Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU
In a response to reporter Doyle Rice of USA Today, Dr. Reto Ruedy — a senior scientist at NASA — recommended the following:
Continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and Phil Jones’ [HADCRU3] data for the global means. …
We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70s and early 80s. …
Now we happily combine NCDC’s and Hadley Center data to … evaluate our model results.
This response was extended later the same day by Dr. James Hansen — the head of NASA GISS:
[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. …
It should be noted that the different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise.
Two implications of these emails: The data to which Phil Jones referred to as “independent” was not — it was being “corrected” and reused among various climate science groups, and the independence of the results was no longer assured; and the NASA GISS data was of lower quality than Jones’ embattled CRU data.
The NCDC GHCN dataset mentioned in the Ruedy email has also been called into question by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. D’Aleo and Watts showed in a January 2010 report that changes in available measurement sites and the selection criteria involved in “homogenizing” the GHCN climate data raised serious questions about the usefulness of that dataset as well.
These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.
EnvironMentalist are invariably people that want Others to use less energy!
If Obama/Gore really believed global warming, they would talk non stop about lowering speed limits to 50 and demand that Americans stop jack rabbit starts and stop racing to lights that are red.
Virtually no Americans believe it either; just look at the fuel wasting driving habits; that also fund the other sides war against us! If you believe the hurricane may kill you/your family: you leave. The driving habits proves no one believes it.
Post the data showing the randomly selected locations where temperature and snow pack are documented for 1 million years and that will tell the tale. Select locations that meet your agenda: liars figure but figures do not lie!
Earth wobble, sun spots, ocean currents/temperature, volcanoes, solar storms/winds et al;
The congress/press are selling a scam, for profit, not seen since the middle ages; The cap and trade scam is a variation of the “indulgences scam” used, among other things, to man the crusades/get bad people to go somewhere else!
Charlie–thanks for the heads up. Its interesting to see the already discredited CRU dataset to be considered “superior” to the NASA GHCN dataset. The leap of faith taken with the extrapolation from one measurement station (?) to an area of 1200km surrounding is absurd. That is a study limitation which, when discussed and peer reviewed properly, would encourage a reader to take the results from that region with an awful big grain of salt.
Great job.
So do the Japanese have an FOIA?
This begins the movement of Hansen from “fanatic” to “felon” as many suspected.
He has slid by with his crazy pronouncements that actually shielded him by a portion of the population (those with measurable intellect) more or less writing him off as a neo-religious freak. As time goes by he becomes more like Bernie Madoff than Al Gore whose intellect is why God invented negative numbers.
….but will NASA throw him under the bus given their loss of funding and the Socialist occupant in the White House that wants to use this for his own agenda?
You are confusing the East Anglia CRU with the Hadley Centre — these are two separate institutions physically removed from each other. They work together at times, but so do often all the main climate research institutions. Science research is kind of funny like that at times. And there are many different ways to measure temperatures on both the global level and historically, and these are often combined depending on their strengths and weaknesses.
“We extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km (750 miles).”
Even in the polar regions, that’s a very long distance to cover while assuming that conditions are the same, or even similar.
In the Arctic, it’s roughly the distance from Point Barrow, Alaska to Cape Prince Alfred, on the northern end of Banks Island, on the opposite side of the Beaufort Sea.
In Antarctica, it’s slightly less than the distance from Little America on the outer edge of the Ross Ice Shelf to Amundsen/Scott Station at the South Pole itself.
If someone told me they expected conditions to be even approximately the same at two such widely divergent points anywhere else on the globe, I’d tell them they needed to actually check both locations.
This looks to me (from a professional standpoint) as just another case of trying to “make the data fit the theory”- even if they have to make the data up out of whole cloth. Which increasingly looks like the definition of the SOP of all these “climate research” groups.
I believe that we now need a complete bottom-to-top review of NASA’s climate research, especially since the President wants to basically take NASA out of the space exploration business and turn it into a propaganda arm of the deep-ecology movement (as NOAA has been almost from the outset).
If we’re going to be wasting tax money on spurious “studies” intended to convince us that (a) our civilization is evil and (b) our only hope for “spiritual salvation” is its destruction, we at least should get a precis’ of exactly how they intend to lie to us to achieve this supposedly laudable goal.
clear ether
eon
So BC what are you saying?
Are you admittng that they all used corrupt data sets? That there was no real peer review because they all used the same data with essentially no control data, no independent data sets and no opportunity to review raw data sets? That there was no collaboration between CRU and other data collection centers?
Please inform us skeptics.
The first link seems busted. That would seem important.
“And there are many different ways to measure temperatures on both the global level and historically”
So how come the only one used is to write bogus code that corrupts the data to conform to the pseudo-scientists’ preconceived notions?
I’m with #4 – when does this get to criminal fraud and misappropriation? I want to see Al Gore in the cell next to Bernie Madoff.
Thanks very much for this extremely informative article.
The question of the “independence” of the data sets is an important one, but to date I have not seen the mainstream media address it.
Isn’t that a surprisingly subdued, mealy-mouthed, and off-topic rationalization from BC ? Maybe it is dawning on him that the jig is up.
I can’t wait to see Hansen, Gore and Jones frog-marched into prison for fraud.
another content-free post from bc…
Yeah, if they’re strong on facilitating the Glowbull Worming they’re good.
