ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, February 09, 2015

The biggest science scandal ever

And yes, as we AGW/CC skeptics have been saying since the beginning, the world is not getting warmer and you cannot trust corrupt scientists anymore than you can trust corrupt bankers or corrupt politicians. Global warming is a fraud and a scandal of global proportions:
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded.
There has been some discussion about the discrepancy between the post-1979 satellite data and the surface-temperature record, as the former shows no sign of global warming while the latter has recently begun to do so. Now we have the answer explaining that discrepancy; the surface-temperature record has been corrupted and is false.

Notice that intrepid scientists went to the trouble of falsifying the data in places where it would be relatively difficult to check what they were reporting. This is genuinely a massive scandal, and if scientists don't quickly denounce what has taken place, all scientists are soon going to lose even more credibility with the public once people see what a tremendous scam has been perpetrated by scientists operating on the public dime.

Labels: ,

96 Comments:

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus February 09, 2015 12:06 PM  

Vox - the science is settled. Now shut up and pay your extra taxes for the Common Good.

Anonymous Stilicho February 09, 2015 12:07 PM  

Being in love (with a leftist solution) means never having to say you're sorry (for inventing a problem to fit it).

Blogger Owen February 09, 2015 12:15 PM  

Cultists double down when reality interferes.

Blogger Guitar Man February 09, 2015 12:16 PM  

Hang em high!

Anonymous jay c February 09, 2015 12:22 PM  

Alan Alda says public knowledge is one of the biggest problems scientists and doctors have to overcome. Being a fully qualified scientist and doctor, he should know, of course, but why should people who worship the material feel threatened by knowledge? I wonder...

Anonymous Tallen February 09, 2015 12:25 PM  

There should be a Godwin's law equivalent for invoking "science," instead of using your brain to think critically. I coin it now as Tallen's law if it hasn't been done already.

Blogger David February 09, 2015 12:31 PM  

Science, like all things human, suffers from its own successes. Its celebrity became a brand, and that brand was splashed all over lots of con games and outright fabrications in order to sell the masses on one collectivist folly after another.

All men believe in something, and as a belief moves from initial purity (and obscurity), corruption inevitably follows. Belief in the efficacy of science long since passed the point where collectivist corruption dominated. Science as a dominant belief system (rather than simply an approach to separating fact from fiction) is in its declining phase.

Religionists, rejoice! The Real McCoy is due an upswing.

Anonymous A Climatologist February 09, 2015 12:31 PM  

This kind of irresponsible reporting really pisses us off. Just wait till the next round of data revision - we'll show you what warming really looks like, bitchez.

Anonymous mistaben February 09, 2015 12:33 PM  

As a physicist, I denounce what my little Morlock cousins dabbling at climate science have done. Richard Feynman would have torn them a new one.

Blogger Longstreet February 09, 2015 12:34 PM  

Apparently the go-to excuse is that the raw data is unreliable and MUST be manipulated before it's of any use.

Anonymous ? February 09, 2015 12:41 PM  

Why do you hate science?

Anonymous aero February 09, 2015 12:44 PM  

This has more to do with looking at temperatures through the rear view mirror.
From a rabbits perspective its the imaginary image they want to project.
So how deep will this rabbit hole go?
However the Rabbit has a man made solutions that has never been tested to solve their imaginary problem.

Anonymous Stilicho February 09, 2015 12:45 PM  

Apparently the go-to excuse is that the raw data is unreliable and MUST be manipulated before it's of any use.

Do they even use raw data? Or do they simply input whatever numbers will produce the desired result?

Blogger August February 09, 2015 12:46 PM  

I remember the data leak, with the emails and the code all showing this was a scam. I thought it was only a matter of time then, but nothing happened. We keep hailing the end of the scam, but these con artists keep proving they can float a scam with nothing but an arrogant tone.

Blogger YIH February 09, 2015 12:46 PM  

Question mark:
Why do you hate science?
Define ''science''

Blogger Joshua Sinistar February 09, 2015 12:46 PM  

Science is part of the System. The System has been thoroughly corrupted. The money is all that matters. When the Dollar dies, the System dies too.
They just reported the highest tax haul ever. I take that to mean that they are now completely broke. Get your guns ready.

Blogger Owen February 09, 2015 12:50 PM  

Remember, they move the goalposts a couple years ago.

It's no longer global warming.

It's "climate change."

They saw the likelihood that the temp data fraud would be discovered when those emails leaked. That's why they shifted to "climate change," because of course climate will change. It's called "weather."

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 09, 2015 12:54 PM  

The ground data was always bad due to the Urban Heat Island Effect. They started adjusting that data decades ago.

1980s Every Joe: So the data is bad due to the UHI effect. Why are you using it?

Trained Scientest: We have adjusted that data. It's fine now. Don't worry about.

1980s Every Joe: (*blinking in surprise*) How?

Trained Scientist: Scientifically!

1980s Every Joe: But how is this different from made up bullshit?

Trained Scientist: Through the sciencey power of science! You do believe in science, DON'T YOU?



