President Obama conducted a Q&A before he boarded Air Force One, heading home early due to the inbound snow storm in Washington.
He closed out the Q&A with evidence that he had no idea what was supposed to happen at the summit . Who is briefing the President?
Here’s the closer:
Q: Mr. President, who will sign the agreement — since you’re leaving, who here has the power to sign it?
THE PRESIDENT: We’ve got our negotiators who are here. I’m not going to be the only leader who I think leaves before it’s finally presented, but they are empowered to sign off — given at this point that most of the text has been completely worked out. Q: Does it require signing, is it that kind of agreement? THE PRESIDENT: You know, it raises an interesting question as to whether technically there’s actually a signature — since, as I said, it’s not a legally binding agreement, I don’t know what the protocols are. But I do think that this is a commitment that we, as the United States, are making and that we think is very important.
I imagine that barring alein invalsion CoRev will be along shortly with his list of events for this very eventful week. Two that caught my eye.
1. A report that says that recission of Himalayan glaciers is probably due at least as much to carbon particles (soot) as to greenhouse gases. http://www.livescience.com/environment/091214-black-carbon-himalaya-glacier.html If true, this is important because controlling particulates is different than controlling greenhouse gases. It’s possibly easier. OTOH simply controlling total carbon emissions as per Kyoto/Copenhagen probably has no impact on particulate emissions.
My understanding is that a lot of the Russian data was excluded because data from those stations was obviously erroneous. And what made them think the data was erroneous? Because it was an EXACT duplication of previous year’s records. So the duplicate records were excluded. And not surprisingly the bad data was coming from meteorlogical sites that were the most remote and therefore tended to report the lowest temperatures. Jim Hansen had a pretty good write up on this.
Carbon soot is kind of a two-edged sword. It both cools and warms depending on the context…except in CoRev’s “binary” world in which everything operates unambiguously. For example, the authors of Freakonomics have proposed a rather whacky scheme that’s been getting a lot of favorable press from anti-GW sites. The Freakonomics authors recommend adding carbon soot into the atmosphere because it blocks out solar radiation. So in that context carbon soot is trumpeted as a way to cool the globe. But the idea that carbon soot increases surface temperatures is not in dispute, so it could very explain glacier melt in the Himalyas. So carbon soot probably cuts both ways. But CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat and tends to warm the globe.
Codger, I suspect the Russians know! Remember, it was one of their servers upon which the original Climategate docs were placed. By ?them??????
Certainly the Russian Govt has ample need to keep the status quo re: burning carbon now that they are the premier supplier to W Europe.
Here’s what the Russians say: “On the whole, HadCRUT specialists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations. IEA analysts found that the [CRU] climatologists used the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the “urban heat effect” more frequently than the unbiased data from the stations located in less populated places.
The IEA authors calculated that the scale of actual warming for the Russian territory in 1877-1998 was probably exaggerated by 0.64°C. Since Russia accounts for 12.5% of the world’s land mass, such an exaggeration for Russia alone should have an impact on the IPCC claim that the global temperature in the last century has risen by 0.76°C. If similar procedures have been used for processing climate data from other national data sources, the impact on the rate of change in global temperature would be considerable. The IEA report concludes that it is necessary to recalculate all global temperature data in order to assess the real rate of temperature change during the last century. Global temperature data will have to be modified because the calculations used by Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change analysts are based on HadCRUT research.”
These claims have been around now for several years, and appear to be true for nearly all the Temp Datasets. Cherry picked? Dunno, but sure looks like it. So even the +.7C rise in global temps in the past century may be closer to .1C or even less due to most of the heating being from the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect and selection of the weather stations. In response to the Russian claim, the CRU blamed the station selection on the IPCC while ignoring the fact they are part of that IPCC community of scientists making these decisions.
For those who think the UHI is well handled in the temp measurements, there are several studies and articles that show that instead of accounting for UHI the NASA/GISS approach actually accentuates it. They then codify it by increasing the rural stations. The opposite of what would be expected if it was well handled.
While it was clearly not a big success, calling it a “failure” might be too harsh. A failure would be coming out with a result worse than what you came in with, and what Obama got out of Copenhagen was clearly better than what he had going in. Not a whole lot better, but still better. It at least keeps the Kyoto targets in place even if the enforcement procedure is unspecified. And getting China to agree to monitoring was not a trivial accomplishment. And I wouldn’t discount the $30B over the next 2 years to essentially bribe 3rd world countries into not burning down rain forests. That’s a good beginning. It’s certainly more than we would have gotten out of Bush 43, who probably couldn’t have found Copenhagen on a map.
Certainly the Russian Govt has ample need to keep the status quo re: burning carbon now that they are the premier supplier to W Europe.
Yes. Which is exactly why we should “trust but verify” anything that the Russians say. That includes some of the statistically improbable raw data being reported out of Russia.
2slugs said: ” That includes some of the statistically improbable raw data being reported out of Russia.” And Darwin AU, and Memphis TN, and NZ, and the list is growing!
As I have said re: this three legged stool, as we get into these datasets and get more info re: how they are modified, we are seeing more improper processing. Why is it a preponderance of metro sites over the rural sites that are used? Is it because they tell the correct story if you are Pro-AGW?
***My understanding is that a lot of the Russian data was excluded because data from those stations was obviously erroneous. And what made them think the data was erroneous? Because it was an EXACT duplication of previous year’s records. So the duplicate records were excluded.***
Do you have a link for that? Google isn’t helping me much because Hansen’s name seems to appear somewhere in every article ever written on Global warming.
