps your Scotts scientists have developed a time machine?

        The data available is the only historical data available. In the US, the thermometers used were high quality lab instruments which were regularly calibrated. They were also located in shelters to shield them from the direct sun and from rain or snow. The data is far better than a garden thermometer, like the one I used to have hanging outside on a tree until the wind blew it away…

        Yes, the high quality US data is all we have. So why do we have to adjust it to turn US cooling into warming?

      • My understanding from general reading is this was precisely the mission of the climate group at East Anglia University, starting in 1972.

        This failure is not the fault of Scotts who can’t invent a time machine; it is directly due to the corruption of the East Anglia mission (i.e. from “accurately measure & record” to “computer model”).

        All this is interesting history, but we’re still left with the fact that 45 years later, in 2017, climate science has no way to measure what it professes to be warning about.

      • Paul Homewood, I thought that you agreed that the satellite data exhibited a warming trend, just not a trend which is as strong as the surface data.

      • I should have made it clearly that I meant measuring global temperature to ~0.01C with common garden met stations, is a bit like measuring common garden weather with a garden thermometer.

        The problem is it all started with a few academics – whose whole attitude was to “make do and don’t complain” about the data they got. So rather than tackling the problem as source: a network never designed for the task in hand, they started trying to turn a pig’s ear into a silk purse.

        If a commercial company were tasked to do this, the first thing they would do is check the quality of stations and then start replacing those not up to the job or installing ones where they are totally missing.

        This concept of actually getting the right equipment for the job was never even considered by UEA … and this philosophy of making do with bad data has continued to this day.

      • E. Swanson: You are misinformed about a warming “trend” being exhibited by satellite data. All we have so far is statistically insignificant anomalies (and even if you ignore their small magnitude and their accompanying error bars and ad hoc label them “significant,” they have lasted for too short a time to be a “trend”).

      • It doesn’t matter.

        1) Whether some people would like to or not, we aren’t going to do anything significant about Climate Change.

        2) Renewable Energy now accounts for 30% of global power generation capacity, and we are growing solar at an exponential growth factor as the price continues to plummet..

        3) Solar accounted for 29.4% of new electric generating capacity installed in the U.S. in 2015, exceeding the total for natural gas for the first time ever.

        4) 2015 saw total electricity sales fall for the fifth time in the past eight years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). In 2015, electricity sales fell 1.1% from the previous year. LEDs probably played a part in that.

        Solar and Wind are not a single point solution, but every watt they generate doesn’t have to be produced by fossil or nuclear plants. Local production on your roof, and storage such as Tesla Powerwall type products will help minimize the need for peaking plants.

        So, to a great extent, the problem is resolving itself. 30% renewable is outstanding, and few people realize we’ve come that far.

      • Janice Moore
        “All we have so far is statistically insignificant anomalies…”

        That is only true if you start form the peak of the 1998 El Nino.

      • 0x01010101

        Ok. I admit I’m totally confused on “renewable” energy. I’ve tried a web search to validate your 33% renewable claim – and have failed. Best i’ve found is “…world…13.7% of its energy needs from zero-carbon sources in 2014. …” (link: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-much-energy-does-the-world-get-from-renewables).

        I think zero-carbo includes hydro, but (sometimes) “renewable” does not.

        How do you support the 33% renewable claim?

      • Big Solar Promoter 0x0=0 at 3:58pm:

        Re:

        Renewable Energy now accounts for 30% of global power generation capacity

        Prove it.

        All the sales and installation data I have seen says that your statement is grossly in error.

        These are just two of the MANY pieces of evidence disproving your unsupported assertion, 0x0=0:

        1. Renewables failing in Germany (Bjorn Lomborg)

        (youtbe)

        2. This plant isn’t doing so hot:

        A federally backed, $2.2 billion solar project in the California desert isn’t producing the electricity it is contractually required to deliver to PG&E Corp., which says the solar plant may be forced to shut down if it doesn’t receive a break Thursday from state regulators.

        (Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/could-californias-massive-ivanpah-solar-power-plant-be-forced-to-go-dark-2016-03-16 )

      • 0x0=0 (at 6:14pm) Re: We’re moving away from ….

        Who is “we”?

        No major economy on the planet called “Earth.”

        We, the people of the developed world (on Earth), are going FULL BORE ahead with fossil fuel (whether you like it or not).

        Here is a little video to help you learn about the people on our planet. We are a lot of fun. (Just ignore the frownie faced tr0ll people who think it’s holy to ride a bike and look O-so-sanctimonious as they sit on a diesel-powered bus, grimly chewing on their dried seaweed snacks)


        (youtube)

        Life’s short, 0 — LIVE! #(:))

        (Note: You’ll need fossil fuels to do that — don’t think so? Ha! Name ONE fun, truly fun, thing besides you-know-what that doesn’t require fossil fuels to make it FUN! :) — I didn’t say that you could not “do” those things at all without the FFuel — you can make smoothies by mashing things up by hand, walk to the beach and spend about 20 minutes there before you have to leave to walk back home again, and play a penny whistle — I SAID YOU NEED FFuel to have FUN!)

        And how can you stand not to DRIVE!!! That is a whole lot of fun you are missing there…

        Nope. Even where hydropower is nicely supplying all the electricity for your video games, you needed fossil fuels for the components and the shipping and the house you are sitting in and the charger and…. :) and the power company can’t run those dams and get that electricity to your video game player without using fossil fuel-powered vehicles and on and on… YAY FOSSIL FUEL!)

      • Okay, okay, I admit, playing a penny whistle IS fun (but, I really am glad mine has a plastic mouthpiece!), but, you can only play a penny whistle for fun so long before it gets BORING!! :)

      • The approach NASA use is rather akin to asking people to look at their garden thermometer bought from some cheap DIY or ebay, with an appalling accuracy, often set up next to people’s houses and then they average a lot of them in the totally mistaken belief that it will somehow improve the accuracy.

        If the deviations from actual are random and normally distributed, the belief is not only not mistaken, its founded on good mathematical theory.

        Please base scepticism on proper science and maths, or it gets just like skepticalscience

      • 0x010….

        Regarding your reference https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/20/renewable-energy-now-accounts-30-global-power-generation-capacity/

        I have 2 major objections:

        1) I can find no data documenting the 30% claim leading me to believe it is greatly exaggerated.

        2) This is (Claimed) INSTALLED capacity. Utilization factor for wind is about 22% of rated power while solar is at about 12% way below thermal or hydro power generation, and is driven largely by nature (wind and sun), not by load variations.

      • 0x01010101 @ February 19, 2017 at 3:58 pm

        Solar and Wind are not a single point solution, but every watt they generate doesn’t have to be produced by fossil or nuclear plants.

        Every watt they generate has to be backed up by fossil or nuclear plants for those times when the sun doesn’t shine—like, every night—or when the wind isn’t blowing. Roof solar systems cannot run A/C or a late-model refrigerator. And a storage battery (cost $5,000 per, currently) only lasts 1.5 hours when running A/C.

        Local production on your roof, and storage such as Tesla Powerwall type products will help minimize the need for peaking plants.

        Complete nonsense. You neither understand the electricity business nor the limits to solar energy and battery storage. See my post of a talk with a manager at Solar City, Tesla’s solar company here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/11/newsbytes-elon-musks-solarcity-crashes/comment-page-1/#comment-2212824.

        You obviously missed hearing about this in November 2014:

        Renewable energy ‘simply WON’T WORK’: Top
        Google engineers

        Windmills, solar, tidal – all a ‘false hope’, say Stanford PhDs

        Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve
        renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race
        to cut CO emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a
        renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.

        Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork
        in applied physics. These aren’t guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or “technology” of
        that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even
        among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C project, which
        sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than
        coal.

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

        The article goes on to point out:

        Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.

        As for the cited percentages in your numbered list, it’s obvious you never bothered to read the actual report that the cleantechnica article referred to in order to verify the reporting. The vast majority of what they consider “renewables” is hydro. And the figures are through 2014. “Over 30%” is what the cleantechnica reporter made up. Read the Executive Summary (http://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Variable-Renewable-Energy-Sources-Integration-in-Electricity-Systems-2016-How-to-get-it-right-Executive-Summary.pdf)

        Global Total renewables: 27.7%, of which the majority portion was hydro at 17%. Of the remaining 10%, solar was 2.9%, and wind 6%
        Global Total Conventional (Oil, Gas, Coal) and Nuclear: 72.3%

    • As an old, retired CFO, I’m a data bigot. If the two (or more) sides to an argument cannot agree on the data, it’s pretty difficult to have a productive discussion about the alleged “problem” illustrated by the data.

      • Thank you sir, but I think a lot of people really do not understand how to interpret an argument based on sound principles like Return on Investment (ROI), and other common financial strategies required by CFOs everywhere. Therefore your solid arguments just goes around their already-made-up minds. To your point, the “warming” argument has never been about science, rather, emotional reaction to a “cause”.

        The argument is all about the $$$, as in all emotionally-packed “causes”. Follow the “cries” of people who emote the loudest, and we will find pockets ready, willing, and pleading to get $$$.

      • I do understand “climate science” was never about science, and has become a secular religion. Among my retired corporate friends, I’m a social anomaly as a skeptic. Even so, my friends have great difficulty reacting to simple statements about frequency & magnitude of the “data adjustments”; or warmists can’t agree on which data set is most accurate; or no Federal agency has a legal charter & methodology to keep THE MOST ACCURATE & TRUE TEMPERATURE DATA.

        Generally, my social group does not does not understand complicated math (I learned physics at Ga Tech), but these ex-businessmen get very squeamish about suspect data. Most simply cling to the mantra that NASA would never lie.

  9. Some time ago, I suggested a way of preventing the spread of UHE in the temperature records. Basically, develop a UHE pattern – ie, by how much temperature goes up in various urban areas – and knock that much off when infilling a rural area from an urban area. They already make allowances for altitude, latitude, etc (well if they don’t they should) so it’s no big deal to add UHE to the effects they allow for.

    But I do agree with commenters back then that calculating “global temperature” from weather stations is an exercise in futility. Now we have satellite systems, we should put them first. A bit like adjusting canvas bucket sea surface temperatures to match the better newer buckets ……. uh oh …….

    • I’m sure they said “Muslim outreach” was the top priority . . I doubt anyone actually believed it, but I remember the lip service quite clearly . .

      • The Muslim outreach results appeared lukewarm based on the raw data. However, they were later adjusted and became unprecedented.

      • Alternatively, imagine how much worse it wold have been without the “wildly successful” (must have been, otherwise we wouldn’t have ket doing it, right?) muslim outreach of the last 8 years.

  10. I’ve added the following to the head post …

    [UPDATE] I trust Eric won’t mind that I downloaded the PDF of the NASA Authorization he linked to above … then I OCR’d it to make it searchable. The link is below:

    20170215_nasa

    Searches for “CO2”, “Earth Sciences” and “climate” didn’t find anything …

    Regards to all,

    w.

  11. After over 8 years of slogging it out in the muddy swamp of “climate science” and junk like
    “Mu$l!m self-esteem”….

    … third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Mu$!lim world…. to help them feel good…..

    (youtube — NASA adminstrator, Charles Bolden)

    NASA scientists (and minions) are doing a major –>
    —> HAPPY DANCE!

    (youtube — Minions happy dance mash-up)

    Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee — haw!

    Back to science.

    Trump won. #(:))

    • Janice

      Yours is an extremely painful but entirely appropriate post. USMC Maj Gen C. L. Bolden (USNA graduate, USMC combat pilot, NASA astronaut) is most certainly not an idiot, but Obama sure made him look like one.

      This is a perfect example of throwing away political capital: take a fabled agency like NASA, task it with inspiring children, improving foreign relations and helping muslims “feel good”; the next thing you know, we’re paying Russia $81M/astronaut to get to the ISS. At least the Russians are feeling better (they used to charge $21.8M in 2007-8)

      • Thank you, Mr. Javert, for reminding us of the truth about Charles Bolden, USMC Major General, Ret.. More than “not an idiot,” he is a national treasure.

        {Caveat: after about 2:11, the video is riddled with Dem’crt. propaganda}
        Charles Bolden

        (youtube)

      • The only thing I know that was done with Obama’s NASA Muslim outreach program is NASA spent about $500,000 to send some Pakistani kids to Space Camp.

        Obama. He’s something else, isn’t he. His new civilian status Makes America Great Again.

  12. Excellent. Expect moaning and wailing from the usual suspects. Widows and orphans disprortionatly affected by spending cuts. That sort of old school malarkey.

    Now to start redirecting the many billions tied directly and indirectly to the climate catastrophe ideology.

  13. Let’s see the list of what science got pushed back because of climate scare funding agenda. That includes some that were funded but more slowly.

  14. This is as good as it gets! Now go after NOAA. Refocus their mission to concentrate on natural weather pattern variation and causes/predictions of epic climate oscillations. Especially concentrate on how the oceans store and expel heat over shorter and longer term regimes.

    Oh happy day!

    • I would rather have them working on climate related issues.
      Like having them pick up litter by the side of the road since it could affect the climate of the local areas.

  15. 1. According to Al Gore the science is settled so we do not need to be speidnig any more money on settled science. Considering the size of our National Debt, I estimate that the money the federal government is borrowing today will end up costing the tax payers more than 12 times the amount borrowed to repay over the next 180 years. We do not need to be borrowing money to study science that is arleady settled.

    2..Go to the NASA site related to climate change and it is obvious that they are more into the politics of climate change then they are into the sceince. Consenses is one of their primary arguements and they even reference John Cook’s abstract classification effort. Scientists never actually registered and voted on the AGW conjecture so talk of consensus is pure speculation. Science is not a democracy. The laws of science is not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. This consensus business is pure politics and is not science. If NASA wants to study the sceince of climate change then they need to stick to the science and not delve into the politics.

    3. Space is suppose to be NASA’s domain. At the very least they should transfer all of their climate efforts to a more appropriate government agency like NOAA.

  16. I believe every agency in the US government has it’s global warming commission, so this is just the beginning, so glad that adults have been put in charge. Keep crying snowflakes.

  17. This is a step in the right direction. Next, trump needs an agency to look after the temperature measuring satellites. Then release temp data in its raw form. Expose the fraud rather than completely de-fund it.

    • “Next, trump needs an agency to look after the temperature measuring satellites.”

      The satellites are doing just fine the way they are.

  18. NASA (for the other important space reasons) has unrivalled expertise in the solar related matters. If anyone can prove existence of a critical link between solar activity and climate change, via whatever route it takes be it the TSI, UV, magnetic interaction, etc, NASA could do it, provided they are released from the suffocating AGW bondage. For that simple but a very important reason the NASA’s access to and independent reanalysis of all existing climate data, instrumental or proxies, should be maintained and financially supported by the Federal authority.

    • Vukcevic

      NASA has other, higher priorities, that have been neglected: like a US launch vehicle that gets astronauts to space & back without killing them; NASA might even be expected to define & manage the balance between manned & unmanned space efforts.

