11 replies to this topic

[stocks]

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

http://www.dailytech...article8383.htm

Edited by stocks, 09 August 2007 - 11:11 PM.

[stocks]

Q/A with Steve McIntyre

Q. It seems at the heart of this was that NASA was unwilling to give you the methodology.

The adjustments are not small. The adjustments that they make are fully equal to the total amount of warming in the United States the past century. So, you’re dealing with adjustments that are the same size as the effect that you are trying to measure. So, it’s worth spending a minute or two trying to understand exactly what they did. Now, my interest in these things is understanding exactly what they did.


My take is well, I’ve had other experiences with folks like that before and then they think if you mis-implemented their methodology they scream to high heaven. So, I said “No” and they said “You are asking to be spoon-fed” and I said “No, I’m not asking to be spoon-fed.” I’ll deal with raw code, it’s just that the verbal descriptions in academic articles to not meet the kind of engineering, quality level that I expect from things or that I am looking for and that represents one point of dispute between me and them. They don’t seem to accept the idea. This is an important issue and therefore academics have to stop being precious and arguing that these codes are their private property.

Q. If NASA were to handle this all better, or to your liking, what are some recommendations you’d give them?

One of the main recommendations I’ve consistently made both to NASA and to journals is that when people publish articles they should have to archive the data as they used it. The exact providence of their data if they downloaded it from an internet archive they should have to post the URL of the place where they got the data and the date they downloaded it so you can know the exact version they got in case the versions change. And, they should archive the code in which they obtained the calculations.


In some cases there are some real problems. You know Lonnie Thompson. the ice guy, has published sort of summaries of his data which are mutually inconsistent and I’ve tried to get original sample data to try and reconcile these and he’s refused and he’s published articles in journals and the journals have refused to require him to do it and the National Science Foundation which has funded it has refused to require it so it’s not just NASA it’s a very widespread problem in climate science right now.


http://townhall.com/...rom_data?page=2

[stocks]

NASA chief Hansen replies to the discovered error:

The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important.

The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children. The court jesters are their jesters, occasionally paid for services, and more substantively supported by the captains’ disinformation campaigns.

Court jesters serve as a distraction, a distraction from usufruct. Usufruct is the matter that the captains wish to deny, the matter that they do not want their children to know about. They realize that if there is no ‘gorilla’, then usufruct is not an important issue for them. So, with the help of jesters, they deny the existence of the gorilla. There is no danger of melting the Arctic, of destabilizing the West Antarctic ice sheet, of increasing hydrologic extremes, more droughts and stronger forest fires on one hand and heavier downpours and floods on the other, threats to the fresh water supplies of huge numbers of people in different parts of the globe. “Whew! It is lucky that, as our jesters show, these are just imaginary concerns. We captains of industry can continue with business-as-usual, we do not need to face the tough problem of how to maintain profits without destroying our legacy in our children’s eyes.”

http://www.deanesmay...187417242.shtml

[stocks]

Now consider that atmospheric CO2 reportedly rose from 284 ppm in pre-industrial 1832 to only 300 ppm by 1911; then remained below 320 ppm until rising precipitously from 1960 to today's level of over 380 ppm. And yet -- there is nothing even remotely analogous in the temperature figures for those same periods. To the contrary, 60% of post-industrial CO2 ascension has taken place since 1960 - that's 20 years after the last decade with warming patterns similar to the present one. Furthermore, notice that over half of the 15 hottest years took place before 1960 and those 15 are actually spread out over not one but rather seven decades. That's some trend, my friend.



Truth be told -- even prior to Steve McIntyre's correction of Hansen's algorithms last week, the data from USHCN weather stations had been suspect. Both faulty collection methods (e.g. environmental issues of absurdly located sensors) and the proprietary nature of the software which purportedly "fixed" these environmental irregularities had been openly challenged.

These "fudge factors," which remain unpublished, required McIntyre's reverse-engineering in order to surface their faults. As the scientist blogger wrote in a must-read article at ace weather-station sleuth Anthony Watts' site (climateaudit was still recovering from what were likely eco-maniac DDOS attacks) on Saturday,

"... the adjustment methods are not techniques that can be looked up in statistical literature, where their properties and biases might be discerned. They are rather ad hoc and local techniques that may or may not be equal to the task of ‘fixing' the bad data."

But it was not only the disproved "adjustments" to corrupt input data, but also the shady manner by which GISS revised that information which warrant our concern. Realizing how the error reported by McIntyre impacted upon individual weather stations, they stealthily updated not only the local station data, but also the oft-cited US Temperature Data, particularly post-1999. With virtually no fanfare, estimates for 2000 through 2005 were lowered by about 0.15 deg C, and 2006 by 0.10 deg C - measures McIntyre suggests still fall short.

So what we have is a "scientific" data-base compiled and maintained by an institute conducted by a true AGW ideologue that uses undisclosed and flawed algorithms to offset admittedly spurious input data. That same organization failed to alert data-base clients (or anyone else to my knowledge) that significant modifications were made to theory and policy-critical data



http://www.americant...as_trust_c.html

[OEXCHAOS]

All the rest is just legitimate challenge, and debate, and dispute. Hansen's reply, however, is the big red flag. None of this means that we SHOULDN'T try to decrease emissions in practical, reasonable manners, but clearly I'm not about to force a lower growth rate on our or any other country due to anything Hansen says.

