Climate Data: Top Secret!
The chief British Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Hadley has begun to eliminate the daily temperature records from its public websites.
Yes — the daily high in London is now a state secret!
Actually, this disappearance of temperature records has been going on for some time — not only in Britain, but also in the United States. Why would American and British climate “scientists” not want outside scientists to see the raw data upon which their predictions of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are based?
Why would Bernie Madoff not want outside accountants to see his day-to-day “earnings” data?
The raw temperature data is bad news for AGW. The United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has in the past provided the raw data from the temperature-taking stations in the U.S. Here is a graph of their raw data:
Not much global warming evident in the raw data, is there? This data set was originally available from a NASA website based at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, but the data disappeared some time ago. Fortunately, the raw data set was archived by a Tasmanian(!), John Daly. The Australian Michael Hammer has analyzed this raw U.S. data. If the above data is smoothed over five years, the result is this:
Once again, not much global warming is present (vertical axis is degrees Fahrenheit.) As Hammer points out, one can make it appear that there has been some global warming by fitting the data to a line, which is shown in red. But if one wants to believe that there was a rise in temperature early in the twentieth century, followed by a decrease late in the century, one can make this appear by fitting the data to a parabola, which is shown in green. The latter belief is obviously more plausible than the former, given the pictured raw data, because the high temperature 1930s is clear even to the untrained eye.
To obtain global warming, the believers in AGW at GISS add “corrections” to the raw data pictured above, obtaining the following five-year smoothed graph:
Wow! Clearly there has been enormous global warming during the past century! Myself, I would say that the “warming” is in the “corrections” to the data, and not in reality.
But if the raw data is declared a state secret, and not shown to those scientists like myself who are not supported by government climatology grants, then no one can question graphs “proving” global warming.
We can compare the above graphs with the latest raw data for the average temperature for the lower atmosphere of the entire Earth, measured by U.S. satellites, and recorded by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH):
Once again, there is not much global warming in the raw data. Once again, a linear fit to the data would show a slight upward trend. Or one could model the data by a flat line from 1979 to 1998, followed by a huge jump up in 1998, followed by a straight-line decrease since 1998. The very fact that there are equally plausible alternative ways to model the raw data — most alternatives being inconsistent with global warming — is another reason why those climatologists who believe in AGW want to perform a disappearing act on the raw data.
Create a crisis and profit from it.
Al Gore is going to and already has profited greatly from it.
All a person has to do is investigate the financial connections involved between Al and say Goldman Sachs and the various Law firms involved and select members of our government…
Follow The Money. It never lies….
I’ll leave with a now famous quote.
“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Rahm Emanuel
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
Check this site for global temperatures tracking solar activity.
Stop confusing me with facts! I already had my mind made up…:)
Who do these guys think they are withholding information like this only the Obamanation is allowed to keep all information about himself secret. You will be telling us next we are ‘AGW CONSPIRACY NUTS” how dare we ask for information. Lets just bow down and worship at the Green NAZI shrine you know that one its next to the LIAR Messiah shrine.
I am a chemist in the pharmaceutical industry. Lets do a mental experiment. Think of an open box with a sold bottom. In this box we will place the fallowing.
For the Ocean:
10,000 molecules of water.
For the atmosphere:
7,907 molecules of Nitrogen.
2,000 molecules of Oxygen.
90 molecules of Argon.
3 molecules of Carbon Dioxide.
Into this box we will shine sun light for 12h on and 12h off.
The Global warming con-artists will tell you if add 1 more molecule of Carbon Dioxide to this system the Heat Capacity will go up 5 degrees F. It’s painful how much money we have put into this lie already.
Any scientist who will not release his data is no scientist at all. It is not like anyone else is going to use this data to make millions and millions. Oh wait, they are. Al Gore would loose millions if the data could be independently assessed and scientist who get years of research grants if global warming doesn’t go away.
It is “follow the money”. Just as it was with the mafia.
Receptionist: Open Society Institute. How may I direct your call?
Boris: Hello, this is Comrade Boris, Level 3 troll, Global Warming Advocacy, Sector PajamasMedia. It’s getting more and more difficult to coherently spin data and string together appropriate platitudes and fallacies. I’m formally requesting assistance from the Big Man!
Recepionist: Hold please.
(cue muzak version of “The Girl from Ipanema)
“Any scientist who will not release his data is no scientist at all.”