Admittedly screwing with the data in BFE is new but the ground work for using bad climate data was laid decades ago. The media knows exactly what to say about it, they have been well trained by the kindest of masters.

Anonymous Daniel February 09, 2015 12:57 PM  

TENS vs. DNA would be the biggest one...

...if TENS had ever been science in the first place. TENS people need to thank their lucky stars that they never got their act together to come up with universally accepted computer models they could fake.

Anonymous MrGreenMan February 09, 2015 12:58 PM  

I think it's been, what, ten years since we first seeing calls that the "warming deniers" should be killed, and 25 years since they promised us a dead ocean in a decade?

Don't ever forget they wanted to kill anyone who questioned the "settled consensus".

Anonymous cheddarman February 09, 2015 12:58 PM  

I am guessing that the macrobes ( per That Hideous Strength) lost another chess match to The Almighty.


Blogger Longstreet February 09, 2015 1:01 PM  

Do they even use raw data? Or do they simply input whatever numbers will produce the desired result?

To even ask that question marks you as a flat-earther.

Or so I am reliably informed.

I remember the data leak, with the emails and the code all showing this was a scam. I thought it was only a matter of time then, but nothing happened. We keep hailing the end of the scam, but these con artists keep proving they can float a scam with nothing but an arrogant tone.
On another board recently I mentioned that due to the sloppy work and outright fraud that runs rampant in some circles, the smart move was to be extremely skeptical regarding things done under the rubric "science". I was informed, in that same arrogant and haughty tone, that there was no evidence of sloppy work and fraud in the sciences.

What can one say in response to that sort of belief?

Anonymous DrTorch February 09, 2015 1:02 PM  

If you're interested in the UHI, then this site http://www.surfacestations.org/ was developed with the intention of understanding that process, and reporting on it.

As for faking the data, well of course it's faked. This is one instance where you can literally look out your window to see if TPTB are right about their dire claims.

The bigger thing to worry about is that so many people still believe this nonsense. This is what a true zombie apocalypse looks like.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey February 09, 2015 1:05 PM  

Who science this is?

Blogger Roger Cook February 09, 2015 1:06 PM  

What Cataline said, but I'll add not only UHIs, but bad placement of measuring instruments out of convenience instead of for accuracy. The effects of these, while real, don't reflect climate but instead local, limited conditions.

Blogger Akulkis February 09, 2015 1:08 PM  

This was all blatantly obvious the moment the Canadian statistician MacIntyre asked Phil Jones for his data to run a statistical analysis, and Jones replied with "Why should I give you my data, all you're going to do is attack me," that Jones had zero interest in conducting himself in a scientific manner.

Real scientists CHALLENGE anyone to find a flaw in their work. Jones does the opposite. That's all one needs to know.

Anonymous bw February 09, 2015 1:11 PM  

Dr Tim Ball has been on the fraud all along.

Global taxation and a "smart" energy control grid is the agenda (21).

The money is all that matters.

It may be so for the phony, compromised, lying so-called academics and "scientists".
Control is all that matters to the Elite. They haven't needed any more money for a Century. The "scientist" is simply a whore for their pimp in the same way politicians are.
Psychopaths and sociopaths need a different kind of thrill than simply wealth and privilege. They can never get off enough when dictating what someone else must do/be or what they can inflict on them.

Blogger bob k. mando February 09, 2015 1:13 PM  

climate skeptic sites have been documenting data diddling for years now. there are also significant discrepancies in the north Russian data. this is nothing new.

it's nice that a mass market megaphone like the Telegraph is finally paying attention ... but i get the idea that the Telegraph is considered to be primarily for those thunkingly Luddite conservatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph#Political_stance

Anonymous Lysander Spooner February 09, 2015 1:16 PM  

"As a physicist, I denounce what my little Morlock cousins dabbling at climate science have done. Richard Feynman would have torn them a new one."

As a former Physicist: Hear, Hear !!

Anonymous kfg February 09, 2015 1:17 PM  

@Stilicho

They're still a bit more subtle than that. They change the formula until it produces the desired result. That way you can put well vetted, quality feed stock in and still get garbage out.

Then to make this Lying With Numbers sound all technical and scientificy they rebrand it as Tuning the Model.

Anonymous sawtooth February 09, 2015 1:17 PM  

"Alan Alda says public knowledge is one of the biggest problems scientists and doctors have to overcome."

Yes, and I place the blame squarely on Al Gore. He invented the internet, after all.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner February 09, 2015 1:19 PM  

"Hang 'em High!!"

Now wouldn't this be neat to see: Vlad Tepes would heartily approve.

http://s137.photobucket.com/user/Taliesin_ttlg/media/hercules/hercules_impalement.jpg.html

Blogger Sioux February 09, 2015 1:19 PM  

How I wish this APGW hoax was just a scam/scandal and only about $$$$$$$ - the purpose of this from the get -go way back at the UN Kyoto summit (1987?) is to wholly change life as we now know it FOR OUR OWN GOOD cuz we be too dumb to know better... maybe a few billion or more will die in the process of these misery-spreading(albeit powerful) morons, which will bring them nothing but joy and clanking of champagne glasses.