Thank God we have an FOIA!
“[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not.”
So here in VA, I can extrapolate what the temp is in Chicago and say that I’m correct even though my friends in NY and CO arrived at a different temperature.
“There are only four climate datasets available. All global warming study, such as the reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), must be based on these four.”
That should read “four surface-station datasets.” There are in addition the two satellite datasets, UAH and RSS. Interesting that GISS, a division of NASA, ignores the satellite data. (They claim they use it in their fraudulent “adjustments” to the surface data, and as usual they’re lying).
_______________
BC you ignorant slut:
The HadCRUt data set is a composite: Hadley does the oceans and UEA/CRU the land temperatures.
“Garbage in, garbage out” (GIGO): There is not now, and never has been, a grain of truth, common sense, or even objective rationality in these Luddite sociopaths’ obsessive propaganda efforts to sabotage, subvert, global energy economies. Anyone from Schmidt’s suppurating vipers nest on down who denies this penultimate reality [intended] should join the Green Gang of Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. on Devil’s Island at prosecutors’ earliest convenience.
As Monckton says, peculating junk-”scientists” cannot indefinitely escape the consequences of their death-eating, homicidal sedition. Now as the Holocene Interglacial Epoch peters out, there will be blood.
Jay, “Indulgences scam” You nailed and encapsulated the whole argument for me. The lack of evidence that is Empirical needed for true science is the question. When little to no evidence exists, but there is a belief that it is happening, and we are to blame, to include making all things proof to the existence of warming is called faith and religion. Not science. So the religion scam is “Pay an indulgence” Cap and Trade.
In my mind this means that we have reverted to earth worship with earth being god, and we work through the “Church of Government” to conduct our religious service and sacrifice, conducted by the pope Obama and the choir congress and senate pass the collection plate (Tax).
Answers my question as to why a human would believe something that has so many holes and lies. It is about faith and religion and the human need for myth as Campbell tells us. Look out Art Bell, your night radio program slot will soon have competition for “Hot Air” time… 4.6 Billion years the earth has been here, and only taking a small amount of time to average into a computer model is self serving and not science.
“They work together at times, but so do often all the main climate research institutions.”
Indeed. But if there is truly an abundance of other evidence supporting AGW, irrespective of Prof. Jones’ seriously compromised piece of work, I have long wondered why he would do it. Why would Jones promote his questionable research if he knew fully well that his work might undermine the credibility of the research of other institutions without making a meaningful contribution?
The only two possibilities I can think of is that either:
A. He is the climate science equivalent of a rogue trader. or
B. He doubts the validity of the work of the other institutions.
Charlie – Viscount Lord Monckton was on to this a while ago. I think, that based on Anthony Watts’ work and Joe D’Aleo’s work, the problem is much worse than anybody wants to admit: there do not appear to be any reliable data at this moment. Hence, we do not know whether the earth is cooling, warming or neither, and hence we cannot know if there is anything to AGW. As of now, I would haveto say that the whole AGW thing seems to be a tissue of lies based on someone’s love of Gaia hatred of civilization. Now if we could only communicate that to our POTUS who said that they would follow the science and not the politics.
Gives new meaning to the phrase “circle jerking,” doesn’t it?
Way to point out the obvious, and totally miss the import, BC.
“often combined depending on the strengths and weaknesses”
With the ‘weaknesses’ being, as the warmist zealots considered it to be, a lack of support for their pet theory. So they diluted, manipulated, intermingled, and then ‘homogenized’ the numbers (in other words, tortured, or, if you prefer ‘waterboarded’ the data), until it screamed what they wanted it to say.
Now head off to your corner, repeat 500 hail Hansens, and take cold comfort in your religious beliefs.
BC:
More warmist dribble. Your god is dead. He has been caught in a scandal that has cost the world trillions of dollars and god (My God) only knows how many lives. Do us all a favor and climb back under your rock.
It’s all about money. Gorebologists receiving millions of dollars in government funding aren’t likely to employ data unsupportive of the very programs that pay their salaries. Human nature #101, right? (Or what passes for it in this day and age ..)
Charlie Martin, Oh dear, oh dear.
Your claim that top climate scientists at NASA plural held this view is false, whereas it was only Reto Ruedy. In fact Hansen disagreed with Ruedy, a fact which is contrary to the impression you gave, an impression aided by your omitting of relevant parts of Hansen’s email.
Here is Hansen’s email, the parts you cut are highlighted in bold;
And you also cut the following;
Did you think no-one would check?
I know why they can not use the data from NASA. I know some who was into global warming research. This person told me that the reason that NASA has poor data is that the weather satelite was not calibrated right and was not giving out the proper temperature data. This person was put in charge of global warming research by TVA and went to several conferences on global warming and when he went to a conference in Birmingham, AL he said that a representative from Redstone Arsenel, who builds the weather satelites, came into the conference furious with NASA because the weather satelite was not calibrated by NASA right.
I don’t see anything shocking here, we all know that over the years NASA has become more a political than a scientific organization. They prostituted themselves for more and more money and in doing so they lost track of the primary goals.
#5 BC: you’re mistaken. UEA’s CRU is Distinct from the Hadley Met office, but the data set is produced by the CRU.
#8 TigerHawk: The link works for me. It’s a PDF file, though.
#17 Bohemond: Yes, absolutely correct.