That is absolutely correct. Scientists should eagerly seek valid criticisms of their work. They are obligated to provide the tentative results of their efforts for further review. And if these individuals refuse—you know that they are ideologues and not practitioners of the hard sciences.
This is not for the faint of heart, but here’s McIntyre’s blog:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
The issues involved are about 5 levels above the Boris’ of the world, but if you have the time and the patience, you can get a sense of the maddening games that go on. For example, the esoteric debates about end-point treatment of wavelet filters.
This is the mathematical equivalent of cardsharking. Jones (of the UK), however made the mistake of tipping his entire hand a while back with this quote:
Oops…
Where did we ever get the idea that we are smart enough to ‘correct’ for the changes in our climate? Correct what and accomplish what? This environmental religion is only for the basically stupid.
There is only one way to validate these calculations by prof Tipler: He can submit them to a scientific journal and see if they withstand peer review. Since none of his publications in the last 10 years (checked the publication database) is within the area of climate change, I am sure that his contribution will be welcomed, should it be found scientifically correct. If not, this is just another blog
Petroleum is made up of the decay of plant/animal matter over millions of years.
We burn it for power. An effect is the release of more CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 is FOOD for plants. It’s beautiful.
The CIRCLE OF LIFE.
Norman: if Paul Krugman — an economist, for goodness sake — can yap rhapsodic in the editorial pages of the NY Times about climate change and “treason against the planet”, then Professor Tipler — who is an *actual* scientist with a long list of peer-reviewed papers — has every right to make the counterpoint for the general public on PJM.
Condemning Tipler for not being a climatologist while letting an economist get away with wild allegations of “treason against the planet” seems downright silly.
Why don’t you post your concerns about credentials to Dr. Krugman’s blog?
Every morning I walk into my greenhouse and emit greenhouse gases. The tomato plants love it.
Normann:
Perhaps if you re-read the article, you might have a clue why the house publications of the AGW industry contain no dissenting opinions. You know bloody well that the outcome of ‘peer review’ depends entirely on the editors’ choice of reviewers. And so the circle-jerk goes, especially when the editors are more idealogues than scientists.
You might be interested to note that the rank and file membership of the American Chemical Society are revolting aginst the “crush dissent” regime, even demanding editorial resignation: http://84rules.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/american-chemical-society-revolts-against-their-editor-in-chief/
Meanwhile, faced with the threat of a similar revolt, the American Physical Society has backed off from the Gorean “the debate is over” to “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”
Let’s turn your argument around- let’s have Mann, Hansen, Jones et al submit their *raw data* for peer review. Better yet, let’s include reviewers who are statisticians, geologists, glaciologists, dendrochronologists and experts in all the other fields into which the Warmists have blundered, making freshman mistakes- and not limit the pool to self-identified “climatologists”- the chosen label of the AGW clergy.
The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise.
FWIW, Hansen isn’t a climatologist. AFAIK, none of his minions at GISS/realclimate are, either. And neither is Mann (of “hockey stick” fame).
We have a new temperature/CO2 chart up at our site that indicates why alarmists don’t like having this type of data in the sunlight.
Here’s chart: http://www.c3headlines.com
The UK hide-the-data affair is a sure sign that fraud has happened. The UK climate modelers do not want their data scrutinized as the exposed data manipulation and “adjustments” would devastate the climate alarmist claims.
C3H Editor
17. Calvan, if you want to look up some of the ‘scientists’ on the swampies many lists yuo will find no scientoists at all.
What you will find are bureaucrats or teachers with advanced degrees in a scientific field.
Strictly speaking, they are not scientists.
Junk science is the popular term.
Climate Change is a constant process. It has been happening every day for the last few BILLION years. Any one that thinks they can stop OR control this process is insane. Instead of looking inside for the source and cure of their problem, they choose to blame others.
Daniel Hannan, in his blog over at http://www.hannan.co.uk recently wrote about the lack of credibility that Britain’s meteorological office has The entry is: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100005434/the-met-office-has-lost-its-authority-on-global-warming/. This says two things: 1 – Hannan’s opponents or enemies fear him. 2 – He is the one setting the pace regarding what alternative Great Britain has to the social democratic policies of Gordon Brown and his fellow travellers.
David Thomson, you are so right about those who purport to be scientists are not scientists.
It ties in with “Check the Numbers” by Ross McKitrick and Bruce C. McCullough, that has been posted by yours truly at different times here at pjm.