Anonymous Mike M. February 09, 2015 1:20 PM  

That's the difference between science and engineering. Engineers have to get it right...or Very Bad Things happen.

Personally, I think wholesale prosecutions and long prison sentences are needed for the entire lot of these con men.

Blogger Feather Blade February 09, 2015 1:22 PM  

I was informed, in that same arrogant and haughty tone, that there was no evidence of sloppy work and fraud in the sciences.

What can one say in response to that sort of belief?


Raucous laughter and a pat on the head "for being such a comedian" followed by more raucous laughter.

OpenID genericviews February 09, 2015 1:29 PM  

Science will be just fine. The global press that has peen perpetuating this lie will never admit they were wrong. So the general public will never find out. This will never make the nightly news. The only people who will hear about it are the ones who already are skeptical. Those people will be written off as "in the pockets of big oil".

--Hale

Blogger YIH February 09, 2015 1:32 PM  

MrGreenMan:
I think it's been, what, ten years since we first seeing calls that the "warming deniers" should be killed
I don't think I've heard it go that far, but I have heard the claim that ''denying global warming is like denying the holocaust''.
An apt comparison, because both stories have as many holes as a block of Swiss cheese.

OpenID genericviews February 09, 2015 1:37 PM  

As a former Physicist: Hear, Hear !!

As someone who is bound by physics (Neutonian, not Einsteinian), Hear! Hear!.

OpenID genericviews February 09, 2015 1:40 PM  

Then to make this Lying With Numbers sound all technical and scientificy they rebrand it as Tuning the Model.

Tuners gonna tune.

Anonymous aero February 09, 2015 1:45 PM  

The first rule in conning is to get those to be conned to say YES
What a con artist knows that most people. mostly intelligent people will not omit they have been conned. The politicians news media and teachers of are children will not omit they were conned. They will fall back on the same excuse that they were told to get them to believe it. You do want to have a clean planet... don't you? So they say YES

Blogger bob k. mando February 09, 2015 1:48 PM  

YIH February 09, 2015 1:32 PM
I don't think I've heard it go that far



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zLpfNnGMxM

"just 10%"

Anonymous Salt February 09, 2015 1:56 PM  

Global warming fraud, proof Vox ain't Injun because... science.

Blogger IM2L844 February 09, 2015 2:06 PM  

Definitive proof global warming is a social construct.

Anonymous hygate February 09, 2015 2:33 PM  

"Apparently the go-to excuse is that the raw data is unreliable and MUST be manipulated before it's of any use."

Yep. Of course someone actually interested in discovering the facts, when confronted with the problem of unreliable data, is to work at finding a means to gather reliable data, not to 'adjust' the data to whatever values they think they should be.

If your data is unreliable then any adjustments made to it just compounds the problem. The adjustments are as unreliable as the original data.

Blogger YIH February 09, 2015 2:37 PM  

bob k. mando:
I forgot about that one. I stand corrected.

Anonymous Stilicho February 09, 2015 2:38 PM  

Apparently the go-to excuse is that the raw data is unreliable

To be fair, it must be admitted that the raw data is politically unreliable...

Which is all that matters to the supporters of anthropomorphic glueball wormening

Blogger Dominic Saltarelli February 09, 2015 2:39 PM  

All of this tells me one thing. Vox is a game developer. Vox wrote this post. This post is about science. Gordon Freeman is a scientist.

HL3 confirmed.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner February 09, 2015 2:41 PM  

Neutonian?
Did you mean: Newtonian.
Or was it just a FIG ur of speech?

OpenID genericviews February 09, 2015 3:01 PM  

That's what I like about Newton/neuton. It works both ways. I won't be able to comment on Einstein until I reach the theoretical speed of light and check my timepiece.

Anonymous Giuseppe February 09, 2015 3:03 PM  

Longstreet,
"What can one say in response to that sort of belief?"

I think at that point "Fuck yo momma," is a cogent and pertinent response.

Anonymous Anonymous February 09, 2015 3:09 PM  

I remember a predictive model once that was "tuned" to better represent the actual measured data. They stated no measured data was used to force the model results. Someone else noticed their model was predicting a volcanic eruption....

Anonymous sawtooth February 09, 2015 3:23 PM  

First it was "global cooling"... (Eeek!)
Then it was"global warming"... (Oh, dear...oh me, oh my!)
Followed by "climate change"... (Will somebody pleeeze think of the children!)

So it's now confirmed. The climate is supposed to be changing but it's not!

Man Made Climate Stasis is happening because American louts won't give up their SUVs and their air conditioning.

Please step in, holy and wise government; and stop this egregious assault on our dear Mother Earth. Let the climate once again become the dynamic, ever evolving entity that it once was.

Blogger bob k. mando February 09, 2015 3:24 PM  

YIH February 09, 2015 2:37 PM
I forgot about that one. I stand corrected.


*tips hat*

even if you don't remember a specific instance, it's hard to go wrong assuming that if you scratch a hard Leftist you'll find a homicidal maniac underneath.

i've known and am related to a few. most of the time they are careful to maintain the facade ... but every so often, the mask will slip.