#21 Jack: Yes, absolutely. What’s interesting to me about this one is that Chris Horner uncovered an email set that appears to be confirming D’Aleo and Watts, and Pielke Sr.
#26 Lazar: Did you think no-one would check? Of course, and that’s why I made a point to link the PDF file. Twice.
#27 Jill: I’ve heard the same thing, but this is the surface data set rather than the satellite set, as Bohemond pointed out. NASA GISS originally built their data set from NOAA data and other meteorological sources.
so when do we see criminal indictments ?
response to lazar and others like him. just becasue Hansen says the data is complete and better does not mean anything. he tried to hide for years his false info about temps until someone proved he lied. Hansen had to admit he lied. he has supported Gore and his lies for years. he has operated outside of the rules of a federal employee and NASA has allowed it. they probably supported him since they used numbers he developed which others have proven were lies.
it is very simple. there is nothing Hansen and the others like Jones would not say or do, so their lies create laws to take away our freedom. we can trust anything he says. you can not show to the numbers guys facts to prove temps are higher than the middle ages. one year in 2005 means nothing. a few years ago they tried to scare us with temps of 1998 now it is 2005. it is all lies and most people now understand these facts.
I find it rather amusing that the obvious acronym for Climate Research Unit Data is: C.R.U.D.
This all boils down to one question.
There were serious and glaring errors made in data gathering, interpretations and predictions. How is it that EVERY SINGLE error came down on the side of AGW? The odds of that being a random occurence is practically an impossibility.
“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”
How many billions of taxpayer dollars have been poured down this rat hole and when does the RICO case start? NASA and many, many, others admit in their own emails that they’re conspiring to further their agenda in spite of their knowing it was a lie. To call their agenda anything other than criminal fraud on a grand scale is to aid and abet them in avoiding the consequences of their actions.
Regards
You mention there are just 4 data sets. These may be the only surface readings, but there are at least two additional data sets based on satellite measurements (RSS and UAH).
When do we string up Gore and the rest of these flim-flam-snake-oil-salesmen.These people are criminals and nothing more and deserve nothig less.
Charlie Martin,
It’s increasingly apparent that you don’t have a clue. There are two categories of datasets; the output datasets of global temperature analyses such as NASA GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NOAA NCDC, and their meteorological weather station inputs. Since there are only a fixed number of weather station records, and the groups use as many as time and resources will allow for constructing global and regional averages, the input datasets are by and large common between the groups. In other words, the input data is ‘not independent’, and was never claimed to be otherwise by any of the groups. The output datasets are constructed using different methodologies by the different groups, in which sense those analyses and their outputs are largely methodologically independent. Now the fact that these different groups apply “corrections” (“extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km”) to the raw data, compare their product to the products of other groups (“to try to understand different conclusions when they arise” — the fact that “different conlusions” arise should immediately tell you that they are to some extent independent), and use the products of other groups in further work such as testing GCMs (“we happily combine NCDC’s and Hadley Center data to [...] evaluate our model results”), has nothing to do with the common scientific notion of independence, nor the way in which Phil Jones was likely using the term. In a similar vein, the satellite analyses of UAH and RSS are commonly called independent, as they are ceated by different groups using different methodologies, but use the same input data (same measurements from the same satellites).
You guys are so, so friggin confused by all this. There are multiple, multiple datasets and pretty much all of them are either shared or collaboratively put together. Hadley works with East Anglia on some stuff, but not always. If there was anything remotely off in one dataset like the way you right wingers keep yammering on about, it would have been flagged a long, *long* time ago by other researchers using other datasets.
The socialist frauds that inhabit the MSM, academia and government are still shoveling the AGW crap in order to keep the financial/political gravy train rolling in. To defeat this scam we must rise up an vote out the enablers, namely the democrats, who were so easily led by the nose into funding this fraud, and boot their commie rear ends out of office. Then follow the money trail that led to the U.S. taxpayers being ripped off to the tune of 70+ billion and prosecute those that commited any fraud.
“I know why they can not use the data from NASA. I know some who was into global warming research. This person told me that the reason that NASA has poor data is that the weather satelite was not calibrated right and was not giving out the proper temperature data.”
Yup. That’s the general idea all right. Anytime observed data doesn’t fit their little theory, they “recalibrate” the data until it does fit their theory. Doesn’t matter where the data comes from, ground measurements, weather balloons, inferred sattellite measurements…it all has to be “recalibrated”.
“For some time, the UAH satellite data’s chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming in line with that estimated by climate models. In April 2002, for example, an analysis of the satellite temperature data showed warming of only 0.04 °C per decade, compared with surface measurements showing 0.17 ± 0.06 °C per decade. The correction of errors in the analysis of the satellite data, as noted above, have brought the two data sets more closely in line with each other.”
What? A temperature rise that is less than the margin of error? That can’t be right. Time to “recalibrate”.
“The longest data sets of upper air temperature are derived from instruments carried aloft by balloons (radiosondes). The radiosonde data set becomes usably global in about 1958. Changes in balloon instrumentation and data processing over the years have been pervasive, however, resulting in discontinuities in these temperature records[30]. The Sherwood et al. (2005) study looked at solar heating issues and found a spurious trend of about -.16K per decade had been introduced into the record, asserting that this masked the true warming, particularly in the tropical regions.[31] This is enough to make the trend compatible with surface warming.”–more wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements#Discussion_of_the_satellite_temperature_records
A “spurious trend” that masks “true” warming? Can’t have that. Time to “recalibrate” that data and make those temperatures rise, like they’re supposed to do.