I did find this http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/dissing_hansen.html which suggests that Hansen has good reason to mistrust Russian data having once published results based on data where the Russians had repeated September temperatures for October. However GISS (Hansen’s organization at NASA) is not the same as the CRU at East Anglia. And it seems to push credulity a bit to believe that 75% of Russian temperature data has always been prima facia defective and nobody has ever yelled at the Russians about the quality of their data or cited the lousy quality of Russian data as a factor contributing to uncertainties about the extent of global warming.
I think we’ll need better sourcing on the claim about 75% of Russian data being excluded. It’s not like the Telegraph has a reputation for getting its stories and interpretations straight. And the American Stinker is not exactly an intellectual bright light either. We do seem to have pretty good understanding of what happened to one month’s worth of Russian data (Nov 2008) and this is what Hansen was talking about just a couple of days ago. Here’s what Hansen said:
Unfortunately, another data problem occurred in 2008. In one of the three incoming data streams, the one for meteorological stations, the November 2008 data for many Russian stations was a repeat of October 2008 data. It was not our data record, but we properly had to accept the blame for the error, because the data was included in our analysis.
I think that you might be misunderstanding the issue. Bias due to UHI would be a legitimate issue if we were only talking about using the absolute temperature records from those metropolitan sites. But that’s not what what’s being done here. They are deriving temperature anomalies, and it’s the anomalies that are being tracked. Increasing the number of metropolitan weather stations does not bias the weighting if you do things right. But what increasing the number of metropolitan stations does do is to allow you to better correlate temperature anomalies between urban areas with distance; i.e., it helps you get a better handle on outlier data points. That’s why some of the adjustments seem to fly in the face of your intuitions….it’s because I don’t think you actually understand the methodological differences between just coming up with average temperatures and coming up with average temperature anomalies.
Oh 2slugs. Why do I even bother? Lessee, an anomaly is a baseline average compared to the current average. In the current official temp calculations that baseline is a fixed 30 year period! It does not float with the overall data, and GISS, CRU and the satellite data are compared to different anomaly baselines. I will repeat, even again, anomaly comparisons give us four points for cherry picking. You figure it out.
If that baseline is set at a cooler period, then nearly all anomalies will appear higher as the normal/natural warming cooling cycles proceed. If the average is largely based upon metro stations with UHI effect, then the annual averages will go up with the UHI and urban growth If reporting stations for metro areas are selected over rural stations then we have a preponderance of data from UHI tainted urban areas. If we then take these stations and homogenize them within a radius of 1200 Kilometers to remove the UHI influence, then we will wipe out the lower rural readings with a new higher averaged temp because of the preponderance of data.
Only if the rural stations are significantly cooler than the urban stations and in a high enough percentage to offset the increased average from the urban stations, will they influence the annual average temps. Otherwise the urban stations dominate the rural. It just won’t happen when the urban stations are consistently selected and the rural stations dropped. And, that is what the evidence shows has been happening.
Now, the 40% of the Russian stations are primarily in the cooler portions of the country. Another piece of evidence for the claim of bias? Dunno, but without transparency we will never know!
For those who do not follow this issue, the reason that we are talking about urban/rural stations is because there is growing evidence that the rural stations show much, much less warming. Therefore, replacing rural stations with urban stations or adding a much higher percentage of urban stations to rural stations biases the temperature averages., or in the example in Codger’s comment throwing away 40% of the Russian stations in the cooler portions of the country.
There are many ways to cherry pick temp data. In this comment I mentioned two of them, and they are current examples of how the global average temps are being calculated.
***It’s not like the Telegraph has a reputation for getting its stories and interpretations straight.***
Except that, for a wonder, the Telegraph actually has a documented source — the Ria novosti New Service English Language feed (easier to check out if one spells it correctly). Ria novosti appears to be relatively sane and mainstream, but some of its sources possibly aren’t. (I was especially charmed by the article about stray dogs in Siberia turning green after feeding at an illegal dump http://en.rian.ru/strange/20091211/157201348.html) It’s source in this case is a newspaper Kommersant which seems to have a illustrious history, but which apparently is not popular with the current government in Russia and seems to have fled to England.
Actually, I think there may be two different stories going on here. The first one is the specific problem with one month’s data from Russia. This is a recently discovered problem and I think the rationale for excluding the duplicate data makes sense even if some believe it is just an effort to fake the data. But there’s also another longstanding complaint from some (e.g., CoRev’s favorite team of Canadians M&M) that claim there has been a big drop off in the number of Russian station reports over the last several years. Apparently some folks believe that the only possible explanation for dropping those observations is because the numbers would refute global warming.
2slugs, it would be a different story if it were only one country’s stations, but it has happened to stations all over the world. That’s why I referenced, NZ, Darwin Au, Memphis TN, and there are more being discovered weekly. Without transparency there can be no answer, only speculation. But, that speculation is being reinforced, and not well defended.
Let me make this situation a little more clear. Nearly all of the catastrophic predictions have been based upon the rising temps as shown by the CRU and NASA/GISS calculations. What Climategate has done is confirm to skeptics that those temps are and have been exaggerated. If that is the case then most of the catastrophic predictions are based upon false assumptions and data. They are almost surely, then wrong.
The effort to control temps then are also based upon false assumptions and data. The pro-AGW adherents have made a great case that the recent heating has been “unprecedented”. Climategate has confirmed the skeptics that their work has been kept out of the scientific journals, moreover, the Climategate ?scientists? went beyond that to actually ridiculing other than their own views. Thereby eliminating or severely reducing efforts to confirm or expand upon skeptical studies.