Blogger Mark February 09, 2015 4:16 PM  

And not just in commercials:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/12/professor_calls_for_death_penalty_for_climate_change_deniers.html

Anonymous Anubis February 09, 2015 4:21 PM  

"You do want to have a clean planet... don't you? So they say YES"

You do want to have a clean planet... don't you? Well now that you mention it blacks and Hispanics trash everywhere they go, so what is your solution. I have learned not to concede to rhetoric. If they play the hitler card "Why are you talking about hitler when jewish Bolsheviks killed 60+ million white Christians by first taking away their guns then taking away their food at gunpoint starving them to death." and then for extra effect I lie and say "every NRA member knows about this and prepares for it"


Blogger dfordoom February 09, 2015 4:55 PM  

Apparently the go-to excuse is that the raw data is unreliable and MUST be manipulated before it's of any use.

That's the trouble with facts. They're so damned inconvenient! It's so much easier to make up your own facts.

Blogger kurt9 February 09, 2015 4:57 PM  

This is genuinely a massive scandal, and if scientists don't quickly denounce what has taken place, all scientists are soon going to lose even more credibility with the public once people see what a tremendous scam has been perpetrated by scientists operating on the public dime.

The key phrase in all of this is: "scientists operating on the public dime". Nearly all government-funded science is either corrupt or simply not useful. We've already seen how the peer-review process is corrupted. This is simply more corruption piled on top. The fundamental problem with government funding of science is that so little of it is results driven (e.g. leads to useful technological innovation). Government-funded science is no different to any other government contracting, most notably defense contracting. Only much of it is worse.

Blogger dfordoom February 09, 2015 5:03 PM  

First it was "global cooling"... (Eeek!)
Then it was"global warming"... (Oh, dear...oh me, oh my!)
Followed by "climate change"... (Will somebody pleeeze think of the children!)


Now it's "climate disruption" which is great because every time the weather changes it's evidence that the climate has been disrupted. It rained yesterday but it's sunny today - climate disruption!

Anonymous DT February 09, 2015 5:09 PM  

Fraud...I'm sorry...'adjustments' in the surface record have been exposed and known for quite some time. But this fact has not entered general public knowledge yet, so I'm happy to see someone else with a public voice 'discover' this and talk about it publicly.

Even if there were no 'adjustments', the margin of error for most stations in the surface record network is larger then the claimed warming for the 20th century. Anthony Watts has conclusively shown that the surface record network as a whole is substandard to the point of being unusable.

A man using the scientific method in the pursuit of truth would make no claims given such faulty instrumentation. He would first seek a way to accurately gather the required data.

But we are not dealing with men in the pursuit of truth. We are dealing with men who claim the "scientist" label while pursuing a narrative.

We should rely on satellites to monitor global temperature. They are more accurate and quality control is at a much higher level. But guess what? Graphs of their data cannot be used to support the narrative.

Blogger justaguy February 09, 2015 5:12 PM  

Politicization of science is an established social norm. As long as the government which benefits from "climate change" in the form of increased power and ability to pass out crony projects, they will keep giving their "scientist supporter" large grants and whatever aura of authority they control. There are sufficient acolytes is other areas such as "journo-list journalism" to support the government propaganda against what is obviously a fraud to anyone with any training in statistics and scientific method. Note that the first article I remember in a mainstream media outlet calling it a fraud was a group of respected scientist in the WSJ in 1995 calling out that the political and executive summary of the 1995 UN IPCC did not match the science and that they, the scientists were excluded form writing or comment on the section. The WSJ is still the lonely mainstream US publication battling the fraud and no one seems to care. The governments still write their rules and maintain the final say in the courts regardless of how bad the science really is.

Anonymous old coyote February 09, 2015 5:20 PM  

"everybody gotta serve somebody: it might the devil, it might be the Lord"
Our Talmudic SJWs work hard to help you serve the devil.

Anonymous Stickwick February 09, 2015 5:20 PM  

mistaben: As a physicist, I denounce what my little Morlock cousins dabbling at climate science have done. Richard Feynman would have torn them a new one.

As an astrophysicist, put me down for a big "Boo-urns" to this junk science, too.

kurt9: Nearly all government-funded science is either corrupt or simply not useful.

Meh, not really. The NSF and NASA funds a lot of physics and chemistry research, which, relative to any other human endeavor, is largely uncorrupted. You only really need to worry about corruption when there's lots of money and power at stake. The cosmic microwave background and quasicrystals just ain't gonna make you rich or powerful. On the other hand, any type of research that informs government policy and/or has the potential to make someone billions of dollars -- e.g. climate change, big pharma, etc. -- that's when you should worry about corruption.

Blogger luagha February 09, 2015 5:51 PM  

Just to add:

Another part of the current game is to add 'ocean warming' to the 'global temperature record.'

Of course, these measurements are new and untested and are even easier to manipulate to add more heat. And since these ocean heat measurements are less than twenty years old, comparing the new global temperature record with the old is meaningless.