And if there is something you can’t “recalibrate” (like say…tree ring data that mysteriously “diverges” from your “recalibrated” temperature measurements)…then you just use a special climatologist “trick” to get rid of it.
It’s amazing what you can do with a little recalibration and a couple of little climatologist tricks.
If you’re clever enough you could even show that the earth’s atmospheric temperature is rising, when it really isn’t
38. BC:
You aree more qualified and informed that either Mr Horner and Mr Martin? Please, tell us why.
My feeling based on your instant access to canned talking point answers is that you are a paid troll, because no one who is not getting paid could be such a pathetic loser as to LIVE to try to troll this site.
But maybe not.
Maybe you are the frikkin LION OF LIBERALISM COME TO FREE OUR MINDS!
‘..you right wingers..’.
BC, many of the posters are Independents, Constitutionalists, Libertarians et al. But hey, be far it from me to stop your opinion-disguised-as-fact rant be interrupted.
Oh, thanks for the ‘clarity’ with the NASA site.. bwahahaha
For the NASA site is nearly as ‘scientifically worthy’ as your other sociological sites with ‘possibility’ ‘more than likely’ ‘estimated to..’ responses claiming scientific merit.
Jog on..
@BC,
Seems like you are the one in the circle making the loudest noises. Go wash your hands.
#35 Coyote: Yes, you’re correct, see also my response to #17.
#37 Anonymous: Before you go too far with this, state a statistical definition of independence and show why these data sets, which correlate highly, are independent under that definition. Show your work. You will be tested on this.
# God knows how many BC: You’re making the argument right there. When one data set, eg, HADCRU3, is challenged, the defense is “but it is confirmed by these independent data sets.” When the independence is challenged, the defense is “of course these people collaborate and share data and corrections.”
Even if the data sets were not tortured into supporting the AGW a priori premise and even if you could model something as complex as long term climate (you can’t), the cost/benefit analysis of a global cap and trade scheme fails miserably. Such a scheme is diametrically opposed to economic and personal freedoms – the best way to raise the standard of living of everyone on the planet.
This AGW scam borders on the criminal even if the data did point to global warming. Normally we could just ignore all of this and let other countries knock themselves out if they wish. But unfortunately our current leaders are all too eager to sell us down the (not rising) river. We will pay trillions to 3rd world scammers, hurt our global competitiveness, tax our already overburdened citizens, scrub away millions of productive jobs and replace them with a few fantasy ones. All justified because we “might” be affecting temperature well into the future. The Obamacrats deserve to be run out of office on this issue alone.
Interesting title: “NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU”.
So Hansen is now a NASA head? Also, where does he say the NASA Data was poor? Obviously, he’d rather not have to extrapolate Arctic data but that’s not quite the same thing is it?
Richard Lindzen (prominent skeptic) doesn’t doubt warming. Here’s what he has to say:
<<<
In reality, scientists are only confident that:
(1) global mean temperature is about 0.6 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen about 30 percent over the past two centuries; and, (3) carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (one of many, the most important being water vapour and clouds) whose increase is likely to warm the earth.
<<<
Source:http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Lindzen/canadian_reactions_to_sir_david_king.html
Curious that the Nasa modelers say they were “forced” into doing lab work (the best models are a product of coming from the other direction – experimentalists attempting to understand the black-box evidencing what they’ve measured).
This likely means they have a number of test (hand-constructed) data sets (not lab or sensor data) they feed into their models to validate their algorithms and assumptions (yes, models can provide insights when fed slightly varying (artificial) initial conditions) – but that’s not forecasting or a proof – it’s more an educational, forensic, tease-apart-what’s-happening inside the black-box microscope/telescope.
Someone should FOIA those test datasets (as well as the code, and all versions of same) and publish them asap. They are guaranteed to exist (if only to track programming mods don’t cause unintended changes from version to version).
Charlie Martin,
What you are saying is not even wrong, it’s nonsensical. There are two categories of dataset; the output datasets of global temperature analyses such as NASA GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NOAA NCDC, and; their meteorological weather station inputs. Since there are only a fixed number of weather station records, and the groups use as many as time and resources will allow, the input datasets are by and large common between the groups. In other words, the input data is ‘not independent’, and never was claimed to be otherwise by any of the groups. The output datasets are constructed using different methodologies by the different groups, then under standard scientific usage those analyses and their outputs are called (methodologically) independent. But note that ‘independence’ is not a binary. Now the fact that these different groups apply “corrections” (“extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km”) to the raw data, compare their product to the products of other groups (“to try to understand different conclusions when they arise” — the fact that “different conlusions” arise should immediately tell you that they are to some extent independent), and use the products of other groups in further work such as testing GCMs (“we happily combine NCDC’s and Hadley Center data to [...] evaluate our model results”), has nothing to do with the scientific question of independence under discussion, nor the way in which Phil Jones was likely using the term. It is even absurd that you are complaining about inter-product comparisons as that is precisely the purpose for which independent studies are created. In a similar vein, the satellite analyses of UAH and RSS are commonly called independent, as they are ceated by different groups using different methodologies, but use the same input data (same measurements from the same satellites).