      All the highly speculative climate science crap can be given to NOAA, and they (under appropriate management) can figure out what to keep, merge or dump.

      • NASA isn’t some man and his dog outfit, it is a huge organisation, there is room for both space and honest climate research. Yes, the space is important, so is what might be the sun’s effect on the climate. Since solar activity is slowing to a possible standstill in the next decade or two, if the N. Hemisphere responds by a degree or more of cooling then many millions of people in the higher latitudes would be severely affected. Some prior knowledge of such possibility might allow authorities and even individuals to take at least some precautions to ameliorate what might be a serious situation.
        NASA has engineers that can and do things that work, NOAA has keyboard operators, there is more than a bit of difference between two.

      • Vukcevic

        I think NASA’s performance over the last 10-12 years demonstrates there is NOT room for both space science and the highly political “climate science” crap (Hansen & Gavin Schmidt as exhibits #1 & #2)..

        Hypothetically, once NOAA identifies a material impact on earth’s climate from space weather, perhaps NASA could be engaged to further the (space based) analysis.

        In the mean time, NASA has important space-based work it has been neglecting.

      • there is room for both space and honest climate research.
        ===========
        nope. a mixed mission leads to budget infighting. make NASA’s mission clear. S=SPACE. Leave climate to the NACA.

      • “I think NASA’s performance over the last 10-12 years demonstrates there is NOT room for both space science and the highly political “climate science” crap (Hansen & Gavin Schmidt as exhibits #1 & #2)..”

        To be fair, it is not NASA per se, that has caused this problem, rather it is a few NASA employees like the ones you named, who have made climate science highly political using NASA’s prestige as their vehicle.

        There are thousands of good people who work at NASA and a few bad apples. We should always keep this in mind.

    • I agree vuk. The various satellites that NASA ( and others) have put around the Sun in ( and not so) recent years have proven their value. The early detection of CMEs for instance for the safety of astronauts and our weather, communication satellites and our grid have proven themselves a number of times. And those are not the only benefits.

      • Indeed. 99% of energy controlling weather of our planet comes from space, any excess not absorbed it is re-emitted to the space. It should be the reformed NASA’s responsibility to collect such data at every spatio-temporal stage and wherever possible to postulate physics that define it.
        Of course all data with the associated narrative (methods, instrumentation, tolerances, various compensation factors etc. etc.) should be made available to NOAA or to any institution or individual, to re-analyse, question or use for whatever purpose.
        Simply dismissing solar variability as the next to irrelevant has allowed the AGW zealots to run riot and finally discredit science, put heavy financial burden on the ordinary hard working taxpayer, and if allowed in future implementation of the geo-engineering crackpot ideas.

  19. A good first start of many needed over the next 8-years.

    The next step for NASA is to begin “cleaning house” of “certain” employees. Zeroing-out pensions will gain a lot. This too will take a lot of effort over the next 8-years.

    Now the reason for the AAAS “science” protests in Boston today is clear.

    Another focus should be re-alignment of NIH and the “cozy” relationship with Big Pharma, and Big Pharma’s “cozy” relationship with AAAS! Ha ha.

    Cheers

    • One easy way to embarrass GISS would be to document how much time Gavin spent blogging on RC, which presumably wasn’t within the organization’s remit.

  20. From the article: “If the main culprit turns out to be a few rogue urbanised temperature stations running too hot in the Arctic . . .”

    Don’t forget the artificially low readings from Siberia in the Soviet era (in order to obtain more fuel supplies from the government). That probably contributed greatly to the rising temperature trend since 1990. If GISS had been honest and diligent, it (or NOAA) would have interrogated weather station employees there in the 1990s to determine the extent of this fiddling.

  21. One unmentioned (AFAIK) reason for preferring satellite data to ground-based data is that weather stations in “developing” (per IGPOCC) countries have an incentive to bias their temperatures high, since they stand to be beneficiaries of transfer payments from the developed world if their is perceived to be a climate crisis. I think contrarian bigshots should make more of this weakness in the reliability of ground-temperature data.

    • “One unmentioned (AFAIK) reason for preferring satellite data to ground-based data is that weather stations in “developing” (per IGPOCC) countries have an incentive to bias their temperatures high, since they stand to be beneficiaries of transfer payments from the developed world if their is perceived to be a climate crisis.”

      That’s an interesting thought, which had not occurred to me.

  22. The NASA GISS series has long been a favourite of climate alarmists, because the way it handles temperature measurements produces the most exaggerated official warming trend.

    I can’t believe no one is going to be held accountable and simply get this funding cut. This is pure fr@ud plane and simple.

    Climate “Science” on Trial; Cherry Picking Locations to Manufacture Warming
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/

  23. what most people don’t realize is that NASA does not really care about climate monitoring anyway. They have had no mandate, or particular interest, in launching copies of the same instruments in succession to provide a long-term record. They are interested in new science, new technology. It’s been that way forever. NOAA is probably a little more interested in it, but they don’t get funding targeted to make it happen. Basically, It’s weather forecasting support, and if the data can be used for long-term monitoring, so much the better.

    • Gone are the days when human curiosity of our world dogged us, driving us, to “know why”. Anymore it’s whatever proposal can get funding, and natural science just isn’t sexy anymore, even though the world is ladened with natural climate mystery. Maybe the Pres needs to appoint a toddler. Now that is a curious creature!

    • Dr Spencer

      Hansen & Schmidt might disagree with “…NASA does not really care about climate monitoring anyway…”.

      • their little GISS thermometer dataset really doesn’t add much value to what NOAA and the Hadley Center is doing anyway. It’s been more of an internal effeort whcih NASA funds simply because the optics would be bad if they stopped. I know in the WUWT world it seems like a major NASA effort, but it isn’t. Money-wise, it’s trivial. Most of the money is spent on a variety of new satellite instruments, each mission costing hundreds of millions of dollars with bus, instruments, launch, sat ops, data archival, and scientists analyzing the data. The GISS temperature monitoring effort is almost rogue, and could probably be done out of petty cash.

      • So what you are saying Roy (and my interpretation is laced with some really good red wine) is that there are a couple folks at NOAA who want to make us think they drive a really big 4-wheel drive monster gigga-big “Who’s da man!” pick-up but in truth they are just a wee little thing? OMG that is funny!

      • Dr Spencer

        It’s unclear to even my senior NASA friends (I live 30 miles away from Cape Canaveral) how much is spent on “climate science”.

        With all due respect, your comment amounts to “the fox can be put in charge of the hen house as long as it promises not to eat too many chickens”.

        NASA has other, more important, scientific jobs to do than waste credibility on pseudo climate science (for one, I’d like to see the Hubble restored – that school-bus sized gizmo has been a scientific gold mine).

      • Chip, traditionally most of the U.S. climate change budget has gone to NASA because the earth observation satellites are so expensive. NASA has done a good job, in my view, but I suspect they are going to have to emphasize their contribution for weather forecasting or some such thing to stay alive in the current administration. In my opinion, though, nothing beats seeing an astronaut floating in space. :-)

      • Javert, I doubt that the Hubble will receive any upgrades. First they cannot get at it because there is no shuttle to service it and second every penny is going to the James Webb Telescope, infinitely more powerful. I tell you we should all pray they can succeed in that!

    • NASA does not really care about climate monitoring … . They are interested in new science, new technology. It’s been that way forever.
      Roy Spencer

      History of Space Exploration (focus on NASA)

      (youtube)

      Make NASA Great Again.

      Make America Proud Again.