Blogger SirHamster February 09, 2015 6:13 PM  

Another part of the current game is to add 'ocean warming' to the 'global temperature record.'

Of course, these measurements are new and untested and are even easier to manipulate to add more heat.


You never hear much about the estimated error in the measurements.

For measuring "ocean heat", how do you accurately measure the heat content in a giant earth-spanning body of water, ranging from the artic cold to pleasant tropical beaches, subject to dynamic heating/cooling throughout each day?

Anonymous DT February 09, 2015 6:18 PM  

For measuring "ocean heat", how do you accurately measure the heat content in a giant earth-spanning body of water, ranging from the artic cold to pleasant tropical beaches, subject to dynamic heating/cooling throughout each day?

They have someone type numbers into Excel. If you question them, you hate science.

Blogger Jack Aubrey February 09, 2015 6:52 PM  

Someone needs to tell these scientists that it's the hypothesis or theory that needs to be falsifiable, not the data.

Anonymous pseudotsuga February 09, 2015 6:52 PM  

Kenneth P. Green came to the same conclusion in 2009, when "Climategate" slipped into the blogosphere, but wasn't sexy enough for the mainstream media. (http://www.aei.org/publication/the-meaning-of-motley-cru/) Green himself believes the worst effect is the mistrust this generates of science--if we can't believe these scientists, who claim to be serious scientists, then how will we know if or when scientists ever tell the truth?

Blogger Joshua Sinistar February 09, 2015 6:54 PM  

The truth is they lost. It is all about money. Power is beyond their comprehension. Power is strong men with other strong men conquering peoples taking their land and women.
Thats not what you're dealing with here. These are just greedy swine who use money to buy political whores and mercenaries. They wouldn't know power if it stomped them like a bug.
This fraud is about replacing all the lost money from this brilliant plan to move all the jobs to China and employ meskins that single handedly destroyed both the consumer and tax bases at the same time.
These dead bankers are a sign they're running out of time as the money no longer comes in from economies they gutted with cheap labor. Cheap labor killed them and they can't walk it back.
Their hatred of Hitler caused them to kill the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs. Now they've got nothing. Hitler didn't win, but he didn't lose either. Hitler hatred ended up killing his enemies.

Anonymous clk February 09, 2015 7:49 PM  

Who is this Homewood guy .? I tried to find his credentials but I couldn't .... anyone know his background ..?

Anonymous Jill February 09, 2015 7:51 PM  

I think I've read this article before, or at least have read similar articles--maybe even several years ago. It's funny how this info never reaches a mainstream audience. Or perhaps it does, but the mainstream authorities are still busy being denialists. It's also funny that conservative white males, otherwise knows as CWMs, are twice as likely to be global warming skeptics. This is, according to the researchers because A. they are less likely to go against the establishment; and B. they are more likely to go against the establishment. (Maybe the researchers were friends of Michael Moore or had read his book Stupid White Men, which was graciously placed in libraries all over the country thanks to a nice librarian called Anne, who was also member of the Social Responsibilities Round Table...)

Anonymous kfg February 09, 2015 7:51 PM  

" . . . how do you accurately measure the heat content in a giant earth-spanning body of water . . ."

You deploy a shit ton of autonomous submersibles, but you won't hear much about those, because the data they are collecting is "inconvenient" for the narrative.

" . . .how will we know if or when scientists ever tell the truth?"

You won't. What you are supposed to know are the data and methods so you can examine them for yourself and make your own determination. That is supposed to be the most important part of peer review, which takes place post publication.

The fact that so much of "climate science" is being done with data that has been refused, run through black boxes that cannot be examined, is one of the reasons that I've never met a physicist over the age of 30 who takes any of it seriously.

Especially given that the foundational hypothesis never made much sense anyway.

Blogger SirHamster February 09, 2015 7:57 PM  

You deploy a shit ton of autonomous submersibles, but you won't hear much about those, because the data they are collecting is "inconvenient" for the narrative.

So this is partially done now? What's the current coverage?

Anonymous clk February 09, 2015 7:58 PM  

I think if any you scientists have actually designed space hardware and knew the sort of corrections that have to be added to most space based instruments you woukd understant that predicting a 1c degree variation with any certainy from orbit is really hard .. and unlikely.

What I see here is poor placement of sensors where local conditions are being translated into global errors ... but that just makes they them stupid.. not dishonest... I would still rank most scientists as more honest than most economists, or theologian s or pretty much every kne except engineers (smiles)

Have stood in a t shirt 500 miles from the northpole I can tell you that it does appear to be getting warmer... but thats our fate.. over time it will get warmer as the sun evolves.. but I suspect humans will be long gone by then.

Anonymous kfg February 09, 2015 8:47 PM  

Sir Hamster - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_%28oceanography%29

clk - I have been standing close to the 45th parallel in Arctic gear and it appears to be 20F below average. It's predicted to drop another 20 before the week is out.

The Danes place weather station packages at the north pole, as well as other locations around the Arctic, every year, which take actual temperature measurements; although perhaps that is not as accurate as what it "appears like" to you. Maybe you should give them a call and help them "adjust" their data.