So we have a theory based upon Green House Gases (GHGs), especially CO2, which is supposed to be the major cause for the increasing temperature. But, Climategate, and the recent reviews of the emails, S/W Code, and datasets have shown that there may be far less warming than has been reported.
Finally, there has been no proof that CO2 cause any warming in the levels proposed by the scientists in the models. Which leads us to ask. Why are we trying to control CO2? Why are we being asked to spend so much money? Why are we being asked to risk so much on so little evidence?
***Actually, I think there may be two different stories going on here.***
Yes. The replicated monthly data sounds like a screwup. As far as I know, Hansen has never been shy about showing his data and computations to the world. The controversy re Hansen/GISS is about his analysis of the data and his consitently alarmist views. But he’s allowed to have opinions and act as an advocate as long as he doesn’t lie, cheat, or obsfucate his work.
I also think that If Hansen were going to fake a result, he’d do a lot more workmanlike job of fudging the numbers.
The CRU on the other hand seems to have a record of taking in data, performing ill-defined processing and producing data sets that can not easily be tracked back to the input data. In the idiom of present day Wall Street, their work seems to lack transparency. Think of the CRU as somewhat resembling the bond rating firms. They turn out a product, but nobody can tell whether the product is truly representative of the input data. It is starting to appear that perhaps it is not.
Nearly all of the catastrophic predictions have been based upon the rising temps as shown by the CRU and NASA/GISS calculations.
You’re contradicting what you told VtCodger. VtCodger’s point was that while he had some doubts about the integrity of CRU’s data, he had no doubts about the integrity of Hansen and NASA/GISS. He questioned Hansen’s analysis and conclusions, but not the integrity of the data itself. VtCodger said:
The controversy re Hansen/GISS is about his analysis of the data and his consitently alarmist views. But he’s allowed to have opinions and act as an advocate as long as he doesn’t lie, cheat, or obsfucate his work.
To which you replied: Pretty good analysis, Codger!
Now you seem to have switched gears and the current claim is that the data from Hansen and NOAA and GISS/NASS are all untrustworthy as well. You really can’t have it both ways. So do you think that it is only the CRU data that is dubious, or contrary to what you told VtCodger, do you think that all temperature data (CRU, NOAA and GISS/NASA) is dubious?
an anomaly is a baseline average compared to the current average. In the current official temp calculations that baseline is a fixed 30 year period! It does not float with the overall data,
Yes. And???? The point is that while the timeframe is fixed the stations are not. The intent is not to look at absolute temperatures at any given weather station; the point is to look for trends. One of the reasons for increasing the number of urban stations is to better control for uncertainty. In other words, outliers get less emphasis, as they should. And increasing the number of weather stations allows meteorologists to better adjust raw instrument readings.
As to the urban heat effect, the evidence for it is mixed to say the least. Remember, the issue is not the effect of urban heat islands on absolute temperature readings at specific locations; it’s about finding a trend. One way to look at it is to keep in mind a change in instrument readings due to an intercept shift and a change due to a steeper slope estimate. Climate scientists are concerned about slope changes, not intercept changes. NOAA argues that in controlled tests of 70 stations the effect of urban heat islands on the slopes of temperature anomalies for the 70 test stations is not statistically different than it is for the population as a whole.
Dubious data processing appears prevalent in all the major Met offices. Now as to Hansen, I believe as Codger said, he is entitled to his own personal views, and yes he does have consistently alarmist views, but I disagree with Codger that Hansen does lie, cheat, but not sure about obfuscations. He is a true believer. What was so difficult with that?
You have read too much into my commendation of Codger’s comment, and of his comment. Since Hansen is Head of GISS, When Codger said this: “The controversy re Hansen/GISS is about his analysis of the data…” I suspect he might have had some doubts over the GISS output. If he does not, many others do. Hope that clarifies for you.
2slugs said: “One of the reasons for increasing the number of urban stations is to better control for uncertainty. In other words, outliers get less emphasis, as they should. And increasing the number of weather stations allows meteorologists to better adjust raw instrument readings.” Controlling for uncertainty? Outliers? Better adjusting … to match the expected outputs to support … the AGW theory? I don’t think your argument is very strong.
2slugs, also said: “As to the urban heat effect, the evidence for it is mixed to say the least.” Your kidding, right? I dunno what world you live in, but everyday I see a forecast I can see the effects of UHI in temperatures.
BTW, your NOAA comment re: UHI,” NOAA argues that in controlled tests of 70 stations the effect of urban heat islands on the slopes of temperature anomalies for the 70 test stations is not statistically different than it is for the population as a whole.” Was debunked within hours, and IIRC NOAA never backed the findings in a formal paper. And, controlled tests, AFAIK they did a statistical comparison? They homogenized the data smearing the rural stations with the urban station outputs, and surprise, the statistical difference became insignificant.
They were trying to forestall a Watts paper analyzing their stations, but got too far out in front. Watts has still to publish that paper, but it will be coming. Their premature reaction seems to indicate some concern.
If that’s what VtCodger meant, then he has a funny way of saying it. The plain interpretation was that VtCodger questioned Hansen’s analysis and conclusions, but did not question the integrity of the data that GISS uses. I think that was the gist of VtCodger’s comment. If that’s not right, then he can surely correct any misconceptions.
Controlling for uncertainty? Outliers? Better adjusting … to match the expected outputs to support … the AGW theory?
