Monday
Feb062017
by 
Josh
Josh ClimateGate 2.0?
Feb 6, 2017 Climate: Curry David Rose GWPF Josh Just about everywhere.
Story at Judy Curry's, Mail on Sunday, GWPF, WUWT,and Twitter of course.
Update on Feb 6, 2017 by
Josh
Josh
Response to critiques: Climate scientists versus climate data by Judy Curry.
Instability of GHCN adjustment algorithm by Paul Matthews.
Science: One Damned Adjustment After Another? by Geoff Chambers
Reader Comments (270)
Love that first graph :-)
Love that first graph :-)
Feb 7, 2017 at 11:42 AM | Phil Clarke
Do you mean Mann's fraudulent Hockey Stick?
Those who think that NOAA should be as respectable as the Daily Mail clearly have a very low opinion of Karl et al to begin with.
I'm increasingly in awe (I exaggerate slightly) of those who seem to be able to find courtesy and restraint where, it would appear to most others, that there is none. Quite a skill.
Feb 7, 2017 at 10:10 AM | ...and Then There's Physics
So how do you co-author on "climate science" with Sou, aka Miriam O Brien of HotWhopper? Is this normal quality control, double standards and hypocrisy in climate science? Quite a tool.
Golf,
I'm not the one patting people on the back (metaphorically) for showing courtesy and restraint where there is none (or, where there is little).
Gavin (Feb 6, 2017 at 10:14 PM): sorry to hear of your poor experiences. I, too, have helped on weather ships; the task is not too onerous, and (other than noting wet bulb, dry bulb, resultant dew-point temperature, sea temperature, height-adjusted pressure and barograph tendency) is usually just recording observations that I would have thought should be continuous on the bridge of a ship – ship’s own speed and course steered, wind direction and speed, sea state, swell height and direction, visibility, cloud height, type and coverage, and general weather conditions – overall, a process that takes no more than 10-15 minutes, and can be a welcome break from the tedium of watch-keeping. I have never witnessed anyone tackle the job with anything less than proper professionalism.
If, however, the general opinion was that the data was so poor that it was ignored, why is this same data now being used as a metric against which they can claim sea temperatures are rising?
Anyhoo… no-one has yet answered the second part of my questions: how accurate are the buoy temperature sensors, and how is this accuracy monitored and maintained?
There's a nice irony here. Attempting to ignore the pause will cause willful blindness of natural causes of change. There was too much hubris in the CO2 climate control knob clique, and they just double down with this kind of crap. Nemesis is multiplicative where hubris is additive.
==============
Golf,
I'm not the one patting people on the back (metaphorically) for showing courtesy and restraint where there is none (or, where there is little).
Feb 7, 2017 at 1:10 PM | ...and Then There's Physics
So carry on co-authoring with Miriam O Brien, You still can't/won't comment on Mann's Hockey Stick, and your Gergis thread doesn't acknowledge any mistakes in the Peer Reviewed Science, yet you still defer to Victor Venema's expertise.
Governments have forced taxpayers to pay for climate science for too long. Clearly 97% of the money was wasted. I see no reason why Karl 2015 should be in the 3% saved. Obviously my opinion counts for nothing, I am not advising POTUS about climate science, as Karl and Holdren once did.
Historians will note the Paris Climate deal, as Peak Climate Science, and Karl's greatest achievement.
Thanks, but I think I'll go on deciding - by myself - who I'm willing to work with.
This isn't true, but I do try to avoid it as it mostly leads to entirely pointless discussion.
Didn't really seem all that relevant. If you think something is important, and think it should be in a blog post, write your own.
Indeed, because he actually has some.
Phil D , is this MCourtney the one who's been trying to pass off a Diploma in Phillosopy as a D. Phil Cantab?
Like Bubble in Ab Fab, Golf Charlie never ceases to amaze,
Russell,
You might be thinking of R Courtney who - I think - is M Courtney's father.