Frankly, it is like one of the last statements made by a politician in the Canadian House of Commons a while back, when he said of the government of that day that it treats ethics like vultures circling around a dying calf. That is what the AGM crowd is about.
“It’s getting more and more difficult to coherently spin data and string together appropriate platitudes and fallacies.”
Lol, yes, it’s so difficult!
“To obtain global warming, the believers in AGW at GISS add “corrections” to the raw data pictured above, obtaining the following five-year smoothed graph”
Yes, the only difference between the two graphs are “corrections.” Or it could be that one is US data and the other is world data.
what if aumann’s computers have gamed global warming out, and israelis believe global warming’s the real deal?
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/9892/israeltopo10aug09.jpg
The author is correct about the misuse of scientific opinion. With pick-and-choose data as the basis for legislation, destructive political agendas can be advanced regardless of merit or consequence. Consider this climate data that an EPA employee claims is being ignored by his bosses. I printed this up weeks ago and took it to work for others to see.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf
This climate data endangers the passage of Waxman-Markey and CO2 regulation. By suppressing it, the EPA reveals its political nature, and without honest debate, takes sides.
If that’s not enough to raise your hackles, here’s a link to an economic analysis of the “cap-and-trade” bill by some smart people who actually read it. Print this up and get it out there.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/CDA_09-041.pdf
There are ways to proceed towards clean energy that do not entail the hardship, debt, and inequality that Waxman-Markey will bring. Why are Republican alternatives not being debated? Are we becoming a totalitarian country now that Democrats control the federal government? FIGHT!
Ok, Boris. So the world got warmer but the US didn’t? Or the US got warmer and the world didn’t? Please enlighten.
Thanks for the chuckle, wad. That’s…pretty amazing that someone spent that much time on a photo in support of an antisemitic conspiracy theory like that. Did you get that from David Duke?
what’s antisemitic about israel needing high ground if global warming turns out to be the real thing?
but the most immediate threat is peak oil…
so israel has to be secured before its american protector runs out of gas.
http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/1605/oildollar29jun09.jpg
Oh, I get it. Sharon got out of Gaza because it’s toast, anyway. Sharon already knew. And the West Bank is high ground, so they want that. And Jerusalem. But Tel aviv is going away, so they need to build a new major city somewhere higher. That’s why they want to build all that Jewish housing in east Jerusalem. Because Sharon was in the know. He just knew that Gore was underestimating sea level rise, and it’s going up 250′.
Little do those fools in Dubai realize that all that construction is for naught. And those dumb Russians who built that naval base in Tartus. And those ignorant Chinese with all of that underwater real estate in Hong Kong and Shanghai.
Wow. Sometimes it all just comes together. I should have known that when the Jews do something, it’s got to be for a hidden reason. Thanks, dude. My eyes are open, now.
NOT!
I just figured it out. We’ll all know that AGW is real when the Jews start building lots of housing in Nazareth. You heard it here first…
Here’s a link to show how much CO2 is man made and that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
calvin,
do you think people with a supposed 4000-year history, access to the most powerful computers in the world, and nobel-caliber theorists (who have apparently abandoned their morals) are limiting their risk assessments and plans to the next five years?
Only at PJM could a thread on AGW end up getting derailed by an antisemitic conspiracy. Beam me up, Roger! It’s time for me to collect my Zionist conspiracy check, and go enjoy the girls and the beer in Tel aviv while I still can.
We are currently in an inter-glacial period that has rapid and wide swings of climate within a narrow band of same. Just like every other inter-glacial period we have had in the Tertiary and Quatenary. Why people go on about this is really beyond me, and those proposing ‘global warming’ models cannot even replicate past climate with given data from those periods… which points out that the models are not robust nor well founded. Thus, more research is needed, and more data, and more work. Lots more work. That work does not get done at symposia or publishing articles in Time magazine, but out in the field by those who study climate. Those folks called ‘geologists’. If you want to talk about weather, you talk to a meteorologist. If you want to talk about climate you go to the people who have hundreds of millions of years of data.
A bit on ‘scientific socialists’: having grown up with a mother and father who were followers of that ideology and attending party meetings and conferences of a party of same, I have just a little experience of that outlook from age 5-20 or so.