Blogger SirHamster February 09, 2015 9:14 PM  

@kfg, thanks.

Argo project has 4k float sensors distributed world wide.

332 million cubic miles of water on the planet per Google. About 80 K cubic miles of water per sensor.

State of California is 160K square miles, so cover the state in half a mile of water, and plop a single sensor in it. That's our measurement resolution, roughly.

Anonymous kfg February 09, 2015 9:49 PM  

Beats the shit out of what they were doing before, which was to request commercial ships to drop a line now and again and log the surface temperature.

CLK is right about that, another reason physicists haven't, by and large, taken the climate scientists seriously, is because the resolution and precision they bandy about is prima facie absurd.

Still, to give them whatever is their due, at the depths of the sensors ocean conditions are really quite stable, so the resolution isn't quite as bad as it might appear.

Anonymous zen0 February 09, 2015 10:11 PM  

Statists embrace their version of AGW like their version of Keynsianism. It leads to more Irresponsibel Statism.

Anonymous clk February 09, 2015 10:12 PM  

kfg says "clk - I have been standing close to the 45th parallel in Arctic gear and it appears to be 20F below average. It's predicted to drop another 20 before the week is out." ..

I live in the same latitude as well and yes its miserable right now .. but also spent time north of the Arctic circle and it was warmer by all measurements than it was in last 20 years ... but that doesn't mean I buy the whole human driven global warming.. and even if there is global warming .. when its 0 and a blizzard I could do with a little global warming...

Don't pick on the Danes .. we are tough bunch...



Blogger SirHamster February 09, 2015 10:22 PM  

Still, to give them whatever is their due, at the depths of the sensors ocean conditions are really quite stable, so the resolution isn't quite as bad as it might appear.

stable != homogeneous

Do you think we could measure the temperature of California with a single thermometer? Why would it be any better if we swap sea water (complex liquid solution) for air?

Even if math-y shenanigans allowed them to make one thermometer effectively act as 10, measuring the "heat content" of a half mile of water over the area of California to any accuracy with a handful of sensors sounds pretty ridiculous because it is.

Blogger bob k. mando February 09, 2015 11:18 PM  

kfg February 09, 2015 7:51 PM
Especially given that the foundational hypothesis never made much sense anyway.


SirHamster February 09, 2015 9:14 PM
332 million cubic miles of water on the planet per Google. About 80 K cubic miles of water per sensor.



more importantly, as i've pointed out before, consider the difference ( 3 orders of magnitude ) in heat capacity between the world ocean and the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Heat_capacity_and_heats_of_vaporization_and_fusion
"the oceans absorb one thousand times more heat than the atmosphere (air) and are holding 80 to 90% of the heat of global warming."


what controls oceanic heating? weeeeeellllll, there is some moderation between the core of the planet and the atmo as well as frictional heating caused by tidal forces and friction.

however, i think we can all agree that solar heating moderated by cloud cover are primary controlling factors.

now, ask yourself:
can climatologists yet model clouds?

can climatologists even properly predict relatively foreseeable events such as El Nino / La Nina?

no? then how the FUCK are they supposed to tell you anything about what the atmo conditions will be in 5 years?

because, you see, all the atmosphere is, is the moderating layer between the world ocean and outer space.

because, when the heat content of the ocean is ONE THOUSAND TIMES LARGER than the heat content of the atmosphere ... the atmosphere doesn't do a DAMN thing that the ocean doesn't want to do.

Anonymous kfg February 09, 2015 11:26 PM  

"stable != homogeneous"

That's why they need thousands of the buggers.

"Do you think we could measure the temperature of California with a single thermometer? "

No, which is why Arctic air temperature estimates from land based stations are prima facie nonsense. If you don't have a thermometer out on the ice pack, you don't have data.

" Why would it be any better if we swap sea water . . ."

Because both the properties and environment of sea water at 1000 meters below is considerably different from air at 0 meters. The pressure, density and absence of solar heating for instance. That reading at 0 meters (at the shoreline) itself will be moderated by being so close to the sea, where the sea isn't even all that stable.

I'm not saying it's ideal, I'm just saying it's not as bad as you think and considerably better than anything else they've done. About the only thing they've ever done that I can look at and say "OK, that's not too bad. Nice work."

At least until they try to run the data through one of their damned black boxes.

And kudos to CLK if he's a Dane out there putting thermometers on the ice pack.

Blogger SirHamster February 09, 2015 11:27 PM  

The more I think on it. Human body is mostly water. You can fit 12 trillion people in a cubic mile.

Sample the body temperature of 1 person out of 12 trillion people. Use that to figure the average temperature of 12 trillion people.

You've still accomplished a greater degree of precision than our ocean temperature sampling tool. By almost 4 orders of magnitude.

Blogger SirHamster February 09, 2015 11:32 PM  

I'm not saying it's ideal, I'm just saying it's not as bad as you think and considerably better than anything else they've done. About the only thing they've ever done that I can look at and say "OK, that's not too bad. Nice work."

It's an interesting tool, and certainly better than what you've said they did before. But there's an inadequacy that boggles the mind once the scale is put into perspective.