Most people understand that increasing the number of measurements tends to increase the confidence in the estimate. Most people understand that you can get random hot spots or cold spots. And meteorologists claim that there is a fairly well understood empirical relationship between temperature readings and distance. If you have extra knowledge, then you should use that knowledge to calibrate readings.
“…Was debunked within hours, and IIRC NOAA never backed the findings in a formal paper…They were trying to forestall a Watts paper analyzing their stations, but got too far out in front. Watts has still to publish that paper, but it will be coming. Their premature reaction seems to indicate some concern.”
I think that’s what Anthony Watts would like to believe. In fact, the paper was published in a peer reviewed journal (Bulletin of American Meteorological Society) 6 months ago, which means the research was done LONG before Watts ever started sounding off. It is true that NOAA wrote a “talking points” paper in response to some of Watts’ claims; but to hear Watts’ side of the story you would think that this was all some kind of defensive action and that he (Watts) was the center of angst inside NOAA. I think that the truth is that this paper was written a long time ago and NOAA simply had this one already in the can when Watts started sounding off. BTW, here’s the link the the paper that you say was never written because NOAA backed down after confronting the fearful and mighty Watts:
I agree, let’s get Codger to answer. Regardless, you are reading more into my few words than were there. I agreed with the bulk of what he said, and I have described how I interpreted his comments.
2slugs, you are mixing processes. Statistical/mathematical precesses related to: “Most people understand that increasing the number of measurements tends to increase the confidence in the estimate.” Are interesting tools, but you failed to recognize that the total number of stations in the networks has actually been dropping. Cooler being replaced with warmer. Cherry picking? Dunno, without transparency there is no way for outsiders to know.
Furthermore, you have used a term “calibrate” with a known meaning when using instruments outside that normal meaning. The weather instruments start off calibrated, and are supposed to undergo periodic calibration. Some kind of statistical/mathematical process is not normally done to calibrate the data from the stations. Those statistical/mathematical tools ARE used to process the data. With the exception of the satellite data which was statistically calibrated with the surface data. The climate scientists used to working with the surface temperature data were concerned when the Sat data began to diverge early on. They insisted that the satellites’ data be calibrated with the surface data. In hindsight that might have been a mistake.
As an aside, I am seeing a similar lack of meaningful commentary re: Climate Change on other open/skeptical blogs. One or a few of pro-AGW hangers on continue picking at little things in order to make some obtuse points. I dunno why. It seems to be a silly exercise in point scoring while they are in denial the game has ended and it is lost. The people are falling further and further from the belief; moreover, the policy makers, as indicated by Copenhagen, are hanging on by their last thread.
“Lawrence Solomon at the National Post writes about a topic that WUWT readers have known about for a long time: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles. We’ve known for some time that Wikipedia can’t be trusted to provide unbiased climate information. Solomon starts off by talking about Climategate emails. The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD. The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history. He then focuses on RealClimate.org co-founder William Connolley, who has “touched” 5,428 Wikipedia articles with his unique brand of RC centric editing:”
A brief anecdote. A Rusian doctor I work with told me, “never trust the Russian researchers.” He based this after he was told to falsify his data on a research paper because his results did not meet with the leads expectations. Needless to say, he refused and had to find a different research project.
You will not convince me that AGW is real as long as the leaders of the Dems, who go on and on about AGW, take actions that actually back up their words. Another perfect example (Hat tip to Instapundant)
“Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region. “
There is no crises in global warming, or climate change or whatever the current naming fad is….this is all about control – liberal fascism at its best.
Copenhagen CO15 Summit? I chalk that one up in the failure column.
President Obama conducted a Q&A before he boarded Air Force One, heading home early due to the inbound snow storm in Washington.
He closed out the Q&A with evidence that he had no idea what was supposed to happen at the summit . Who is briefing the President?
Here’s the closer:
Q: Mr. President, who will sign the agreement — since you’re leaving, who here has the power to sign it?
THE PRESIDENT: We’ve got our negotiators who are here. I’m not going to be the only leader who I think leaves before it’s finally presented, but they are empowered to sign off — given at this point that most of the text has been completely worked out.
Q: Does it require signing, is it that kind of agreement?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, it raises an interesting question as to whether technically there’s actually a signature — since, as I said, it’s not a legally binding agreement, I don’t know what the protocols are. But I do think that this is a commitment that we, as the United States, are making and that we think is very important.
All right. Thanks, guys.
I imagine that barring alein invalsion CoRev will be along shortly with his list of events for this very eventful week. Two that caught my eye.
1. A report that says that recission of Himalayan glaciers is probably due at least as much to carbon particles (soot) as to greenhouse gases. http://www.livescience.com/environment/091214-black-carbon-himalaya-glacier.html If true, this is important because controlling particulates is different than controlling greenhouse gases. It’s possibly easier. OTOH simply controlling total carbon emissions as per Kyoto/Copenhagen probably has no impact on particulate emissions.
2. A report http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/ that the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University have been cherry picking Russian surface termperature data and apparently have been using only the 25% that best supports global warming. True? Who the hell knows?
VtCodger,
My understanding is that a lot of the Russian data was excluded because data from those stations was obviously erroneous. And what made them think the data was erroneous? Because it was an EXACT duplication of previous year’s records. So the duplicate records were excluded. And not surprisingly the bad data was coming from meteorlogical sites that were the most remote and therefore tended to report the lowest temperatures. Jim Hansen had a pretty good write up on this.
Carbon soot is kind of a two-edged sword. It both cools and warms depending on the context…except in CoRev’s “binary” world in which everything operates unambiguously. For example, the authors of Freakonomics have proposed a rather whacky scheme that’s been getting a lot of favorable press from anti-GW sites. The Freakonomics authors recommend adding carbon soot into the atmosphere because it blocks out solar radiation. So in that context carbon soot is trumpeted as a way to cool the globe. But the idea that carbon soot increases surface temperatures is not in dispute, so it could very explain glacier melt in the Himalyas. So carbon soot probably cuts both ways. But CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat and tends to warm the globe.
Codger, I suspect the Russians know! Remember, it was one of their servers upon which the original Climategate docs were placed. By ?them??????
Certainly the Russian Govt has ample need to keep the status quo re: burning carbon now that they are the premier supplier to W Europe.
Here’s what the Russians say: “On the whole, HadCRUT specialists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations. IEA analysts found that the [CRU] climatologists used the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the “urban heat effect” more frequently than the unbiased data from the stations located in less populated places.
The IEA authors calculated that the scale of actual warming for the Russian territory in 1877-1998 was probably exaggerated by 0.64°C. Since Russia accounts for 12.5% of the world’s land mass, such an exaggeration for Russia alone should have an impact on the IPCC claim that the global temperature in the last century has risen by 0.76°C.
If similar procedures have been used for processing climate data from other national data sources, the impact on the rate of change in global temperature would be considerable.
The IEA report concludes that it is necessary to recalculate all global temperature data in order to assess the real rate of temperature change during the last century. Global temperature data will have to be modified because the calculations used by Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change analysts are based on HadCRUT research.”
Quote is from here: http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf (Warning it is a PDF in Russian!) The partial translation can be found here: http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/12/illarianov-on-crus-adjusting-of-russia.html
These claims have been around now for several years, and appear to be true for nearly all the Temp Datasets. Cherry picked? Dunno, but sure looks like it. So even the +.7C rise in global temps in the past century may be closer to .1C or even less due to most of the heating being from the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect and selection of the weather stations. In response to the Russian claim, the CRU blamed the station selection on the IPCC while ignoring the fact they are part of that IPCC community of scientists making these decisions.
For those who think the UHI is well handled in the temp measurements, there are several studies and articles that show that instead of accounting for UHI the NASA/GISS approach actually accentuates it. They then codify it by increasing the rural stations. The opposite of what would be expected if it was well handled.
MG,
While it was clearly not a big success, calling it a “failure” might be too harsh. A failure would be coming out with a result worse than what you came in with, and what Obama got out of Copenhagen was clearly better than what he had going in. Not a whole lot better, but still better. It at least keeps the Kyoto targets in place even if the enforcement procedure is unspecified. And getting China to agree to monitoring was not a trivial accomplishment. And I wouldn’t discount the $30B over the next 2 years to essentially bribe 3rd world countries into not burning down rain forests. That’s a good beginning. It’s certainly more than we would have gotten out of Bush 43, who probably couldn’t have found Copenhagen on a map.
http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=3068
CoRev,
Certainly the Russian Govt has ample need to keep the status quo re: burning carbon now that they are the premier supplier to W Europe.
Yes. Which is exactly why we should “trust but verify” anything that the Russians say. That includes some of the statistically improbable raw data being reported out of Russia.
2slugs said: ” That includes some of the statistically improbable raw data being reported out of Russia.” And Darwin AU, and Memphis TN, and NZ, and the list is growing!
As I have said re: this three legged stool, as we get into these datasets and get more info re: how they are modified, we are seeing more improper processing. Why is it a preponderance of metro sites over the rural sites that are used? Is it because they tell the correct story if you are Pro-AGW?
Here are a few links that make the point of processing problems: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/3649/
http://landshape.org/enm/new-zealand-effect-in-australia/
http://landshape.org/enm/darwin-adjustments/
***My understanding is that a lot of the Russian data was excluded because data from those stations was obviously erroneous. And what made them think the data was erroneous? Because it was an EXACT duplication of previous year’s records. So the duplicate records were excluded.***
Do you have a link for that? Google isn’t helping me much because Hansen’s name seems to appear somewhere in every article ever written on Global warming.
I did find this http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/dissing_hansen.html which suggests that Hansen has good reason to mistrust Russian data having once published results based on data where the Russians had repeated September temperatures for October. However GISS (Hansen’s organization at NASA) is not the same as the CRU at East Anglia. And it seems to push credulity a bit to believe that 75% of Russian temperature data has always been prima facia defective and nobody has ever yelled at the Russians about the quality of their data or cited the lousy quality of Russian data as a factor contributing to uncertainties about the extent of global warming.
VtCodger,
I think we’ll need better sourcing on the claim about 75% of Russian data being excluded. It’s not like the Telegraph has a reputation for getting its stories and interpretations straight. And the American Stinker is not exactly an intellectual bright light either. We do seem to have pretty good understanding of what happened to one month’s worth of Russian data (Nov 2008) and this is what Hansen was talking about just a couple of days ago. Here’s what Hansen said:
Unfortunately, another data problem occurred in 2008. In one of the three incoming data
streams, the one for meteorological stations, the November 2008 data for many Russian stations
was a repeat of October 2008 data. It was not our data record, but we properly had to accept the
blame for the error, because the data was included in our analysis.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf
CoRev,
I think that you might be misunderstanding the issue. Bias due to UHI would be a legitimate issue if we were only talking about using the absolute temperature records from those metropolitan sites. But that’s not what what’s being done here. They are deriving temperature anomalies, and it’s the anomalies that are being tracked. Increasing the number of metropolitan weather stations does not bias the weighting if you do things right. But what increasing the number of metropolitan stations does do is to allow you to better correlate temperature anomalies between urban areas with distance; i.e., it helps you get a better handle on outlier data points. That’s why some of the adjustments seem to fly in the face of your intuitions….it’s because I don’t think you actually understand the methodological differences between just coming up with average temperatures and coming up with average temperature anomalies.
2slugs, IIRC it was corrected upon notification, and the gist of the skeptical arguments were to do with GISS quality control.
So, when does one month make a rationale for throwing out the bulk of the colder stations?
Oh 2slugs. Why do I even bother? Lessee, an anomaly is a baseline average compared to the current average. In the current official temp calculations that baseline is a fixed 30 year period! It does not float with the overall data, and GISS, CRU and the satellite data are compared to different anomaly baselines. I will repeat, even again, anomaly comparisons give us four points for cherry picking. You figure it out.
If that baseline is set at a cooler period, then nearly all anomalies will appear higher as the normal/natural warming cooling cycles proceed. If the average is largely based upon metro stations with UHI effect, then the annual averages will go up with the UHI and urban growth If reporting stations for metro areas are selected over rural stations then we have a preponderance of data from UHI tainted urban areas. If we then take these stations and homogenize them within a radius of 1200 Kilometers to remove the UHI influence, then we will wipe out the lower rural readings with a new higher averaged temp because of the preponderance of data.
Only if the rural stations are significantly cooler than the urban stations and in a high enough percentage to offset the increased average from the urban stations, will they influence the annual average temps. Otherwise the urban stations dominate the rural. It just won’t happen when the urban stations are consistently selected and the rural stations dropped. And, that is what the evidence shows has been happening.
Now, the 40% of the Russian stations are primarily in the cooler portions of the country. Another piece of evidence for the claim of bias? Dunno, but without transparency we will never know!
For those who do not follow this issue, the reason that we are talking about urban/rural stations is because there is growing evidence that the rural stations show much, much less warming. Therefore, replacing rural stations with urban stations or adding a much higher percentage of urban stations to rural stations biases the temperature averages., or in the example in Codger’s comment throwing away 40% of the
Russian stations in the cooler portions of the country.
There are many ways to cherry pick temp data. In this comment I mentioned two of them, and they are current examples of how the global average temps are being calculated.
***It’s not like the Telegraph has a reputation for getting its stories and interpretations straight.***
Except that, for a wonder, the Telegraph actually has a documented source — the Ria novosti New Service English Language feed (easier to check out if one spells it correctly). Ria novosti appears to be relatively sane and mainstream, but some of its sources possibly aren’t. (I was especially charmed by the article about stray dogs in Siberia turning green after feeding at an illegal dump http://en.rian.ru/strange/20091211/157201348.html) It’s source in this case is a newspaper Kommersant which seems to have a illustrious history, but which apparently is not popular with the current government in Russia and seems to have fled to England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommersant
VtCodger,
Good story.
Actually, I think there may be two different stories going on here. The first one is the specific problem with one month’s data from Russia. This is a recently discovered problem and I think the rationale for excluding the duplicate data makes sense even if some believe it is just an effort to fake the data. But there’s also another longstanding complaint from some (e.g., CoRev’s favorite team of Canadians M&M) that claim there has been a big drop off in the number of Russian station reports over the last several years. Apparently some folks believe that the only possible explanation for dropping those observations is because the numbers would refute global warming.
2slugs, it would be a different story if it were only one country’s stations, but it has happened to stations all over the world. That’s why I referenced, NZ, Darwin Au, Memphis TN, and there are more being discovered weekly. Without transparency there can be no answer, only speculation. But, that speculation is being reinforced, and not well defended.
Let me make this situation a little more clear. Nearly all of the catastrophic predictions have been based upon the rising temps as shown by the CRU and NASA/GISS calculations. What Climategate has done is confirm to skeptics that those temps are and have been exaggerated. If that is the case then most of the catastrophic predictions are based upon false assumptions and data. They are almost surely, then wrong.
The effort to control temps then are also based upon false assumptions and data. The pro-AGW adherents have made a great case that the recent heating has been “unprecedented”. Climategate has confirmed the skeptics that their work has been kept out of the scientific journals, moreover, the Climategate ?scientists? went beyond that to actually ridiculing other than their own views. Thereby eliminating or severely reducing efforts to confirm or expand upon skeptical studies.
So we have a theory based upon Green House Gases (GHGs), especially CO2, which is supposed to be the major cause for the increasing temperature. But, Climategate, and the recent reviews of the emails, S/W Code, and datasets have shown that there may be far less warming than has been reported.
Finally, there has been no proof that CO2 cause any warming in the levels proposed by the scientists in the models. Which leads us to ask. Why are we trying to control CO2? Why are we being asked to spend so much money? Why are we being asked to risk so much on so little evidence?
***Actually, I think there may be two different stories going on here.***
Yes. The replicated monthly data sounds like a screwup. As far as I know, Hansen has never been shy about showing his data and computations to the world. The controversy re Hansen/GISS is about his analysis of the data and his consitently alarmist views. But he’s allowed to have opinions and act as an advocate as long as he doesn’t lie, cheat, or obsfucate his work.
I also think that If Hansen were going to fake a result, he’d do a lot more workmanlike job of fudging the numbers.
The CRU on the other hand seems to have a record of taking in data, performing ill-defined processing and producing data sets that can not easily be tracked back to the input data. In the idiom of present day Wall Street, their work seems to lack transparency. Think of the CRU as somewhat resembling the bond rating firms. They turn out a product, but nobody can tell whether the product is truly representative of the input data. It is starting to appear that perhaps it is not.
Is that about right, CoRev?
Pretty good analysis, Codger!
Reliance on “models”, and “experts”.
Blame the Russians, and the fellow at NASA who went crosswise with the Bush partyline.
It’s risk.
And who mitigates (winners and losers) the risk.
“there may be far less warming than has been reported.”
There is far less danger from radical Islam (funded by drug traders, who are jealous of their margins) than has been reported.
“no proof that CO2 cause any warming in the levels proposed by the scientists in the models.”
No proof that wasting both Afghanistan and Iraq causes any benefit to anyone not selling things to their future employees in the pentagon.
Why not trash Obama, Gates and Petraeus?
CoRev,
Nearly all of the catastrophic predictions have been based upon the rising temps as shown by the CRU and NASA/GISS calculations.
You’re contradicting what you told VtCodger. VtCodger’s point was that while he had some doubts about the integrity of CRU’s data, he had no doubts about the integrity of Hansen and NASA/GISS. He questioned Hansen’s analysis and conclusions, but not the integrity of the data itself. VtCodger said:
The controversy re Hansen/GISS is about his analysis of the data and his consitently alarmist views. But he’s allowed to have opinions and act as an advocate as long as he doesn’t lie, cheat, or obsfucate his work.
To which you replied: Pretty good analysis, Codger!
Now you seem to have switched gears and the current claim is that the data from Hansen and NOAA and GISS/NASS are all untrustworthy as well. You really can’t have it both ways. So do you think that it is only the CRU data that is dubious, or contrary to what you told VtCodger, do you think that all temperature data (CRU, NOAA and GISS/NASA) is dubious?
CoRev,
an anomaly is a baseline average compared to the current average. In the current official temp calculations that baseline is a fixed 30 year period! It does not float with the overall data,
Yes. And???? The point is that while the timeframe is fixed the stations are not. The intent is not to look at absolute temperatures at any given weather station; the point is to look for trends. One of the reasons for increasing the number of urban stations is to better control for uncertainty. In other words, outliers get less emphasis, as they should. And increasing the number of weather stations allows meteorologists to better adjust raw instrument readings.
As to the urban heat effect, the evidence for it is mixed to say the least. Remember, the issue is not the effect of urban heat islands on absolute temperature readings at specific locations; it’s about finding a trend. One way to look at it is to keep in mind a change in instrument readings due to an intercept shift and a change due to a steeper slope estimate. Climate scientists are concerned about slope changes, not intercept changes. NOAA argues that in controlled tests of 70 stations the effect of urban heat islands on the slopes of temperature anomalies for the 70 test stations is not statistically different than it is for the population as a whole.
Dubious data processing appears prevalent in all the major Met offices. Now as to Hansen, I believe as Codger said, he is entitled to his own personal views, and yes he does have consistently alarmist views, but I disagree with Codger that Hansen does lie, cheat, but not sure about obfuscations. He is a true believer. What was so difficult with that?
You have read too much into my commendation of Codger’s comment, and of his comment. Since Hansen is Head of GISS, When Codger said this: “The controversy re Hansen/GISS is about his analysis of the data…” I suspect he might have had some doubts over the GISS output. If he does not, many others do. Hope that clarifies for you.
2slugs said: “One of the reasons for increasing the number of urban stations is to better control for uncertainty. In other words, outliers get less emphasis, as they should. And increasing the number of weather stations allows meteorologists to better adjust raw instrument readings.” Controlling for uncertainty? Outliers? Better adjusting … to match the expected outputs to support … the AGW theory? I don’t think your argument is very strong.
2slugs, also said: “As to the urban heat effect, the evidence for it is mixed to say the least.” Your kidding, right? I dunno what world you live in, but everyday I see a forecast I can see the effects of UHI in temperatures.
BTW, your NOAA comment re: UHI,” NOAA argues that in controlled tests of 70 stations the effect of urban heat islands on the slopes of temperature anomalies for the 70 test stations is not statistically different than it is for the population as a whole.” Was debunked within hours, and IIRC NOAA never backed the findings in a formal paper. And, controlled tests, AFAIK they did a statistical comparison? They homogenized the data smearing the rural stations with the urban station outputs, and surprise, the statistical difference became insignificant.
They were trying to forestall a Watts paper analyzing their stations, but got too far out in front. Watts has still to publish that paper, but it will be coming. Their premature reaction seems to indicate some concern.
CoRev,
If that’s what VtCodger meant, then he has a funny way of saying it. The plain interpretation was that VtCodger questioned Hansen’s analysis and conclusions, but did not question the integrity of the data that GISS uses. I think that was the gist of VtCodger’s comment. If that’s not right, then he can surely correct any misconceptions.
CoRev,
Controlling for uncertainty? Outliers? Better adjusting … to match the expected outputs to support … the AGW theory?
Most people understand that increasing the number of measurements tends to increase the confidence in the estimate. Most people understand that you can get random hot spots or cold spots. And meteorologists claim that there is a fairly well understood empirical relationship between temperature readings and distance. If you have extra knowledge, then you should use that knowledge to calibrate readings.
“…Was debunked within hours, and IIRC NOAA never backed the findings in a formal paper…They were trying to forestall a Watts paper analyzing their stations, but got too far out in front. Watts has still to publish that paper, but it will be coming. Their premature reaction seems to indicate some concern.”