Charlie Martin,
That is complete nonsense. The first studies calculated the effects on surface temperature via radiative transfer, work which is still ongoing. Other studies detail the effects on stratospheric temperature, ocean circulation, humidity and precipitation, changes in the atmospheric circulation, biological effects and many more. Other datasets showing evidence of observed climate system warming include five satellite analyses, ocean heat content studies, glacier studies, borehole studies, and sea level studies. Paleoclimate studies are also used to calculate the climate system sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing. Have you not read any papers and textbooks? Don’t you think you should before condemning the hard work of decades and thousands of scientists?
Charlie Martin #44,
Giggle. Of course they won’t be statistically independent as they’re measuring the same hotdamn variable! If they were statistically independent, it would mean that at least one dataset is measuring a variable that is entirely unrelated to global mean temperature, like the number of pancake sales. In other words independent studies can (and if they’re measuring the same thing should) produce results which are statistically dependent.
Statistical independence and the independence of studies are not the same thing, not even close.
ROTFL
If someone told me they expected conditions to be even approximately the same at two such widely divergent points anywhere else on the globe, I’d tell them they needed to…
…up their meds.
Look… I’ve seen at least one story in the New York Times talking about the Administration’s legislation to fight Global Warming. Buried in the story is information that Newspapers and Television stations know but don’t tell the public in headlines. Cap & Trade will raise gasoline prices to over $7 a gallon.
Think for a moment how much money will be stolen from the Middle Class families by this tax bill. The compound effects on prices right across the board for doubling the cost of gasoline is massive. Then add in all the foreclosures because they will not have the money to pay their bills. Then add in all the small businesses that will fail and even more massive job losses.
The Global Warming Advocates want the US destroyed economically. They feel guilty. It’s time to vote those pushing this program out of office. Cut all funding. Fire every bureaucrat pushing it. And withdraw the US from the UN which so wants this issue to become a way to grab power and taxes from us all.
I’m actually a Teddy Roosevelt Republican, and Teddy knew when to use a big stick against scoundrels!
Charlie Martin #29,
Then why did you not mention, and indeed cut out from the email snippets you quoted, the parts where James Hansen directly contradicts your claim;
To which Hansen responds;
Surely fair and accurate reporting would require inclusion of those quotes.
And since you keep mentioning climate scientists plural, who are the others apart from Reto Ruedy?
Group challenge!
Explain how it is possible that NASA GISTEMP and HadCRUT can be accurate measurements of the same variable, global mean temperature, whilst being uncorrelated with each other.
(context: see #50)
Best answer wins a trip to the CEI and a smoochie from James Inhofe.
Worst / least funny answer spends a day with Al Gore cataloging moss species.
bruce c
You didn’t respond, you emoted and waffled. Don’t take this personally, but fetid social sites like PJM are not appropriate venues for the young and inexperienced, or even the very old like me. Or anyone. There’s an interesting world outside. I just come here to put a bug up the uber pretentious authors, as it’s a good way to unwind, and I’m kinda callous.
#53 Lazar: That whole “sarcasm” thing never caught on for you, did it? On independence, go back and try again: if you have two independent studies on independent data sets, what random variable describes the differences between the two sets of results? How is it distributed?
All the evidence in the world is never good enough for you, is it deniers?
So why does this man still have a job. He has been caught in two outright lies. He should be fired and barred from ANY government job for life.
57. Hellothere:
All the evidence in the world is never good enough for you, is it warmers, fabulists, hysterics, chicken littles and Barack Suckers?
54. Lazar:
Amongst the obvious points of contention are that the measurements were not in fact accurate or credible.
Keep dancing, Charlie. The question you posed was;
… an impossible proposition, since statistical independence requires zero correlation or covariance. Your implication is that two studies which are…
a) independent
b) produce accurate estimates of the same variable (global mean temperature)
…must produce estimates which are statistically independent (uncorrelated).
Which is patent bs. Impossible. You’re conflating statistical independence with a scientific goal of independence, meaning that studies are conducted by different groups using different methodology and/or underlying assumptions and/or input data — and hopefully confirm the same results (correlated, not statistically independent). That is what is normally meant by scientifically literate people when they say that studies are independent.
I’ve already explained to you that the input data to various temperature products are not independent, and have never been claimed to be otherwise. Seriously, keep dancing, it’s funny. Now, are you going to explain why you omitted those embarrassing Hansen quotes, and who the other climate scientists are other than Reto Ruedy, and why studies of radiative transfer, ocean heat content, paleoclimate, boreholes, sea level, satellite brightness temperatures, glaciers, stratospheric cooling, ocean and atmospheric circulation, humidity and precipitation, are all unrelated to AGW?
You guys are missing the point. There is one raw unadjusted data set of surface temperatures. That is the data taken from that ever-decreasing number of ground stations, remember? Then each of these four institutions “adjust” and “optimize” and “analyzed” in different ways. These differences in adjustment, optimization and analysis produce “global” temperature figures which vary from one institution to the other.
The underlying problems are two: CRU’s “raw” data set is gone, missing, erased, misplace .. you characterize how you like, it is not available because no on can find it. There is some implication that NASA’s “raw” data set is likewise missing. The absence of the raw data isn’t the point. The point simply is that the changes made to the raw data sets, real temperature records – remember? – instrumental data records, are made to fudge the temperature data so that it shows that the earth globally is and has been warming at an alarming rate since – pick the year you like. One methodological difference for your consideration: CRU uses a computer program – code so far unknown but apparently disclosed in the “hacked” file from East Anglia – to “analyze” its data; NASA’s Hansen and his lads “adjust” their data to make allowance for UHI effects by lowering the temperatures recorded in previous years (pre-1960, if I recall correctly) by rural stations and then applying their UHI modifier to the urban stations. That is what Watts and those lads have been going on about: fake changes to the raw data, closing and/or no longer using raw temperature data from stations in higher latitudes, higher altitudes and long-serving stations in rural areas which have remained rural.
An analysis of this behavior does not require any sort of PhD nor special expertise and competence in some esoteric branch of mathematics or science. They are and have been modifying the actual temperature records in various ways and under variously labelled cover stories for the purpose of creating false data which demonstrates the validity of their preconceived notion that human-produced carbon dioxide, combined with an imaginary “run-away” water vapor delay in re-radiation of heat back into space, will produce catastrophic warming. The game is up. The cat is out of the bag. Quit while you’re behind. The hoax is revealed in all its ugliness. Climate science, such as it is, has lost all credibility. And what are the “scientists” going to do? A media blitz with a back-page NY Times ad. Preposterous. The data don’t prove the hypothesis, the theoretical “run-away” water vapor mechanism doesn’t exist, and there is no scientific basis for the proposed legislation to devastate the human race’s ability to feed, house, clothe and warm or cool itself. That Paul Erlich is one of the concerned scientists advocating both the publicity blitz and the global warming hypothesis ought to be enough for you. Remember him? The U.S. is going to have a population crash to 40 millions by 1990 – 2000? Glaciers covering northern U.S., with Detroit ground under them? Yes, him and his same idiots – those who have survived from the first attempt – are part of the core of this collection of inept would-be rulers of the world; this time and last time. And like before, they’re wrong. Next case, please.
By the way, Charlie, if NASA GISS and Hadley/CRU each received their input data from different and exclusive networks of meteorological stations, because surface temperature is spatially correlated the input datasets would still be correlated, and therefore ‘not statistically independent’. Do you see what a canard the ‘statistical independence as a necessary condition for independence of studies’ meme is?
Another smoking bong.
Lazar, you’re still missing the point and making a basic mistake with your statistics. Assume, for the moment, that the various data sets are completely identical, and the processing of them is identical. Then multiple different studies would produce exactly identical results, but of course there is no information content to the additional studies. On the other end of the spectrum of possibilities, all the data could be random and uniformly distributed, and processing different sets of data, you would see no correlation whatsoever. Now, here we’re talking about a middle case: what statistical characteristics would you expect if the studies are actually introducing new information? There is something in there that is going to be a random variable, and we’d expect a specific kind of distribution. What would it be, and how would you test for this?
Okay, now, let’s take the contrary case you propose: all the data is more or less the same, all the processing is more or less the same, and — as the NASA folks are pointing out — they rework their adjustment methods or use different data sets shared throughout the community, agreeing on results in their shared publications etc. (This, by the way, confirms Wegman’s social network argument.) If this is true, then the defense of the CRU data — that losing the raw data and being unable to replicate the process doesn’t matter because, after all, “independent” studies give similar results — itself fails.
I believe the single Arctic site you refer to is mentioned in this blog post as the “garden spot of the Arctic”:http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013142.html
“we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km.”
745 miles.
1. I can get a 5 degree Fahrenheit difference in ambient temperature within half a mile of my home in Columbia, Maryland, using my automobile’s thermometer. This difference is persistent.
2. The newspaper in San Diego, CA reports 4 (yes! 4!) separate temperature ranges for an area less than thirty miles square. Take your pick, all from Thu, Mar 11, 2010, in degrees Fahrenheit:
67-51 66-43 57-33 75-42
That is not “extrapolation.” That is “penciling.” Chemical workers call it “Making sh!t up.”
I knew this entire global warming theory was nonsense the minute I heard that these people were arguing that an average temperature difference of one half of one degree Fahrenheit was significant. Unless and until the two difficulties posed by these examples are addressed to the satisfaction of the physicists, engineers and chemists like myself, who understand the consequences of experimental error, the global warming alarmists will have no credibility.
Lazar
….. I would go into why but there’s a gag reflex threshold that I don’t want to tempt.
After reading your posts, you remind me alot of Gore and I’m tempted to just pass them by
Cheers
GW is a diversion. Keeps us lemmings running around
in circles.
Did you ever stop to think that we self-important peons can do nothing about GW even if it were real?
Can you do something big like cause solar flares? Can you get another blast of ash out of Mt. Saint Helens?
Pollution is the problem they divert you from. Industry would have to spend big money to clear the smog from our cities.
Detroit and Big Oil are having a fit worrying about how soon we may catch on. Ever wonder why the Electric car…[Not hybrid..Hybrid is dead in your driveway during a gas boycott.] seems to never reach a dealship?
Did you know smog kills more than twice as many as auto accidents do?
Smog induced lung conditions costs our medical system Million$ and ruins many lives.
Pollution is something you can complain to your MP about. GW is a total waste of valuable time.
This link gives you email addresses for more than 300 MPs.
http://tinyurl.com/zqd9g
Ask why big rigs here spew clouds of black
carcinogenic poisons while in Europe they do not.