Anonymous kfg February 09, 2015 11:34 PM  

"Sample the body temperature of 1 person out of 12 trillion people. Use that to figure the average temperature of 12 trillion people."

If they are where I am, and we bury them in a mass grave, they are all, each and every one of them, at 50F. Half a year from now, when the air temperature is 90F higher, they will all be at . . . 50F. Move them 20 miles west . . . 50F.

Because they are 3 meters underground. Not even close to the thousand of the sea sensors.

Blogger SirHamster February 09, 2015 11:49 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger SirHamster February 09, 2015 11:50 PM  

Because they are 3 meters underground. Not even close to the thousand of the sea sensors.

3m underground has a constant temperature across thousands of miles independent of locale? Doubt it.

Anonymous kfg February 10, 2015 12:05 AM  

"3m underground has a constant temperature across thousands of miles independent of locale? "

Of longitude, yes. Of latitude it will vary, but across the range of majority human habitation, only by about 5 degrees or so.

"Doubt it."

What do you suppose, in the absence of solar heating and magma pockets, would cause it to vary?

You might want to try a little four season spelunking. You will only need one set of clothes - for comfort at 50 - 55F.

Do you live some place where you are not intimately familiar with the concept of "frostline"?

Blogger SirHamster February 10, 2015 12:33 AM  

You might want to try a little four season spelunking. You will only need one set of clothes - for comfort at 50 - 55F.

Do you live some place where you are not intimately familiar with the concept of "frostline"?


Does 5 degrees of variance mean "constant" to your brain?

If you take 5 samples across thousands of miles, and over a period of time get averages of 50, 51, 53 on a medium you expect to have variance of 50-55 deg F - will you conclude warming, or measurement error?

Anonymous kfg February 10, 2015 1:54 AM  

I do not expect a 50 - 55F variance over time. I shall be quite surprised if I find one and begin inquiries as to its possible source.

I posit that you have heard of a wine cellar. I further posit that you have never heard of a wine attic. An attic is heated by the Sun and cooled by the wind. The temperature in the attic may vary from below 0F to above 120F, which is bad for wine.

In a cellar of sufficient depth there is no Sun and there is no wind. What would cause a temperature variance? It must have a cause.

Anonymous A Nagy February 10, 2015 11:18 AM  

Global Warming is awesome...more farmable/habitable land...sounds good to me. The only danger was the hockey stick where it would fly out of control but even with their numbers that was pretty much disproven. Plus even following their numbers(in the official reports not the hilarious nonsense said on tv) it would be hundreds of years until it was worse in terms of farmable/livable land until now, so the best way to "protect" the human race is to just go forward and improve our tech base as fast as possible. Plus pretty much every single solution to global warming costs an insane amount of money for very neglible returns in terms of green house gases.

Basically
1) Hey isn't this a good thing.
2) Fastest way to solve the problem would be to ignore it until our tech base is way stronger and hopefully a bit closer to an optimal temperature.
3) Your solutions are terrible...like maybe it's being an engineer but not a scientist, but we work in the world of Cost/Benefit analysis, and when people say WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING and I go doing this you cause this much damage to human tech growth vs slowing down greenhouse gas emission by ohh congrats 2%...that's more then usual now lets plot a chart on the damage you have done to our tech improvements (you know to solve the problem and to improve our standards of living) vs the slowing you caused though your initiatives. Ohh wow you got destroyed on back of a napkin math on these numbers, whelp.

Not to mention yeah very fishy numbers I brought this up in highschool back on some 2000? climate report came out when I called places and gathered the raw data manually and printed it out vs what they were telling me and while at the time I still got a positive trend it was wayyyyyy less positive and didn't show the hockey stick that their data was showing. My teacher seemed to really like this nobody in the class or even other members of my team was a big fan because hockey stick global warming going to destroy the earth unless we did something in 20 years was a "fact"

Anonymous WaterBoy February 10, 2015 1:09 PM  

sawtooth: "Yes, and I place the blame squarely on Al Gore."

He's ba-a-a-a-a-a-ck:

Former Vice President Al Gore, who first envisioned the observatory two decades ago, was on hand for the attempt.
.
.
.
The Deep Space Climate Observatory is refashioned from the Earth-observing satellite conceived in the late 1990s by Gore when he was vice president. It was canceled before ever flying and packed away until several years ago, when NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Air Force decided to resurrect it as a space weather sentinel.

Gore arrived at Cape Canaveral well in advance of the sunset liftoff, eager to see his brainchild finally soar. He told reporters an hour before the planned launch time that he was grateful to the scientists and others who kept his dream alive. The measurements will help measure global warming, he noted, and the steady stream of pictures of Earth may help mobilize the public to put pressure on the world's government leaders "to take action to save the future of human civilization."


[All emphasis mine.]

Some people just won't give up....

Blogger SirHamster February 10, 2015 2:00 PM  

I do not expect a 50 - 55F variance over time. I shall be quite surprised if I find one and begin inquiries as to its possible source.

On an area of thousands of miles, you'll take a single sample from different locations, get a variety of readings between 50-55F (your expected range), and consider that anomalous? Are you thinking through the things you are saying?