[Rogerdodger]

Kill a Moose. Save the world!

"Scientists have calculated that because of their increased burping and farting, the placid moose is an eco-killer. During a single year, according to the latest research, a full-grown moose expels -- from both ends of its body -- the methane equivalent of 2100kg of carbon dioxide emissions.

That is as destructive for the atmosphere as the emissions released by 8,000 miles of car travel."

"Think of it this way: remove a moose from the world and you have saved the equivalent of 36 flights between Oslo and Trondheim," said Professor Andersen, who hunts moose and researches their gas output.

The Kyoto protocol counts a tonne of expelled methane equivalent to 21 tonnes of CO2. The World Resources Institute estimates that 14per cent of global greenhouse emissions are down to methane, a third of which is produced by cows and dung.


Doesn't he just look guilty?

[img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:5P58B9oWehw58M:http://www2.giganet.net/~mark/NetBSD/gifs/bullwinkle.gif[/img]

Edited by Rogerdodger, 24 August 2007 - 10:37 AM.

[stocks]

All the rest is just legitimate challenge, and debate, and dispute.

Hansen's reply, however, is the big red flag.

None of this means that we SHOULDN'T try to decrease emissions in practical, reasonable manners, but clearly I'm not about to force a lower growth rate on our or any other country due to anything Hansen says.

The Dan David Prize annually gives three $1 million prizes to honor achievements aimed at understanding or affecting the world.

2007 Past - Historians Jacques Le Goff
Present - Contemporary Music Pascal Dusapin, Zubin Mehta
Future - Quest for Energy James Hansen, Jerry Olson, Sarah Kurtz

http://en.wikipedia....Dan_David_Prize

Dr. James Hansen receives the Heinz Award in the Environment for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often-contentious debate over the threat of global climate change. The theory that industrial pollution continues to create an atmospheric “greenhouse effect” or warming has pitted scientist against scientist and politician against politician. In the eye of the storm that swirls around this issue is Dr. Hansen. He calmly pursues his research while scrupulously maintaining his scientific credibility and modifying his views as new data and techniques have become available, all the while acting as a messenger from the esoteric world of computer climate models to the public and policymakers alike.


http://www.heinzawar...p;recipientID=9

Edited by stocks, 24 August 2007 - 06:37 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

Graph of gases in air: GRAPH PDF

78% nitrogen
21% oxygen
01% other

Of the 01% "Other" gases, Argon is 93% of that.
CO2 is a mere 3.6% of that 1%
(I wonder if any global warming alarmists drink soda pop with all that deadly CO2 ?)
Shouldn't Coke, Pepsi and Mountain dew be banned?
Don't forget Budweiser, too.

Thank goodness Guinness uses nitrogen for it's bubbles!

Pull my finger Rocky!
[img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:5P58B9oWehw58M:http://www2.giganet.net/~mark/NetBSD/gifs/bullwinkle.gif[/img]

Edited by Rogerdodger, 25 August 2007 - 03:10 PM.

[stocks]

All the rest is just legitimate challenge, and debate, and dispute.

Hansen's reply, however, is the big red flag.

None of this means that we SHOULDN'T try to decrease emissions in practical, reasonable manners, but clearly I'm not about to force a lower growth rate on our or any other country due to anything Hansen says.

The Dan David Prize annually gives three $1 million prizes to honor achievements aimed at understanding or affecting the world.

2007 Past - Historians Jacques Le Goff
Present - Contemporary Music Pascal Dusapin, Zubin Mehta
Future - Quest for Energy James Hansen, Jerry Olson, Sarah Kurtz

http://en.wikipedia....Dan_David_Prize

Dr. James Hansen receives the Heinz Award in the Environment for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often-contentious debate over the threat of global climate change. The theory that industrial pollution continues to create an atmospheric “greenhouse effect” or warming has pitted scientist against scientist and politician against politician. In the eye of the storm that swirls around this issue is Dr. Hansen. He calmly pursues his research while scrupulously maintaining his scientific credibility and modifying his views as new data and techniques have become available, all the while acting as a messenger from the esoteric world of computer climate models to the public and policymakers alike.


http://www.heinzawar...p;recipientID=9

Not discouraged, however, Dr. Hansen has gone further out on a limb, and has now issued a challenge to our presidential candidates. He wants all the 2008 candidates to sign a 'Declaration of Stewardship for the Earth and all Creation.' (Bold in the original). Dr. Hansen is out to Save the Planet from the fires and floods that he is sure will come, unless we all repent, as per specs.

Here's the Hansen Declaration for our presidential candidates to sign.

"Whereas the climate system is nearing tipping points with likely devastating consequences for much of creation;

Whereas the responsibility of the United States for excess CO2 in the air exceeds that of any other nation by more than a factor of three;

Whereas the rest of the world cannot be expected to take needed actions until the United States exercises responsibility and leadership;

Whereas, some lawmakers and executives in the United States appear to be unduly swayed by special interests;

It therefore becomes important for citizens to be keenly aware of the position regarding global warming of all candidates for election." [italics added for clarity]

http://www.americant..._escape_ve.html

[Rogerdodger]

It's morning in China.
How many coal powered plants will be built today?

China was opening one new power plant every week in a recent past, it is now opening TWO of these new plants every week, so how many in the future ?

Edited by Rogerdodger, 29 August 2007 - 12:45 AM.