Or whatever else is killing you and your dog. Antifreeze??
Its non-lethal in other countries… ye know..eh?
Well, charlie you have some misunderstandings of the data and the processing involved. I’ve spent over two years tracking this data down, issuing FOIA’s for it and examining it in detail. I’ve also spent a fair amount of time reviewing GISS source code and the recent CRU code release.
Let me see if I can clarify some of this for you.
For now we will just stick to the datasets for the LAND. ( there are different SST datasets as well)
GISS use two datasets: They use GHCN ( from NOAA) and USHCN ( for the US from NOAA) database.
GHCN is controlled by NCDC ( NOAA)
GISS injest this data on a monthly basis. GISS then process this data creating area averages and finally a global temperature series.
CRU Also Injest GHCN data. So there is substantial overlap between what GISS use and what CRU use. Think
of it this way. Lets say that australia has 100 weather stations that all report to GHCN. GISS may select 75 of these, while CRU may select 85. So they use the same data source ( GHCN) but they may select different stations.
Further, a SMALL percentage ( less than 5%) of the stations that CRU use are NOT in the GHCN. They are
datasets that are covered by commercial agreements. These agreements were one of the things we fought to have released. So CRU use substantially the same data HOWEVER they process it differently ( independently)
from GISS. More on that later.
NOAA also produce a global temperature series. They use data in GHCN. Again, Like GISS and CRU they pull data from the same database.
The next question ( the one that the 1200nm interpolation bears on ) is the PROCESSING that all three groups
do. So they use substantially the same data, but they each process it differently, And they generally come up with answers that are with .2C of each other, more or less. However, there are known differences between the approaches. Lets stick with GISS and CRU as that is what Hansens mail is refering to.
The differences between GISS and CRU can be broken down into roughly these areas.
1. They use slightly different stations from GHCN database
2. CRU add some “confidental” data (<5%)
3. When combining stations in a geographic area to create an area average there are several well known
techniques. they differ slightly. GISS uses what is best described as a RSM or reference station method
while CRU use a CAM or common anomaly method. Both have strengths and weakness. they produce
similar results.
4 CRU and GISS use a different methodology for averaging stations when part of the grid is over water
and part of the grid is over land. Again, both methods give similar results.
5. The last difference ( referred to in the mail) has to do with how each handles the artic grids. CRU
do not estimate this area since stations are so sparse. GISS do estimate this ( see the 1200km comment)
Basically, CRU and GISS end result ( the global temperature ) is very close, BUT GISS is usually a little bit higher
than CRU. the explanation is how GISS handles the northern latitudes.
Finally the issue about extrapolating over 1200km may appear to be odd to people. That figure is derived from correlation studies. However there is some question as to wether it works well in the north. In particular as ice opens up along northern coasts GISS interpolation is thought to be less accurate than the CRU approach.
the real problem with GHCN that we have been documenting for some time is the meta data problem
There seems to be a lot of confusion on the part of people who have actually never looked at this data or processed any of it. BC and others have it largely right… The data source is ROUGHLY the same for all of these
computer programs. the program at nasa ( he I helped get that code free!), the program at CRU ( which we had FOIA in for) and the program at NCDC.
This is important because its one of the reasons BEHIND climategate.
NASA was always clear about WHICH stations its used from GHCN. For example there are 6000 stations
at GHCN and nasa would pick say 3000 of them to calculate and average from.
CRU ALSO selected stations from GHCN. But they would not tell us which ones! not even the names. in 2007
Willis Eschenbach FOIA’d the names of the stations and the data. He got the station names.
Later we found out that CRU also had some data that wasnt in GHCN. We asked for that. They denied the request citing Confidentiality. So we FOIAd those agreements and then somebody leaked all the mails to
us on the day that FOIA was denied.
Anyways. the other mistake running around is the notion that the data is lost. That’s an even more complex story, but the data is not actually lost. Jones said it was lost. but in the mails he makes it clear that he is going to have to go back to the real creators of the raw data because he lost his local copy. confusing I know.
But just as a hint the real problem is in the metadata, oh and in the adusting algorithms, those havent even been fully tracked down.
Unless and until the two difficulties posed by these examples are addressed to the satisfaction of the physicists, engineers and chemists like myself, who understand the consequences of experimental error, the global warming alarmists will have no credibility.
Stop the presses! A high school graduate and a failed weathermen comedy team have declared the temp data corrupt. Right. Only on planet Bildeberger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group.
What needs to be investigated is CEI. That’s where the whole campaign was cooked up in the first place. There’s is nothing wrong with combining data from different sets. The sets all say essentially the same thing: The earth is warming rapidly. I know it’s cooling over here. See my link. There’s a convention in Roswell coming up too.
C’mon guys you’re being much too hard on those IPCC folks. After all, any group who can confidently erase the entire history of both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age in one fell swoop, and take no notice of the several hundred scientists who had earlier established that data, and, this was all done via a computer “model”, a very consistent program which basically takes randomly generated numbers and always generates hockey stick graphs.
Why would you not want to trust those folks?
Folks who argue that their computer models are “evidence”, or claim accuracy because their “model” successfully predicts past periods. (which were used to fine tune the model in the first place).
Not only that, attempting to predict results 100 years into the future by simulating a very complex and poorly understood climate along with the impact on it due to changing world economics. Now who out there dares question the output, or the authors of such works of art?