For a ground sampling - variance in the same location could come from geographic features. Underground stream, fault line, biodegradation. (Why do you think a mile deep of human bodies would stay constant temperature just because you buried it?)

For an ocean sampling, there are things called currents. And the sampling instruments are not fixed in location, so you're sampling different places at different times and hoping that the error averages out.

"Hope" and "knowing the error" are exclusive. When the unknown errors are practically unlimited, what is said to be known is not actually known.

Anonymous kfg February 10, 2015 5:59 PM  

" Are you thinking through the things you are saying? "

Yes, but you are not responding to what I am saying.

If I take a reading at the corners of my desktop, and one corner is warmer than the others, then I might be well advised to look for the fire so that I might put it out.

Because I know from experience, having taken many, many readings, and having at my disposal an unfalsified theoretical foundation for what I have observed, that all points of my desktop should be the same temperature.

The hot corner is an anomaly. Something must be heating it.

At depth, under the ground or under the ocean, the Earth or water is in thermodynamic equilibrium, like my desktop. I do not expect 5 degree variance. I expect stability.

I expect that the depth at which a thermodynamic stability of 50F occurs to be a bit deeper in Sao Paulo than in Chicago. That is the only temperature variation I spoke of. That variance is not a variable, it is a constant.

Sao Paulo and Chicago are two different desks, in two different rooms, with the thermostats set to two different temperatures. Each desk will always be at the same temperature, the ambient of the room they are in. There will be a constant variance between the desks equal to the variance of the ambient temperature of the two rooms.

Assuming no anomalous source of heat, I can place one thermometer or twenty on my desk and it doesn't matter, they will all give exactly the same reading. One thermometer is the precision limit for the conditions. The one is necessary, but also sufficient.

If I come back a few days later and find that my desk is 5 degrees warmer, the first thing I would do is check the operation of my thermostat, because I shouldn't have any variation at all if it is operating properly. My first assumption is that the temperature of the room has risen 5 degrees, which has heated my desktop 5 degrees.

If my room is well insulated and my thermometer is sufficiently precise and all I am interested in are long term trends, then one thermometer for the entire room and everything in it is sufficient.

Everything in the room will be and remain the temperature of the thermostat setting until a heat source or sink is introduced into the room, and If I see any variation of temperature over time, I will know that that has happened.

What I won't know is what or where it is until I investigate further.

Blogger SirHamster February 10, 2015 7:06 PM  

If my room is well insulated and my thermometer is sufficiently precise and all I am interested in are long term trends, then one thermometer for the entire room and everything in it is sufficient.

So one sensor for an area the size of California is entirely sufficient, because you can measure a room's temperature with a single thermometer. A volume that can easily contain the entire world's human population a thousand times over shall be quantified with a single sensor's single measurement.

Scientific hubris is pretty amusing. "For Science!" is a punchline, not a battle-cry.

Anonymous kfg February 10, 2015 7:47 PM  

"So one sensor for an area the size of California is entirely sufficient . . ."

For California I would prefer two. I might well move them around a few times. Note that the Argo floats are not tethered. They move.

The room is used as an illustrative example, used to try to help you understand that sufficient resolution may be grosser than your common sense would indicate.

I used the example of the ground, since it is denser, more opaque and moves more slowly than water. Hence the effect of depth on temperature is more pronounced. The frost line in Chicago is only a single meter.

Another advantage of ground is that you have ready access to it. You can test it for yourself. You will find that if you bury a room at least a meter underground it will never reach a temperature below freezing.

If you bury it a bit deeper the temperature it never goes below will be higher, and the seasonal variation will be smaller. There will be no daily variation at all.

Bury it a little deeper and its temperature will be even higher, and even more stable.

The key advance of the Argo floats isn't their number, it's the depth. At 1000 and 2000 meters, there are no daily or seasonal variations in temperature. There is no weather. Only climate.

The sea is massive.

The Earth more so.

Blogger SirHamster February 10, 2015 9:28 PM  

For California I would prefer two. I might well move them around a few times.

Heh. And what would that "average" temperature of California mean? Garbage in, garbage out.

Note that the Argo floats are not tethered. They move.

You're adding more variables and errors into your measurements, and you trumpet that as a feature. As the more eloquent amongst us may say, "Wow, just wow."

The room is used as an illustrative example, used to try to help you understand that sufficient resolution may be grosser than your common sense would indicate.

You keep talking about relative improvements to gloss over the fact that the tool is utterly inadequate. You are obfuscating, not illustrating.

The assumption that a layer of ocean water the area of California is thermally homogeneous is not reasonable. That this assumption is hidden away instead of acknowledged and justified says it all.

The key advance of the Argo floats isn't their number, it's the depth. At 1000 and 2000 meters, there are no daily or seasonal variations in temperature. There is no weather. Only climate.

Remember that Argo feature you boasted of a few paragraphs? "They move."?

Is there such a thing as positional variance in temperature in the ocean? If so, the inability to control position of the sensor is a huge flaw, not an advantage.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts