Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Temperature Data Corruption

No takers then. My money is on 'neither'.

Michael, I see you're bang on the fake news/alternative facts trend. Well done!

Feb 3, 2017 at 1:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

michael hart, kim & Phil Clarke

If Anthony Watts has not published, he has demonstrated higher professional standards than the IPCC, and all of the Climate Science experts put together.

The IPCC will publish anything, no matter how dodgy, if they think it sells their message. None of the errors found in IPCC Reports have been discovered by those experts approved by the IPCC.

Feb 3, 2017 at 1:23 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Robert Christopher, cold weather in Spain, including rain storms, and snow is being blamed for the shortage of brussels sprouts, cabbages and lettuces in UK shops.

It could be Unprecedented. British children don't normally celebrate snow in other countries.

Feb 3, 2017 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Surface thermometer data is a rorschach onto which many interpretations can be displayed. The microwaves do not shimmer with such subjectivity; it's physics.
===================

Feb 3, 2017 at 2:52 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

golf charlie on Feb 5, 2017 at 1:57 AM on Unthreaded
TinyCO2 on Feb 5, 2017 at 12:07 AM on Unthreaded

I have copied these from Unthreaded.

DailyMail: Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

WattsUpWithThat: BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures

Let us see how long, and how prominent, the BBC reports this devastating news.

Feb 5, 2017 at 12:43 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

Let us see how long, and how prominent, the BBC reports this fake news.

FTFY.

Fact-check

Feb 5, 2017 at 1:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Feb 5, 2017 at 1:00 PM | Phil Clarke

The BBC NOT reporting something may simply be confirmation of the scale of the fraud. Thank you for raising it as evidence.

Feb 5, 2017 at 1:21 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Feb 5, 2017 at 1:00 PM | Phil Clarke

alternatively try here

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

Feb 5, 2017 at 1:23 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

FTTY?

Hardly! Looking at the output of a another potential case of GIGO doesn't add up to much, if anything:

Judith Curry: In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15 [the climate study of Tom Karl et al. 2015]. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below."

JudithCurry: Climate scientists versus climate data

Feb 5, 2017 at 1:36 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

"Damages at Home, U.S. Reports
The third U.S. climate assessment note global warming's disruptions have hit the country, with more severe weather and economic impacts
By Stephanie Paige Ogburn, ClimateWire on May 6, 2014"

"The White House is hosting two events around the release today. One is a call with Office of Science and Technology Policy head John Holdren; White House adviser John Podesta; Jerry Melillo, chairman of the NCADAC; and Tom Karl, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center."

Podesta, Karl and Holdren have all been at the centre of the Democrat's White House Presidential Policies. Dishonesty and incompetence seems to be a common theme.

Feb 5, 2017 at 1:59 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

No takers then. My money is on 'neither'.

Michael, I see you're bang on the fake news/alternative facts trend. Well done!

Feb 3, 2017 at 1:19 PM | Phil Clarke

So now we know Karl's Pausebuster was not backed up by evidence. Climate Science has always depended on alternative facts, fabricated facts or simply no facts at all.

What kind of music can Climate Scientists make, as they all blow whistles, to the percussion of cell doors slamming?

Feb 5, 2017 at 2:08 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

So now we know Karl's Pausebuster was not backed up by evidence

Only if you believe everything you read in the Daily Mail, fake graph and all.

http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/david-roses-alternative-reality-noaa-Karl.html

I see Judith is moving into McIntyre Molehill territory. Only a matter of time.

Feb 5, 2017 at 2:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?spref=tw

Feb 5, 2017 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
Feb 5, 2017 at 2:36 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

Robert,

The 'Whistleblower' was not involved in the work underlying Karl et al. Peter Thorne, who was, is clear that Bates's his essay is full of demonstrably incorrect assertions. Daivd Rose's write up is of course, full of selective quotes and features a graph that is pure bollox.

HTHBIDI.

I worked for three and a bit years in the NOAA group responsible in the build-up to the Karl et al. paper (although I had left prior to that paper's preparation and publication). I have been involved in and am a co-author upon all relevant underlying papers to Karl et al., 2015.