I think that’s what Anthony Watts would like to believe. In fact, the paper was published in a peer reviewed journal (Bulletin of American Meteorological Society) 6 months ago, which means the research was done LONG before Watts ever started sounding off. It is true that NOAA wrote a “talking points” paper in response to some of Watts’ claims; but to hear Watts’ side of the story you would think that this was all some kind of defensive action and that he (Watts) was the center of angst inside NOAA. I think that the truth is that this paper was written a long time ago and NOAA simply had this one already in the can when Watts started sounding off. BTW, here’s the link the the paper that you say was never written because NOAA backed down after confronting the fearful and mighty Watts:
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/90/7/pdf/i1520-0477-90-7-993.pdf
Warning: large pdf.
I agree, let’s get Codger to answer. Regardless, you are reading more into my few words than were there. I agreed with the bulk of what he said, and I have described how I interpreted his comments.
2slugs, you are mixing processes. Statistical/mathematical precesses related to: “Most people understand that increasing the number of measurements tends to increase the confidence in the estimate.” Are interesting tools, but you failed to recognize that the total number of stations in the networks has actually been dropping. Cooler being replaced with warmer. Cherry picking? Dunno, without transparency there is no way for outsiders to know.
Furthermore, you have used a term “calibrate” with a known meaning when using instruments outside that normal meaning. The weather instruments start off calibrated, and are supposed to undergo periodic calibration. Some kind of statistical/mathematical process is not normally done to calibrate the data from the stations. Those statistical/mathematical tools ARE used to process the data. With the exception of the satellite data which was statistically calibrated with the surface data. The climate scientists used to working with the surface temperature data were concerned when the Sat data began to diverge early on. They insisted that the satellites’ data be calibrated with the surface data. In hindsight that might have been a mistake.
As an aside, I am seeing a similar lack of meaningful commentary re: Climate Change on other open/skeptical blogs. One or a few of pro-AGW hangers on continue picking at little things in order to make some obtuse points. I dunno why. It seems to be a silly exercise in point scoring while they are in denial the game has ended and it is lost. The people are falling further and further from the belief; moreover, the policy makers, as indicated by Copenhagen, are hanging on by their last thread.
UPDATED 12/20 10:02PM to correct linkage to Climategate, clarity and a typo in Connolley’s name.
Another Climate Change casualty. William Connolley, a lead editor of Wikipedia and a co-founder of the popular pro-AGW web site Real Climate has been canned as Wiki editor. Anthony Wattshttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/
has this quote:
“Lawrence Solomon at the National Post writes about a topic that WUWT readers have known about for a long time: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.
We’ve known for some time that Wikipedia can’t be trusted to provide unbiased climate information. Solomon starts off by talking about Climategate emails.
The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.
The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.
He then focuses on RealClimate.org co-founder William Connolley, who has “touched” 5,428 Wikipedia articles with his unique brand of RC centric editing:”
A brief anecdote. A Rusian doctor I work with told me, “never trust the Russian researchers.” He based this after he was told to falsify his data on a research paper because his results did not meet with the leads expectations. Needless to say, he refused and had to find a different research project.
The problem 2slugs is that the adjustments are being made from weather stations 1500km away!![at least for the Darwin site]
At work, thanks for the warning.
christian louboutin
boots
high heels
womens boots
heels
women’s shoes
knee boots
women’s boots
black shoes
boots shoes
new shoes
high boots
black boots
manolo
Chloe
christian
———————————————-
christian shoes
manolo blahnik
giuseppe zanotti
miu miu
christian louboutin pumps
christian shoes spring 2010
salvatore ferragamo
jimmy choo
choo shoes
christian louboutin shoes
christian lou16:13 2009-12-18boutin pumps
manolo sale
blanhnik shoes
miu miu shoes
knee high boots
thigh high boots
knee high
pumps shoes
red shoes
brown shoes
leather shoes
louboutin size shoes
black leather shoes
leather shoes boots
designer shoes
women’s sandals
christian louboutin
boots
high heels
womens boots
heels
women’s shoes
knee boots
women’s boots
black shoes
boots shoes
new shoes
high boots
black boots
manolo
Chloe
christian
———————————————-
christian shoes
manolo blahnik
giuseppe zanotti
miu miu
christian louboutin pumps
christian shoes spring 2010
salvatore ferragamo
jimmy choo
choo shoes
christian louboutin shoes
christian lou16:13 2009-12-18boutin pumps
manolo sale
blanhnik shoes
miu miu shoes
knee high boots
thigh high boots
knee high
pumps shoes
red shoes
brown shoes
leather shoes
louboutin size shoes
black leather shoes
leather shoes boots
designer shoes
women’s sandals
christian louboutin
boots
high heels
womens boots
heels
women’s shoes
knee boots
women’s boots
black shoes
boots shoes
new shoes
high boots
black boots
manolo
Chloe
christian
———————————————-
christian shoes
manolo blahnik
giuseppe zanotti
miu miu
christian louboutin pumps
christian shoes spring 2010
salvatore ferragamo
jimmy choo
choo shoes
christian louboutin shoes
christian lou16:13 2009-12-18boutin pumps
manolo sale
blanhnik shoes
miu miu shoes
knee high boots
thigh high boots
knee high
pumps shoes
red shoes
brown shoes
leather shoes
louboutin size shoes
black leather shoes
leather shoes boots
designer shoes
women’s sandals
Slugs et al,
You will not convince me that AGW is real as long as the leaders of the Dems, who go on and on about AGW, take actions that actually back up their words. Another perfect example (Hat tip to Instapundant)
“Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region. “
There is no crises in global warming, or climate change or whatever the current naming fad is….this is all about control – liberal fascism at its best.
Islam will change