      ******************************************************

      This comment is dedicated to the astronauts and all the others who laid down their careers, their health, and, for some, their lives to make NASA great. They are watching. Let’s not let them down.

      • Yea, NASA had a great past. It earned strong presidential support & leadership.

        The past 10 years – not so much.

        I’d love to see NASA get back to it’s science and engineering “can do” roots (leave the climate science dumpster fire to NOAA) – that would make America proud again.

      • Yes, Mr. Javert. That is why I wrote: “Make NASA great again.” I meant that it should get back to real science. (I guess you missed other the comment where I said that was what I thought NASA should do)

    • I think that’s right, NASA is much more focused on doing “cutting edge” developments. That’s why they junked a perfectly good space shuttle launch system so they can build a new, cutting edge launch vehicle that won’t be any more capable than the space shuttle launch system.

  24. “Meanwhile we only have one agency that engages in space exploration, and they need every dollar they can muster for space exploration.”
    It’s another Great Day for America and all who love Her!

    • Mars here we come. Jupiter’s moon? Oh yah, with the next rover. And maybe we can put a satellite down in the ocean! Now that would be cool! Put it in the overturning circulation highway. Would it not be cool to be the guy with the joystick driving it along.

      • Nuclear drive rockets…. Refuel reaction mass on Ganymede and do a little ‘ice fishing’ with underwater remotes while we’re there! Yes! Way cool!

      • Asteroid harvesting! Imagine a group of unmanned craft towing a small one in and safely bringing it down to Earth (much more practical than mining in space, theoretically). And not just mineral. The outer rings of Saturn offer a nigh inexhaustible supply of water ice, if we just hurry up and figure out how to go get it. The towing crafts could also double as defense against rogue asteroid impacts.

  25. J Mac

    Strongly agree.

    In the 8 years between JFK’s 1961 “man on the moon” speech and the 1969 moon landing, NASA went thru the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.

    It’s now been 5 years since the last shuttle flight, and we’re still have no man-rated launch vehicle & we’re paying Russia to take our astronauts into space.

    Time for NASA to get back to being NASA.

    • I completely agree, with one additional point, let the scientists do the core research (Big-R) and let free enterprise build the objects (Big-D) that NASA needs.

      • LOL. So obvious, yet so hard to do.

        Here in Fla among my retired NASA friends there’s lots of bruised egos about SpaceX: “those guys stole our stuff”, “we could have done it better”, “they couldn’t have done it without us”, and my favorite “we were gonna do it like that…”.

        Corporate types get beat up, reorganized or laid-off by the market all the time – no participation medals for just showing up. Government bureaucratic lifers – not so much. NASA’s average age during Apollo 11 (1st moon landing) was 28; in 2009 it was 47…

    • Ladies and Gents,
      I don’t care how it gets done or who does it! I want to see humans on Mars… and Ganymede before I die!
      Get. On. With. IT!

  26. Somewhere someone made a comment that some of the US weather stations were of a reasonable standard.

    The problem here, is that whilst I know American think they are the world, in actual fact, the US represent a tiny fraction of the world surface. So the problem of a Global temperature is ensuring that every single station throughout the planet is up to the best standards in the US.

    Anthony did a great job auditing the US stations, but I’m absolutely convinced that if he went to some out of the way place in Africa or Asia, it would be far far worse than anything he found in the US.

    And that has been the problem with this whole thing since the beginning: it’s all too parochial. There’s no control over the instrumentation which is run by I guess hundreds of different organisations.

    And if we realise that many countries are quite corrupt, and that they stood to gain handsomely from “global warming”, it’s almost certain that there will have been intentional financial fraud (rather than “thumb on the scale” type fraud).

    And unfortunately, the US isn’t welcomed enthusiastically throughout the world. So, what is really needed is an international organisation, which purchases the right sites and then employed people to maintain and calibrate them. Then when you realise that some of these sites need to be in the middle of the Amazon, the Sahara, Antarctica, middle of Greenland, on remote islands, etc, etc, the costs are absolutely vast.

    That then means a big budget organisation, probably under the UN — and realistically I don’t think Trump or any Republicans would welcome any further money going that direction.

    So, getting the US stations right, is a necessary condition to a valid worldwide temperature network, but it is frankly trivial compared to the huge problems elsewhere.

    That’s why the only viable way to get a truly global temperature appears to be to finally fill in the gap at the poles with satellites.

    • the only viable way to get a truly global temperature” is to forget the whole thing. What do you do with a value that has no physical meaning, exact or not?
      It would also be the cheapest solution.

  27. argh. NASA wasted an incredible opportunity with the space shuttle program. we could have had an immense space station in high earth orbit. instead the idiots just kept shooting overtrained monkeys into space for no net gain. I want to scream so loud they’d hear it a hundred astronomical units out.

    • Jack, They could have used the empty fuel tanks with the modifications pre build in, tethered them and voila. Okay not my idea and would have taken mega bucks but seeing what a waste “Global Warming” has been. Like Kennedy, you gotta think big and get the whole country behind you! Before that they also tried it first by using the second stage of a Saturn V and that could have worked as well. Just look at how much the Shuttle program cost. At the time they had all the systems in place to do it! If they would have put the funding for the shuttle into using second stage Saturn V tanks ?? where could we be now???

      • “Before that they also tried it first by using the second stage of a Saturn V and that could have worked as well. Just look at how much the Shuttle program cost. At the time they had all the systems in place to do it! If they would have put the funding for the shuttle into using second stage Saturn V tanks ?? where could we be now???”

        Good comment, asybot.

        Yes, the Saturn 5 second stage could have been used in orbit just like the Space Shuttle External Tank could have been used. Huge volumns, which is just what is needed in orbit for space development.

        Skylab, the U.S.’s first space station, was a retrofitted second stage of the Saturn 5 rocket.

        The new heavy-lift vehicle NASA is building also has a second stage. :)

        However, the space shuttle configuration was better than either the Saturn 5 or NASA’s new launch vehicle because you can put your habitation modules on the bottom of the External Tank, before launch, but you can’t do that with the other two, which means you have to do much less outfitting in space using the space shuttle configuration than using the other two. Much less.

        The space shuttle launch system made it much easier to use a heavy-lift vehicle for space develpment, and would have been about an order of magnitude cheaper. That’s why it is such a shame that those running NASA were so shortsighted, during the shuttle era, when they frittered away this valuable resource, and with finally killing the shuttle era. A crying shame. Stupid. No Vision.

  28. Note I’m not saying NASA interested in Earth Science. I’ve been part of Mission to Planet Earth since the beginning. But MTPE was sold to congress by claiming the new satellites would tell us in a couple years what’s going on with global warming (yeah, you read that right). The satellites themselves are intended to investigate specific aspects of the Earth system for a few years..NOT do long term monitoring.

      • Like I said, send a NASA satellite into the ocean’s overturning pathway. The oceans are Earth’s energy storage unit and we know next to nothing about how that works to store it or cough it up.

      • Roy, I hope you have an opportunity to go to the Soo sometime and give another presentation at the Bayliss Library. I’ll do my best to come home from New York to listen

    • Roy, then if the satellites aren’t up t the job of long term monitoring, then almost nothing is up to the job.

      And if you are suggesting ground based monitoring can’t be replaced, then whilst it’s not a glamorous job setting up a temperature monitoring station, and no one seems to understand the huge footprint you need for each station to get the extremely high precision readings you need for long term monitoring – we need to twist the arms of politicians to get millions or likely billions for a proper bespoke global network.