The 'whistle blower' is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work. NOAA's process is very stove-piped such that beyond seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups. John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) mis-representation of the processes that actually occured. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.

[...]

There are many other aspects of the piece that I disagree with. Having worked with the NOAA NCEI team involved in land and SST data analysis I can only say that the accusations in the piece do not square one iota with the robust integrity I see in the work and discussions that I have been involved in with them for over a decade.


How's the GWPF investigation coming along? Deadline for submissions was 30th June 2015.

Feb 5, 2017 at 2:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, as Tom Karl links nicely to John Holdren, the White House and John Podesta, how much deeper do you want to dig this hole?

If Mann v Steyn ever gets to court, some of Mann's character and scientific "witnesses" may have to give video evidence, from a place of safe custody, not necessarily of their own choosing.

Feb 5, 2017 at 2:47 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke, it might be better to leave US Justice Departments to assess the level of Fraud and Corruption being carried out at Taxpayers expense, by Climate Scientists.

Your claim that they are innocent does not carry much weight, in Science or Law.

Feb 5, 2017 at 2:58 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

...leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated.
Not sure I find that funny.

Besides, as I said at the time, the key issue is the choice of ship exhausts to pump the temperature up. It doesn't really matter that the trend cannot be replicated as it was never science anyway. It was always advocacy.

The defenders of this irreproducible paper over at Judith Curry's are just declaring that they think support for the political advocacy is more important than whatever is really happening to the planet.

It's a good check for other fraudsters.
All the BEST

Feb 5, 2017 at 3:34 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Feb 5, 2017 at 3:34 PM | M Courtney

Congratulations for calling out the Karl 2015 paper in The Guardian, and NOT having it deleted.

Monitoring sea temperature is important for ships. Seawater is drawn in to keep everything cool. If the temperature of the engine rises or falls, it could be the temperature of the cooling seawater, or indicate a fault elsewhere. The most common reason for overheating on yachts, is the intake has blocked with seaweed or the impellor pump has failed. It is the flow of the seawater being impeded that causes overheating, not the increased temperature of the seawater.

Recording temperatures of intake seawater was for the benefit of the Ship's Engineer, monitoring the health of his engines,, rather than scientific accuracy. Fishermen still use it as a guide to finding the colder waters that fish may prefer. If the temperature needle stays roughly in the same place (just like in a car) who would really care about tenths of a degree of accuracy?

Feb 5, 2017 at 4:09 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

This is stolen from some fake poet commenting on some blog somewhere. Imagine, trying to rhyme a haiku, and failing so miserably. Meretricious, I mean metericious.

'Super Abund Karls,
Could be Chuckies, Chees, or Charles;
Pay up now the quarrels.'
=================

Feb 5, 2017 at 5:13 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

HeeHee, MC, Antnee, over at Watts Up in the Bates thread, has censored some vulgarity from Steve Mosher, and told Nick Stokes to STFU.

Hilarious, and all the BEST to you on this better and better of all days.
===========

Feb 5, 2017 at 5:17 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Here's Pielke Pere deep in the Bates thread @ Judy's:

"The objective assessment of climate is broken. This should concern all scientists regardless of your political views."
===================================

Feb 5, 2017 at 5:18 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Rud Istvan thinks John Holdren's and Barack Obama's emails will probably be in the NOAA trove interacting with Karl.
===========

Feb 5, 2017 at 5:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

At Watts Up, Roy Spencer shuts down Nick Stokes with a 'duh'. Oh, what a glorious day!
================

Feb 5, 2017 at 5:46 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Thanks Golf Charlie. Not having such luck at the Guardian today. Mentioning the ship/buoy controversy is verboten.

The point you make is the key thing. They took good buoy data, adjusted it to match worse ship data and then said that's fine because we have more buoy data than ship.

The claim by Bates is that the threw out the buoy data. They did. They replaced it with modified buoy data. That's not the same thing as the original buoy data at all.

But the Guardian won't let me say that.
Fake News Site.

Feb 5, 2017 at 5:57 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney