Sunday, July 20, 2008

Purveyors of truth, the climate science way...

As we all know, all scientists are paragons of truth and virtue with no interest in lying to us in order to cement their importance in the world. As such, they would never just pluck figures out of the air (well, unless it's figures concerning the "safe" levels of alcohol, of course).

Foremost amongst these deeply honest people are the climate scientists, as honest as the day is long and fighting, on behalf of mankind, to make us realise the errors of our ways before we are rendered extinct by temperatures no higher than those that existed during the Mediaeval Warm Period that according to Mann et al. didn't exist anyway, so there.

So, it is very naughty of the vastly prolific Tom Nelson to highlight this article. [Emphasis mine.]
As readers of this blog know, Ellen and I support Anthony Watts' Surface Station survey project. We recently surveyed sites in South Dakota and Wyoming. We passed through Wells Nevada on our way home, and I remembered there was a surface station in Wells that we may have missed on a previous trip to Idaho. I checked the NCDC Data base and found that the Well site had been closed in July of 2004, so we did not stop. Here is a screen shot of the data base.



I was reading this analysis of some sites in Maine by Kristen Byrnes: Makin" Up Climate Data... Junk, and thought I should check to see if NCDC is still posting temperature data for the closed Wells Nevada site.

Can you guess what's coming? I mean, the station is closed and so there must be nothing recorded, right? After all, these noble scientists wouldn't just pluck figures out of their arseholes to support their hypotheses, would they? Apart from anything else, that would be deeply unethical.

Oh, wait...
Here is the evidence from the NCDC data base right up to 2006.


Oh.
The NCDC data base I have access only goes to 2006, they could be making up 2007 and 2008 temperatures as well. Remember this is one of those "high quality" surface stations that James Hansen and his fellow travelers at GISS are using to calculate global warming in the United States. Folks, here is more evidence they are making it all up. The Wells site was closed in 2004. Where did these Wells temperatures come from out to 2006? As Kristen wrote, they are making it up from junk.

As the man says, this is the quality of the evidence that is being used to force us to modify our lifestyles and to curb our economies. Seriously, how does anyone believe this shit?

Oh yes, they don't actually bother to look at all of that nasty confusing scientific data; they just bow down and worship at the altar of the IPCC, an organisation the very existence of which relies upon proving anthropogenic climate change. Remember, chaps, that even though the cosy sinecures and international reputations of those on the IPCC rely on the anthropogenic climate change theory, they are definitely not biased in any way because they are noble scientists. OK?

WAKE UP, people: you are being lied to. Although not by the deeply truthful climate scientists, obviously. It's some other group. Of course.

In the meantime, Climate Skeptic is still asking why it is that we are still relying on land data.
One of the ironies of climate science is that perhaps the most prominent opponent of satellite measurement of global temperature is James Hansen, head of ... wait for it ... the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA! As odd as it may seem, while we have updated our technology for measuring atmospheric components like CO2, and have switched from surface measurement to satellites to monitor sea ice, Hansen and his crew at the space agency are fighting a rearguard action to defend surface temperature measurement against the intrusion of space technology.

For those new to the topic, the ability to measure global temperatures by satellite has only existed since about 1979, and is admittedly still being refined and made more accurate. However, it has a number of substantial advantages over surface temperature measurement:
  • It is immune to biases related to the positioning of surface temperature stations, particularly the temperature creep over time for stations in growing urban areas.

  • It is relatively immune to the problems of discontinuities as surface temperature locations are moved.

  • It is much better geographic coverage, lacking the immense holes that exist in the surface temperature network.

Anthony Watt has done a fabulous job of documenting the issues with the surface temperature measurement network in the US, which one must remember is the best in the world. Here is an example of the problems in the network. Another problem that Mr. Hansen and his crew are particularly guilty of is making a number of adjustments in the laboratory to historical temperature data that are poorly documented and have the result of increasing apparent warming. These adjustments, that imply that surface temperature measurements are net biased on the low side, make zero sense given the surfacestations.org surveys and our intuition about urban heat biases.

Indeed. After all, long-time readers will remember that if you take the actual measured temperatures, there is no actual warming. It's added on through "adjustments" in the lab.

But, that's OK because, as we all know, these climate scientists are, as I said, paragons of virtue and are, I would imagine, actually incapable of lying.

And I, for one, welcome our new climate scientist overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted blogging personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground carbon capture caves...

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/#more-569

knirirr said...

scientists are paragons of truth and virtue with no interest in lying to us

It is, of course, the “scientific method” that gets the results rather than any inherent truthfulness of those who use it. The facts can be uncovered by anyone no matter how much they may be misrepresented for political (a field that seems to reward untruthfulness, unlike science) gain.

Frank O'Dwyer said...

DK,

"I mean, the station is closed and so there must be nothing recorded, right?"

That's right, and USHCN doesn't claim otherwise. What that graphic purports to be is not a graph of historical observations from that station, but this:

You have chosen site 268988, WELLS, Nevada
Available temperature data includes FILNET and Urban Heat-Adjusted values.


So here is a clear statement that it includes other values than just direct observations.

What is FILNET? It is this:

Estimates for missing data are provided using a procedure similar to that used in SHAP. This adjustment uses the debiased data from the SHAP and fills in missing original data when needed (i.e. calculates estimated data) based on a “network” of the best correlated nearby stations. The FILNET program also completed the data adjustment process for stations that moved too often for SHAP to estimate the adjustments needed to debias the data.

Now you can try to make something of them filling in for missing data using statistical methods if you wish, however this is a far cry from 'lying', a far cry from 'unethical', and it is also a far cry from plucking a number out of your arse. It is simply filling in incomplete data, which is clearly flagged and understood to be such, so that it is simpler to process upstream.