  29. Please, do NOT send “We the biggest muther &%@#er” NASA climate researchers to NOAA. They can go back to universities, fine with me, but bias is not what we need right now. It speaks volumes that what we need right now are researchers who believe in the utility of basic research, not “pet theory” research.

    • Pamela

      I beg to differ.

      Getting these guys out of NASA to cleanse the real scientific & engineering environment is a must. These witch doctors are a cancer on the organization and NASA’s public image.

      The fastest way (you can’t just fire these guys because they engaged in fraudulent science for 20 years) is an inter-governmental transfer, so – BOOM – off to NOAA you and 80% of your “NASA climate science” budget go.

      NOAA will be expected to rationalize & down-size the transferred “NASA climate science” budget a further 80% within 2 budget years (or 100% if programs cannot be justified to Congress).

      • Javert – the only problem with your approach is that when the Democrats come back, they just re-employ the same people, they start using the same tricks and as most of the data doesn’t come from the US, they just use the data they would have done to produce more fake graphs showing:

        “LOOK HOW MUCH GLOBAL WARMING TRUMP WAS HIDING”.

        Unless or until we completely upgrade the monitoring system so that the raw data is good for use as is, and no one can justify massive manipulations, someone like Schmidt can just come back and create warming out of the data again.

      • “Javert – the only problem with your approach is that when the Democrats come back”

        The Democrats aren’t coming back. At least for the next 16 years, would be my guess. My hope.

  30. And Janice, life is GOOD! My great-white-hunter-best-friend-raising-his-grandkids-love-of-my-life and I are designing an elk ivory set with a NE Oregon jewelry designer. On top of that I work for a first-rate charter district and we now have an advocate in the White House cabinet! So life is VERY good!

    • Pamela great to hear! have followed ( for awhile) and your “liberated by a great red wine comments” tonight as well. good to hear things are doing well

    • PAMELA! Well, I’m just so happy when anyone (esp. you) “talks” (in a “Hi, there!” mode) to me!

      That is SO great. Smiling and smiling for you. :)

      Yes, hooray for Ms. DeVos!

      Now — please let me know when the wedding is, OKAY?? :) I would SO love to be there. You really have become special to me.

      And do NOT just elope — this amazing 12-year, paths finally converging, of two very special people is something to CELEBRATE royally! (thus saith your bossy sister, heh)

      Bye for now and THANKS FOR THE GREAT UPDATE!

      #(:))

      • Ffffttttthththth! Well damn. Now it’s Canadian 9 yr aged whiskey all over my mini iPad!!!!

        [The mods request you decide on one beverage to spew upon the screen, and declare the subsequent spew per evening per screen limit be maintained at a replacement rate of gigglegallons per forthnight… .mod]

      • “Pamela Gray February 19, 2017 at 8:32 pm

        Ffffttttthththth! Well damn. Now it’s Canadian 9 yr aged whiskey all over my mini iPad!!!!

        [The mods request you decide on one beverage to spew upon the screen, and declare the subsequent spew per evening per screen limit be maintained at a replacement rate of gigglegallons per forthnight… .mod]”

        No way mod, has to be girlie giggles (Thumbwars, google it for a…giggle lol).

  31. Start by making them provide all unadjusted data and give reason for all adjustments and fill in for no data. If they can’t then the adjusted and fill in data has to not be used and removed from science use or distribution.

    • If you will review the literature, you will find that the “reason” and methodology for data adjustments are supplied with the adjusted data.

      • I have done research and published. Have you? Do you know that much research into anything these days will be shown to be worthless in short order at best or eventually at worst?

      • Slipstick

        Surely you can’t be claiming the oft-repeated current practice is a credible process?

        If it was credible, why does previously adjusted data require multiple future adjustments? This is absurd.

      • Sure, the “””reasons””” and methodology are supplied. Much like what is supplied with a baby’s diaper change.
        The average of adjusted data tracks above average of raw data. Showing a Warming bias was added to raw data to create Faux adjusted data. Given UHI effect on Weather Stations, an increasing cooling bias, over time, should have been added to correct for urban sprawl around originally properly located Weather Stations.

    • Its all there. been there since 2007-08 when folks like me and mcintrye demanded that all the code and data be released

      not that any clowns here remember

    • You can’t just not in-fill the data because the locations of the thermometers isn’t uniform and you’re trying to compute an average of the planet’s temperature, the only way to do that is to infill and arrive at a synthetic data grid that is equally spaced. If you just added up the temperatures and divided by the number of thermometers, you would have an average of the thermometers readings, not an average of the planet.
      Personally I prefer satellite data because the data is richer both spatially and temporally.

      • “You can’t just not in-fill the data because the locations of the thermometers isn’t uniform and you’re trying to compute an average of the planet’s temperature”

        You’ll never make a “climate scientist”, Paul. You’re too honest.

        If you were one, you would realise that not only can you in-fill (AKA “make stuff up”) to compensate for your measuring stations covering less than a quarter of the World and in some cases being over 2,000 miles apart, but you would realise that by using the magic of “pairwise homogenisation” (or whatever real “climate scientists” call it) you can use the made-up “homogenised” data to alter the values of real data – even data that was decades old – to change that real data so as to cool the past and achieve the correct temperature trend to “prove” that the climate was warming in a catastrophic manner, so as to “prove” climate apocalypse could only be prevented by their paymasters the politicians massively increasing taxation on fossil fuels and giving vast quantities of other peoples’ money as subsidies to their generous friends in the “Unreliables” industry.

        Some “climate scientists” (mentioning no names but we all know very well who they are) have made a very good living doing that for some time now, and they never in their worst nightmares imagined that one day a new regime would take over and their cosy little careers would all of a sudden come under threat, and they would be held responsible for their malfeasance.

        But hey, they were doing it “for our own good”, I mean, anything goes when you’re “Saving the World™” (and incidentally lining your pockets), right?

  32. Yes, we need to focus on deep space, since we are going to need to find a new home for our species as we destroy this one in order to protect the profits of corporations selling 19th century fuels, while hiding the fact of the damage by legislating ignorance. (Note that the preceding is sarcasm through gross exaggeration, but there is more than a kernel of truth to it).

      • Had to look that one up. Nonsense. Yet another model gone nuts. The only consumers that increase their use are folks like southern Californians and Alabama liberals who depend on air conditioning in-between protests to keep from getting heat stroke.

      • Jevon’s paradox
        =============
        makes perfect sense to me, because increased efficiency reduces cost, which leads to increased demand. So, unless demand is inelastic, increased efficiency may be self-defeating as a means of conservation.

        For example, someone invents a low cost additive that makes the gasoline engine 2x as efficient. On the surface this will cut gasoline consumption by a factor of 2. But in practice, the gasoline engine would quickly replace the diesel engine, leading to an increase of much more than a factor of 2 in gasoline consumption.

        So in effect, making the gasoline engine 2x as efficient will reduce the consumption of competitors to gasoline. So if you want to truly preserve resource X, you should mandate efficiency standards for its competitors, but not for the resource itself.

    • corporations selling 19th century fuels
      =================
      now if we could just ban the sale of alcohol, there would be no more alcoholics. we could call it Prohibition. what could possibly go wrong.

    • Slipstick

      Unclear about “legislating ignorance” – sure seems like US public schools are doing a bang-up job on CAGW, even though you & Al gore can’t quite come up with either accurate data or accurate WE’RE-ALL-GONNA-DIE climate model forecasts.

      On the flip side, you have managed to convince the 80% of the population that could never do high school algebra II that they now fully understand thermal dynamics & atmospheric physics (not to mention the ins & outs of computer modeling).

      • My prediction is that the Next Generation Science Standards will be re-written in short order. It will become the flagship of the court cases brought against the gate keepers.

  33. Point of order:

    Where’s Griffy? I assumed he would be all over a thread about funding for junk science. Kinda like a polar bear on a ringed seal…

  34. Put John McCain in charge of NASA and ship the two faced loser out with the next one way rocket .
    Has this raging squirrel ever done anything but huff and puff ? He and Bernie should run together … into the sunset .
    What was NASA ever doing in global warming propaganda business anyways ? They have just unraveled all the decades of good work on a carny act clown side show and destroyed NASA ‘s reputation for a pump and dump scheme . By all means keep the BS fudged climate data NASA and take your talents some place else like North Korea to live in your fantasy world . EPA management will be joining you soon .

    • “Put John McCain in charge of NASA and ship the two faced loser out with the next one way rocket .”

      Senator McCain is a vindictive fellow, isn’t he.

      I heard McCain say yesterday that the U.S. needs free press in order to function as a nation. He was being critical of Trump’s calling the MSM “the enemy of the American people”, and saying that shutting down the press was the first stage to dictatorship. Btw, Trump has not suggested that the MSM be shut down, John. He just wants them to stop telling lies. Don’t be so dramatic.

      The disconnect with Senator McCain is Trump is not saying a free press is a danger to the American people, he is saying a Lying press is a danger to the American people, and he is exactly right. At present, we have a MSM that is constantly lying to the American people for partisan political reasons, and is creating a false picture of reality, which confuses a lot of people, inclucing maybe John McCain.

      McCain is acting this way with Trump because he hasn’t gotten over Trump’s slights during the election campaign, plus McCain knows taking this anti-Trump position will get him lots of interviews on all the MSM news programs. He likes seeing himself on tv. He wants the MSM to love him.

      I honor Senator McCain’s Vietnam service, but his behavior lately is doing a disservice to the United States. He is confusing the issues for political/personal gain, or he is confused himself. Either way, he is misleading the American public by taking the positions he does.

      It’s pretty sad when the biggest political obstacle we face are a few Republicans like McCain. We have the Democrats over a barrel, and have to contend with a few rogue Republicans. At any rate, I don’t think McCain, or any of the other rogue Republicans, are going to slow Trump down very much.

      Trump has been in Office one month today. He still doesn’t have all his cabinet in place, thanks to the Democrats stalling tactics. But, that’s about over, too, and Trump can shake off these little impediments and move forward with his agenda.

      • At the risk of inputting a little awareness into Mr. McCain, the ‘first stage to dictatorship’ is CONTROL of the press. Trump has done nothing of the kind. Obama did that. Progressives do that. The collusion of the press – even without WikiLeaks – is currently on display for all to see.
        Trump has not ‘suppressed’ anything – he’s defended himself and called BS on open and even prideful propaganda – specifically and quite correctly calling out the most egregious offenders – who have abused their positions and their rights.
        I giggled my a$$ off when CNN was turned away from CPAC.

  35. I started to compare the 2010 NASA Authorization Act with the 2017 NASA Transition Act. Important to do so to try to unravel what a new NASA Administrator might be able to do. First off, Earth Sciences is described in Section 701 (Title VII) of the 2010 Act. No mention of it, or its subjects, are mentioned in the 2017 Act. The 2017 Act does mention that congress finds (now), via Section 202, that the 2010 Act does “reflect a broad, bipartisan agreement on the path forward for NASA’s core missions in Science….”etc, etc. The 2010 Section 701 mostly emphasizes data collection (ie satellites) and cooperation with both domestic and international science (including climate science). It won’t take much for the new Administrator to take the “reflect a broad..” statement to ease out some specific climate work. The major purpose of the 2017 Act is to emphasize that the ISS needs to transition from primarily a NASA responsibility to being a more junior partner (assuming the ISS is funded at all past 2024). The purpose being to redirect NASA to Mars, hence the name of the 2017 Act. By being silent on Section 701 of the 2010 Act, the Trump Administration will have a lot of leeway going forward, absent even more legislation, as everyone seems to agree that regaining manned space flight capability, and trying for Mars are NASA’s clear going forward objectives.

    • “as everyone seems to agree that regaining manned space flight capability, and trying for Mars are NASA’s clear going forward objectives.”

      Mars is only practical goal, if we can come up with propulsion system that will cut flight time down to a month vs. 9-months. Along with setting up at least two Stop-n-Gos along flight path, and a MacyDees at half-way point. ;)

      • “Mars is only practical goal,”

        To get to that goal we should:

        1. Develop an orbital transfer vehicle that can range from low-Earth orbit to Lunar orbit.

        2. Establish a base on the Moon to produce rocket propellant.

        3. Build artificial gravity (centrifugal force) space stations in the Earth/Moon system to gain experience.

        4. Build artificial-gravity cycling space stations that would be placed in orbits that cycle between the Earth and Mars. See:

        https://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/advocacy/cycling-pathways-to-occupy-mars/

        5. Establish an artificial-gravity space station around Mars.

        6. Look for water ice on Phobos to fuel a Mars exploration program.

        7. Land humans on Mars.

        We must have the ability to operate in the entire Earth/Moon system, and we must to have artificial gravity in space (and radiation protection), before humans can safely explore the great beyond.

        The first step is to get proficient at operating between low-Earth orbit and the Moon. We need a work vehicle that can do lots of things in orbit. How about building an orbital tranfer vehicle and sending it to Hubble to upgrade it.

        One step at a time. Start with the basics.

        Here’s how you build an artificial-gravity space station: Take two space station modules and put one at each end of a cable a mile long; then cause the modules to orbit the common center at one revolution per minute, which creates one Earth-equivalent “gravity” (centrifugal force) inside each of the modules.

      • “Mars is only practical goal,”

        To get to that goal we should:

        1. Develop an orbital transfer vehicle that can range from low-Earth orbit to Lunar orbit.

        2. Establish a base on the Moon to produce rocket propellant.

        3. Build artificial gravity (centrifugal force) space stations in the Earth/Moon system to gain experience.

        4. Build artificial-gravity cycling space stations that would be placed in orbits that cycle between the Earth and Mars. See:

        https://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/advocacy/cycling-pathways-to-occupy-mars/

        5. Establish an artificial-gravity space station around Mars.

        6. Look for water ice on Phobos to fuel a Mars exploration program.

        7. Land humans on Mars.

        We must have the ability to operate in the entire Earth/Moon system, and we must to have artificial gravity in space (and radiation protection), before humans can safely explore the great beyond.

        The first step is to get proficient at operating between low-Earth orbit and the Moon. We need a work vehicle that can do lots of things in orbit. How about building an orbital tranfer vehicle and sending it to Hubble to upgrade it.

        One step at a time. Start with the basics.

        Here’s how you build an artificial-gravity space station: Take two space station modules and put one at each end of a cable a mile long; then cause the modules to orbit the common center at one revolution per minute, which creates one Earth-equivalent “gravity” (centrifugal force) inside each of the modules.

      • I forgot to add my artificial gravity formula for a space station:

        1+1=1

        one mile in diameter, plus one revolution per minute, equals one Earth-equivalent gravity.

        Imagine the wheel-shaped space station in the photo is one mile in diameter. If we spin the wheel at one revolution per minute, then artificial gravity (centrifugal force) will be created on the outside edge of the wheel that is equivalent to one Earth gravity.

        Imagine the wheel-shaped space station is an analog clock seen faceon. You would be moving at the same speed as the second hand on a clock moves around the clockface. A rather leisurely pace. If you want to go slower, increase the diameter. Two miles in diameter requires half that rotation rate to produce one Earth-equivalent gravity.

        The cheap version of the wheel-shaped space station is to use two habitation modules separated by a mile-long cable. You get the same results in the habitation area: One Earth-equivalent gravity.

        This should be a priority for our space program because as the evidence mounts, it is becoming clear that weightlessness is very detrimental to human health. Humans won’t be able to move far into space without artificial gravity.

        Btw, it would have reqired about 100 space shuttle External Tanks to create a one-mile-diameter, wheel-shaped space station like the one seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey. NASA launched 135 space shuttle External Tanks before retiring the shuttle. And threw every one of the External Tanks away. What a waste!

    • NASA needs to explore the oceans with international agreements to launch oceanic satellites geared towards measuring how the oceans cough up or absorb solar energy so that we can mitigate Stadial periods. The entire world suffers when that happens and governments are rearranged.

  36. I bet we’ll have some interesting comments if not outright whistle blowers from NASA personnel about their forced involvement in AGW.

  37. Ethan: Interesting post. The last sentence would be improved by avoiding the meaningless phrase “going forward”, which is totally redundant when using the future tense (or discussing objectives, which of course can only refer to the future). Time to haul out now.

    • Thanks! Was trying to finish before bedtime (yawn)…mouse battery died….poor QA!

      One important addendum to my prior post. The Senate passed 2017 by “Unanimous Consent” (hence my optimistic last statement), but due to vagaries of legislative process, the bill now goes to the House (the bill originally came from the House, but died at year end…the Senate decided to rename and pass to keep it moving). The Senate added no amendments. If the House decides to add further language with respect to the 2010 Section 701 Earth Science, then I expect a few more fire works. But I really think the new Administrator has enough wiggle room with the weak language between the two bills (2010, 2017) wrt Earth Science that they can accomplish much of what they want without getting the contentious Senate involved. Trump seems to be generally pretty good with strategy at to when to fight in public and when to just get things done behind the scenes. I think of it as a really good game of “where’s the ball” under three cups.

  38. Eric Swanson has that dug-in attitude of all frauds. How do we know, -that he knows, -he’s arguing angels dancing on pins?

    He knows of Climategate, and Phil Jones admitting to John Christy, about faking all warming past 1998.

    He knows of Climategate’s immediate aftermath of him demoted and nearly going to jail: telling the truth again, to the BBC, whose reporter’s career Jones was seen trying to REALLY WRECK for TELLING the TRUTH – about that very thing. See BBC Feb 2010 Phil Jones interview for Jones’ dazed and confused, continued lying and squirming even as he admitted that – in fact, as far as he knew, it hadn’t warmed any since 1995.

    He knows of the FEROCIOUS destruction of multiple scientific credibilities’ journals, and scientific adminstrators who tried to protect the journals’ integrity.

    He knows of Hansen being caught claiming there is a 33 degree green house effect: and of it simply being the specific artifact of calculating the temperature of a compressible gas volume, as though it were a solid or liquid: incompressible. He can’t say he doesn’t know, he’s been in and out of here for y.e.a.r.s. with the same, – FAKE -pseudo-scientific spaghetti swirls of worthless so-called ‘data’.

    Data so corrupted that the insiders to the scheme lamented the lack of ability of anyone – anywhere, anyhow, to know the true global temperature – at all – much less to hundredths of a degree far in excess of the actual measuring equipment’s capabilities.

    This is called fake research, when someone goes into an argument of something where – there never was,

    there never will be,

    and never can be,

    any knowing of the actual global temperature to within more than a degree C. It doesn’t take much more than the time it would take for a parent to help their kid doing a paper on distribution of thermal sensors on the earth.

    Everyone in real sensing scientists knows it’s fake to even PRETEND to discuss global tempere somewhere within a degree C. – even more.

    And Eric is pure and simple approaching the bar of discourse with the presumption people are fooled by his bullsh**.

    The surface and sea record aren’t capable of measuring the temperature of the surface anywhere near what is claimed with these hundredths and thousandths of degrees C global temperature variation.

    It’s Bullsh** with a capital Fraudulent intent by someone who obviously has the sense to know if the data are capable or anywhere near it, of approximating real, average global temperature.

    There’s the many many people who have brought out the persistent fraudulent alteration of U.S. data by Cooling the Past, Warming the Present. Then simply tying that directly to CO2.

    There’s no science to that, however much money Eric Swansen has taken in grants for ‘studies’ and ‘research.’

    People still aren’t in awe, nor are the remotely fooled – and never were. We – the public who run this U.S. and the European nations, states, -empires – we know how to recognize the twiddling of fraudulent claims and Eric is simply pretending GISS and for that matter nearly all surface/sea data are accurate.

    It’s despicable and it shouldn’t be allowed, and there still are standards for printing crap, it’s just that the climateers have wiped out standards for anything they’ll print and try to use to manipulate a crowd.

    Although climateers seem like children and have reduced the quality of discourse in the pseudo-science of climate – it’s a grownup world.

    People who are grownups aren’t required to clap our hands when we see fraud. We’re disgusted by it and that’s what any paper on earth is, that claims to assume the average global temperature within a degree C.

    I really mean that and like I said: you don’t have to own a college degree in statistics to tell it’s fake data.

    Fake is, fake. Period. Talking about it is simply barking lies to see who comes to address and discuss them as if they’re real.

    Endorsing it as “scientific” debate is fraudulent if there’s no one checking all the papers for known errors making the discussion far beyond the realm of reality based scientific intercourse.

    The records of the global temperatures are faked. The stations have been culled until they’re shadows of the real temperature aggregation network started by serious men in the 20th century.

      • Tony, both sides see fairies dancing on pinheads (double entendres). Which part (to steal a line from Independence Day).

      • Please Tony, enlighten us, tell us what is wrong about this?

        “He knows of Hansen being caught claiming there is a 33 degree green house effect: and of it simply being the specific artifact of calculating the temperature of a compressible gas volume, as though it were a solid or liquid: incompressible.”

        Please tell us all exactly what is wrong with what E Becker posted on February 19, 2017 at 8:47 pm? I would suggest that you be careful with your reply or you will make a fool of yourself, again.

      • Difference is I can be wrong in 25 words or less.

        For heavens sake Patrick it was a joke to burst his bubble. Anyone splurting out that much vehement, internet froth could do with it. He was wrong about eighteen times I reckon but I can’t be bothered debating someone who froths.
        Btw, I am flattered but I don’t actually need a personal minder.

      • “tony mcleod February 20, 2017 at 1:43 am

        He was wrong about eighteen times I reckon but I can’t be bothered debating someone who froths.”

        Well, please support your claim by identifying those 18 or so wrongs. And then correcting just one, the one I picked out for instance, or any other of your choice. You claim to support the scientific method, so please demonstrate it here. Present information that shows the “18” points wrong. Here’s your chance to prove you have some idea what you are talking about. Simple answer is, you can’t and we know you won’t, you would be wrong and said postie would be very VERY right!

      • “tony mcleod February 20, 2017 at 2:19 am

        Geez Patrick, don’t make me bring out what E Becker got. You wont like it.”

        I am sure E Becker will revel in responding, so go for it.

      • “tony mcleod February 20, 2017 at 2:19 am

        Geez Patrick, don’t make me bring out what E Becker got. You wont like it.”

        Yeah, I didn’t think you had the testicular fortitude to backup your “18” points of wrong.