The scientific socialists are those who actually believe that Marx had it right and that capitalism has good ends to do in promoting education, productivity and establishing a basis for productive wealth. What happens is that the concentration of wealth, in the final industrial period, then will bring a change in society that will establish the worker as the new basis for control of the economy. Thus scientific socialists of this pure breed do NOT march for social causes as anything that ameliorates capitalism means it will last longer… so a good socialist follows the teachings of Marx and supports the capitalist system so its day can be brought to an end much faster. Marx, himself, supported the North in the Civil War for just that reason: it would spread industrialization and remove the older, and inefficient agrarian system, but lay the groundwork for its own destruction as it spread capital further so as to teach the basics of what is required to work in an industrial society.
Of course the scientific socialists never do the backwards resolving to see what the preconditions for that final end time are… because the moment you do that, you realize that Marx really did get some things drastically wrong. Its the old Theory and Practice Conundrum at work.
Still, if you want a consistent and thorough-going approach to socialism, it is scientific socialism. Haven’t been in contact with them for a couple of decades, but wouldn’t surprise me to see them attacking the modern Left for retarding the spread of capitalism so that it can bring its own demise about. Global warming would just be one more factor of that end time coming, and who would want to stop that happy day from arriving?
one of doc aumann’s nobel-winning theories is: you can tell what people know by watching their actions.
too bad that israeli knowledge of global warming and peak oil would explain so much.
34, that’s essentially the difference between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks won. He even said so.
The real irony of Soviet history is that the USSR fell for precisely the reason stated by Marx. The Bolsheviks weren’t true Marxists. In that sense, the current crop of American and European left shouldn’t be called Marxist, either. They’re Bolsheviks. They’ll eventually fail, but they’ll do huge damage in the process.
“Ok, Boris. So the world got warmer but the US didn’t? Or the US got warmer and the world didn’t? Please enlighten.”
The US hasn’t warmed as much as the rest of the world. But look at the GISS graph for US temperatures for yourself:
http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/globcat/globwarm/US%20temps.gif
Not nearly as different as this horrendous PJM post would have you believe.
And sure, there are differences from the raw data. But the raw data has known issues. The biggest difference is the time of observation adjustment, which is well described in the literature. Of course, no one makes an argument for why the TOBS adjustment might be wrong, they just claim the data has been mysteriously “fudged” and then whine about conspiracies.
Funny, I had noticed this a while back. A month ago, I was trying to find measured temperature data on the NOAA website. I use to be able to find it a few years ago though it was a bit buried. I gave up. Then last week I tried again. I could not even find the data for a few hours back. BTW, My speciality is instrumentation and test data analysis. I told my room mates that I was pretty certain that this information was being deliberately obfuscated. I guess I was right. Scary!
“The most open and transparent government ever.”
Here’s the NOAA temperature data: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs The numbers are definitely “corrected” according to the readme file. Comment #18 from C3H editor says that the corrections are innocent and that we (and Professor Tipler) are reading too much into the corrections. But Tipler’s point still stands: where is the raw data, and why — oh why — can’t anyone outside of the state apparatus SEE the raw numbers? Why do we have to take the government’s word for it that the adjusted data is not skewed to effect the outcome?
Just asking.
Dr Tipler – excellent summary of the problem with science today (really, hasn’t it always been this way?)
I received a Masters degree from Tulane in the late nineties and took two semesters of graduate level mathematical physics – it would be cool if Dr Tipler was the professor. Whomever it was, I remember he was a really good teacher. This was right at the time that Tulane was switching to become a “research” university.
By the way,
wad: “you can tell what people know by watching their actions”
– We can tell that you know it’s time for your meds.
I’m sorry, but this AGW theory continues to be an absolute riot. And I understand the way this sounds, but you really don’t even have to be a scientist to understand it.
Anyone anywhere who has ever functioned in an oversight role — and particularly people who have functioned in both an oversight as well as an overseen role — understands that refusal to provide data always indicates deception, incompetence, or both — and never indicates anything else. Additionally, it is always true that following the money leads you to the source. Indeed as our first poster noted, the money never lies. Those two theories are even more solid than evolution, my friends.
There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who want to arrive at truth, and those for whom it is more important that they be judged right. You can’t belong to both, and you can spot them very very easily. The former prefer that all data be known for the sake of truth (and perhaps truth that they haven’t thought of first), the latter only want such data known as can be made to support what they think is correct. Most great human minds belong to the former. I won’t bother with which of the two categories most mediocre human minds belong to. By definition, data is not withheld by any who seek truth.