The only question I have is “If the AGW computer model is so good, WHY haven’t they applied the same techniques to the stock market?” It should be a simple case, not near as many perturbations and forcing mechanisms. They could make $Billions.
Charlie,
No, you’re changing your ‘point’ at every turn. If you think I’ve made a mistake, then be specific and describe the mistake explicitly and why you think that the alleged mistake matters.
First you claim that the different global temperature analyses are not independent because, allegedly; the emails state that the analyses were/are compared against each other, that; unspecified “corrections” are applied (you don’t specify what “corrections”, or why it matters, and the one instance of the word is where James Hansen states “our urban warming correction in the U.S. differs from the NOAA
correction” — which in fact supports the case for methodological independence); and that, bizarrely, the analyses are not independent because the datasets are used by the different groups for purposes such as testing GCMs.
I pointed out that was, umm, nonsense (#48).
You respond demanding I show how two datasets which are as highly correlated as the global temperature analyses are can be statistically independent (obviously they can’t), with the clear implication that independence of the analyses depends on statistical independence.
I pointed out that was, more nonsense (#50).
You finally respond with vague arm-waving about distributions. And new claims;
Yes.
No, and I never said that it was.
Adjustment methods are changed and improved through time. So what?
They use ‘different’ data sets. So what? Input data is shared, yes, but independent input data is not commonly viewed as a necessary condition for the analyses to be ‘independent’.
Which publications and which results, were ‘agreed’ upon by whom and where? Again, so what? The global temperature analyses are created by different teams of different members. If you’re going to make a case, then be specific, and name names.
Charlie,
No, you’re changing your ‘point’ at every turn. If you think I’ve made a mistake, then be specific and describe the mistake explicitly and why you think that the alleged mistake matters.
First you claim that the different global temperature analyses are not independent because, allegedly; the emails state that the analyses were/are compared against each other, that; unspecified “corrections” are applied (you don’t specify what “corrections”, or why it matters, and the one instance of the word is where James Hansen states “our urban warming correction in the U.S. differs from the NOAA
correction” — which in fact supports the case for methodological independence); and that, bizarrely, the analyses are not independent because the datasets are used by the different groups for purposes such as testing GCMs.
I pointed out that was, umm, nonsense (#48).
You respond demanding I show how two datasets which are as highly correlated as the global temperature analyses are can be statistically independent (obviously they can’t), with the clear implication that independence of the analyses depends on statistical independence.
I pointed out that was, more nonsense (#50).
You finally respond with vague arm-waving about distributions. And new claims;
Yes.
No, and I never said that it was.
Adjustment methods are changed and improved through time. So what?
They use ‘different’ data sets. So what? Input data is shared, yes, but independent input data is not commonly viewed as a necessary condition for the analyses to be ‘independent’.
Which publications and which results, were ‘agreed’ upon by whom and where? Again, so what? The global temperature analyses are created by different teams of different members. If you’re going to make a case, then be specific, and name names.
But I’m much more interested in why you think Hansen’s comments were not worth mentioning.
Kent #67,
After reading your one post I know that you dislike making logical, substantive discussion…
(who is fat!)
And prefer to emote…
Amazing, simply amazing.
It is remarkable that the author of this blog can read those emails, and come up with the claim “NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU”.
I’ve read, and re-read those emails, and it is clear to me that NASA used the CRU data to CONFIRM the results of its models. They used Hadley data to CONFIRM their results, because the CRU data set was globally, more comprehensive.
This is an other example of a headline, and opinion piece that is in no way supported by the source cited in the opinion piece.
I suggest that anyone who reads opinions from this author, check his “sources”, and actually read them in context.
Echoing PragmaticJim above, the emails do not state that “NASA Data Was Poor”.
Hmmm, this might be more fun; annoying the daffy Lord Monckton.
81. Lazar:
You’re a bit more, shall we say… insistent than the average troll. Tell us about yourself. We have a few paid trolls here who seem to be reading off of a teleprompter, but you’re a different creature entirely… what gives?
baal,
Umm, your interest is flattering, but you’d be rather bored (perhaps you are already)?
Placing self-flattery above transparency speaks volumes about the lack of credibility of an individual.
We can endlessly run around in circles debating what defines poor data.
However, what cannot be argued is the stunning lack of virtue possessed by a taxpayer-funded scientist that demands the implementation of FOIA requests before even considering providing the requested data to tazpayers that funded the study to begin with. If a taxpayer funded scientist finds providing data to taxpayers burdensome, then perhaps that scientist should seek employment in the private sector.
Or are we to believe only those that champion darkness are the ones to have seen the light? If so, when exactly did the lack of transparency become a positive for climate science which impacts all life on earth? It should be apparent to all by now transparency in science is practiced only by those with nothing to hide…regardless of the quality of the data. Amazingly though, some commenters on this thread would prefer to run us around in circles debating data sources rather than simply dismissing those that engage in the questionable practice of hiding the data. On reflection, such a practice makes sense – how do you defend someone that is ashamed to show you their work?
Well stated it is.
Thanks very much for this extremely informative article.
The question of the “independence” of the data sets is an important one, but to date I have not seen the mainstream media address it.
Or three times means that it is accurate.
I don’t doubt that climate change exist however I do believe it will be another tool that is use to try and contol us.