  39. Folks let’s not fault nefarious motive before we examine the human tendency to see what we believe we will see. Religion requires it. Dictatorships force it. Only republic forms of organization foster individual right of thought. Cling to the right to examine evidence for yourself regardless of who is in charge.

    • To wit, I declare myself hammered! And have reached my limit of puter screens and fffffthththtttttt for the evening per the above mentioned limits. But on second thought I was sober enough to type mini IPAD instead of mini pad in reference to my use of technology. Nother round!!!!

  40. “are remaking NASA in order to leave parts of the agency’s earth science program untouched but remove its climate change research.”

    Complete waste of time. This is proverbial throwing good money after bad and shoveling sand against the tide. NASA is to far gone, it is a lost cause.
    Time to dissolve NASA and start over from scratch. Only NASA people that should be allowed to apply, would be those involved with highly successful Mars Rovers.

    I am a Taxpayer, and I approved of this opinion…
    ;)

  41. Quote: Some areas of the world are not well covered by temperature monitoring stations. There are two ways of handling this, either you ignore those regions when computing the whole, or you use infilling

    There is a third way. Abandon the attempt to manufacture a single number to represent the earth. Instead analyse trends station by station and then focus on patterns which arise out of that.

    Why? Climate is a local phenomenon. Even alarmists have largely given up on the GLOBAL warming thing.

    • “Quote: Some areas of the world are not well covered by temperature monitoring stations. There are two ways of handling this, either you ignore those regions when computing the whole, or you use infilling ”

      NO!!

      There’s a simple third option: you install purpose made temperature stations to get rid of the holes.

      It really is incredible, Americans are talking about the incredibly expensive and risky problem of going to Mars – but they can’t even get their head around the simple & relatively low cost problem of building a truly global network of temperature monitoring stations on earth

  42. It all matters nought, Swanson, your collective subsidy shaped snouts are being forcibly removed from the trough with a blunt axe!

  43. It’s over

    The fat cat corruption boss hog fat lady Climate Change treering fake data sang Irs last out of tune song!

    Go. Home and soak you lying heads ye of the 97% cult!!!

  44. @Ian Macdonald February 19, 2017 at 8:21 pm
    God has always had issues with peer review, anyway.: I guess that was a reason for organising a Son and his Mother. Any dad can tell you, that yakes care of peer review, and how.

  45. Well the proper scientist on climate could have a new office and a secretary and still have very little to occupy the day.
    Spring has truly sprung early here in England.

  46. So NASA will get applause when it details the planetary atmosphere of Mars, Venus or Titan and when it publishes research on how that atmosphere influences the planetary climates…

    But dare to use the exact same science on Earth’s atmosphere and they get sacked?

    • Individual scientists could transfer to NOAA, or cooperate with NOAA scientists to create a multidisciplinary environment. The idea is to avoid duplication of effort.

      The GISS technique could be used within NOAA, and eventually improved using kriging, which in turn can be based on fine grid reanalysis of regions with too few measurement stations.

    • Total buffoonery, as usual.

      You know damn well what the problem with NASA and their fraudulent tampering with the temperature databases is, don’t pretend you don’t.

      Even you can’t be that stupid. Utterly dishonest, clearly; but utterly stupid, not quite.

      Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for deliberately lying about her professional credentials to attempt to discredit her yet, Skanky?

      • A certain polar bear blogger is not an expert on polar bears, according to actual polar bear experts. Representing yourself as an expert when you aren’t and publishing information contrary to the science… is that OK?

        NASA is not lying. No climate scientists are lying and the temperature series are utterly accurate, with legitimate adjustments .

        If the only argument against the science is ‘they are lying’ when there’s no evidence at all of it, then I think that’s a denial of science for political ends.

      • Griff has NEVER backed a single one of his accusations up with fact in his life, and you can bet the farm he never will. He is far and away the most egregious source of misinformation, disinformatiopn and outright lies on a number of climate blogs.

        He is a propagandist for the Renewables industry, posting from a corporate IP during working hours and paid to obfuscate, frustrate, deflect, mislead and attack the scientific qualifications of anyone who threatens the sacred “Consensus” such as DR Susan Crockford and Willie Soon, as a quick inspection of Dr. Crockford’s publishing history and the documented truth about the attack on Dr. Soon will readily demonstrate.

    • “Griff February 20, 2017 at 3:59 am

      So NASA will get applause when it details the planetary atmosphere of Mars, Venus…”

      Already done.

  47. “The GISS temperature series is of historical interest…”

    Why? It is only one day old. They have an algorithm that keeps recalculating the past. As Mark Steyn noted at a Senate hearing, how can you be so certain what the temp will be in 2100 if we don’t know what it will be in 1950?

  48. GISSTEMP doesnt have to transfer anywhere.

    code is there.
    anyone can run it.

    Takes about zero budget from NASA less than 1/4 man year

    • If, as you claim, NASA GISS has so small a climate effort then it makes sense to integrate it into part of a larger org that is focused primarily on climate; like NOAA. NASA is a space mission org.

      John

  49. I think anything with the name Goddard in it should be concerned about rockets, atomic drives, etc. How’s progress on that EM drive? Any news?

  50. NASA to focus on space.
    Boy, here I am, on a board surrounded by scientists, doctors, etc. and all I can come with is ‘Well, Duh!”

  51. Have had the same thought Forrest mentioned above. Simply look at individual surface monitoring stations in isolation and determine localized trends. Flag obvious outlier sites and compare the remainder directly… no corrections, no fantasy infill assumptions. Still would have decent coverage. Surely this has been done?

    • That method is in fact the worse kind of “infilling”

      basically, mathematically, there arent any methods that do “infilling”.. except CRU which does an implicit infilling in areas they dont compute. That is why they have a bias.

      Every other method does prediction.

      • Say what? They predict what the temperature would be if there WAS a station there? Predictions from the National Weather Service and Wunderground are usually wrong for the area I live in and we have weather stations!

      • “That method is in fact the worse kind of “infilling””

        You mean unlike “making stuff up” it doesn’t cool the past and warm the future, hence it doesn’t support the AGW scam and as a result, will put you and your ilk out of business?

  52. My thought was to simply ignore all non measured input with the expectation changes in regional temperature anomaly be largely reflected in individual profiles. From browsing here and elsewhere I was under the assumption infilling was common to global surface estimates because of paucity of coverage. Will have to dig deeper. By prediction do you mean prediction for non measured sites?

  53. My thought was to simply ignore all non measured input with the expectation changes in regional temperature anomaly be largely reflected in individual profiles. From browsing here and elsewhere I was under the assumption infilling was common to global surface estimates because of paucity of coverage. Will have to dig deeper. By prediction do you mean prediction for non measured sites?

  54. ”’their” nonsense that the planet radiates to space at 255k, the average temperature of the whole earth system’s long wave radiation a fraction of which is temporarily held up at the speed of light in the earths system, thus warming it, is laughable,.

    Since when did a surface with an average temperature of -18c .i.e. the atmosphere, warm a surface below it radiating at +15c average along it whole lenght,….

    Infact how can any molecule operating at a lower frequency add and frequency to any higher frequency molecule below it in a gas column of the atmosphere,……it doesn’t, it is simply reflected or deflected, take your pick,……it certainly isnt absorbed,…..cold doesnt heat warm,…..

  55. Apologies.

    Infact how can any molecule operating at a lower frequency add any frequency [work] to higher frequency molecule [warmer] below it in a gas column of the atmosphere,……it doesn’t, it is simply reflected or deflected, take your pick,……it certainly isn’t absorbed,…..cold doesn’t heat warm,…..

Comments are closed.