Also, I just have to say that it’s sublime comedy when I read appeals to authority — if the layman can’t understand it, it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. I say nay. The layman can be made to understand practically anything that is explainable, from basic math to derivatives. All of science is based on the availability of data and arguments about what that data means. Anyone who withholds data is not a scientist.
Last, I have seen the way public grants function. It is absolutely true that those spending scientific grant money are pre-screened to reach appropriate conclusions. Read some available grants and you’ll see what I mean. Policymakers always determine their own conclusions and then deploy public funds in support of them, because that is what allows them to take credit for “accomplishments” and earn higher and/or longer office.
I did some digging around and found this:
http://www.co2science.org/data/ushcn/ushcn.php
It looks to be a pretty complete set of raw temperature data for the US. Assuming this data represents actual measurements, it still needs to be accompanied by calibration and measurement uncertainty information to be really useful. I read somewhere that the accuracy of most stations is something like +/-2 degrees, YIKES!
How about sloppiness? Most people over at CA tend to think that in most cases it’s that their data and code, that backs up their reports that these various government agencies pay six figures for, are ratsnests that would embarrass a junior high programming student.
The exception is Mann. He can’t be embarrassed, because he’s shameless.
It is excellent to see some light being shed on the climate change hoax. I have had grown men on the golf course, men older than I, seemingly reasonable, take exception to my jokes re global warming and descend into lecture mode about temperature trends even while standing in Nebraska, in August, with the temperature barely breaking 70. They both use narrative comparisons of snowfall levels back in their “day” versus today. Yawn. Personal yarns do not a sample make. Payback will be sweet.
How’s this for timing? I say that Mann has no shame, and right on cue, he does it again:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6811
Kinda neat; citing your own work in a circular fashion, like that.
@ Norman
I rather think that the theory of global warming is correct, but I am open to the criticism of the theory. However weather science is not my discipline so for me that is not a vital question – vital academically – whether the theory is correct or not. However for many people it is vital – academically, professionally, politically or monetarily.
Yes, the submission to scientific journal would be nice. But there is one question – who are the people doing peer review? If they have staked their reputation on the correctness of theory of global warming they may reject the submitted article, even if all the data and calculations in the article are right. They might object to the conclusion. Science is littered by initial rejections of theories which contradicted majority view, particularly if the author was from another area of science.
So it is difficult to say who is correct, particularly if the raw data and algorithm used by original scientists is now secret.
Check out this great website: http://www.wolframalpha.com/ You can write in any place on Earth and then it will show you the graph with its weather history up to thirty years back. Wanna guess the results…?
Example: Prague weather history and then select ALL.
The data set that was at the NASA (GISS) site (per Professor Tipler’s article) is still available at:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html#tempdata
There also links to a good many data files. Although I did not see any that indicated raw data. Also note the site has not been updated since May 2008 and the data files apparently only run through 2006. They must still be working on those to get a good result.
I’d also like to attach the following paragraph – which made me laugh and wince at the same time (this data is so adjusted it would seem impossible to get anything real out of it):
===============================
Applying the Time of Observation adjustment (black line) resulted in approximately a 0.3F warming from the late 1960′s to the 1990′s. The shift from Cotton Region Shelters to the Maximum/Minimum Thermometer System in the mid-1980′s is clearly evident in the difference between the TOBS and the MMTS time series (red line). This adjustment created a small warming in the US annual time series during the mid to late 1980′s. Application of the Station History Adjustment Procedure (yellow line) resulted in an average increase in US temperatures, especially from 1950 to 1980. During this time, many sites were relocated from city locations to airports and from roof tops to grassy areas. This often resulted in cooler readings than were observed at the previous sites. When adjustments were applied to correct for these artificial changes, average US temperature anomalies were cooler in the first half of the 20th century and effectively warmed throughout the later half. Filling in missing data (blue line) produced cooler temperatures prior to 1915. Adjustments to account for warming due to the effects of urbanization (purple line) cooled the time series an average of 0.1F throughout the period of record.
====================
Having the raw data would be a good start, however there are at least a couple of facts still to consider.
- Some of the weather stations were (and still may be) near artificial heat sources.
- I understand when the USSR fell apart there were periods where that data was not available, thus skewing the average global numbers warmer.
Mark Twain noted there were 3 kinds of lies:
white, damn, and statistics.