Russell,
You may be thinking of Richard S. Courtney, erstwhile technical editor of Coaltrans International magazine, invited by Rajendra Pachauri himself to be an Expert IPCC Reviewer (according to Dr Richard, at least) who occasionally and perhaps forgetfully signed himself 'Dr' or 'PhD' to various anti-climate action open letters for organisations such as the Cato Institute.
I believe Dr Courtney may be M Courtney's parent, but then on the internet nobody knows you're a dog.
https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-s-courtney
It's worse than we thought!
The bug in the algorithm mentioned by Bates is alleged to be responsible for the random generator that re-writes the GHCN temperature record that is the basis of the so-called independent temperature datasets.
See WUWT.
Heh, SC, I came here to post this:
I like this from Schrodinger's Cat in the latest Bates thread at Watts Up:
"So the world's global climate temperature records are created by an out of control algorithm that functions a a random number generator? And we spend billions on climate science? Wow."
Two nits. Clearly not 'out of control' nor 'random' with the systematic adjustments in only one direction.
It's worse than you think, SC, it's deliberate.
===============
yet you still defer to Victor Venema's expertise.
Indeed, because he actually has some.
Feb 7, 2017 at 4:25 PM | ...and Then There's Physics
Where was it on your own Gergis thread? Where was yours? I am not a climate scientist either, and I don't claim to be an expert, but the real world does not want to co-operate with virtual reality computer climate models. Peer Review in Climate Science has been an expensive and disastrous waste of money, and I have not been part of that either.
As an exercise in provoking debate in climate science, Karl 2015 is a useful tool too. This latest farce in climate science will help other whistleblowers to come forward as 97% redundancies loom in the US.
Karl 15 does represent Climate Science at it's Peak. Further votes will be drawn towards an EU EXIT strategy as a result, across Europe. If only the Peer Reviewers had found some of the mistakes in Climate Science, as quickly as they have quibbled over the Mail on Sunday.
Richard C it is- the lay preacher who took a materials science course touching on fly ash conctrete the better to serve his flock.
apologies or condolences to M.
Meanwhile, back at Breitbart, Delingpole has embraced Rose's innumeracy , and transmitted it to the Tea Party faithful with the speed of thought in a vacuum.
Unfortunately for David Rose and Judith Curry, Golf Charlie's incomprehension :
"With so many variables, and so much scope for subsequent adjustments, I do not understand how sea temperatures can be used for Climatologists"
Is not shared by the former Oceanographer of the Navy, Rear Admiral David Titley, Ph.D:
“In summary, the Mail on Sunday has found a disgruntled ex-NOAA employee and is using him to construct alternative facts about the climate. Unfortunately for all of us, the air will keep warming, the seas will keep rising, and the ice will keep melting, regardless of the Daily Mail’s fanciful claims and accusations. The real atmosphere is impervious to alternative facts.”
Unfortunately for the former Oceanographer of the Navy, Rear Admiral David Titley, Ph.D, the air is not really warming at all, the seas are not rising any faster, and the ice is not really melting. The real atmosphere truly is impervious to alternative facts.
As I said earlier, if the ship data was such rubbish that it was generally ignored, why is this data now being used as a metric to “prove” warming oceans?
[snip: language]
<Feb 7, 2017 at 2:29 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent>
The observations were not onerous compared to the encoding - the whole set had to be checked against a code book and transformed into a string of about 50 digits - I suspect this was a huge source of error on its own. 15 minutes might be a pleasant interlude in the South Atlantic but it's a lifetime in traffic, especially if the watch keeper is "a one-man-band, not a tax payer's circus":-)
Sorry, Gavin, perhaps my memory is fading too fast, but my own recall is that of a large card to help transfer the data collected onto a pad comprised of 5-digit blocks, starting with the ship’s position. All this could easily be incorporated into the 10-15 minutes mentioned, and the code book you mentioned was an interesting reference to find out the whys and wherefores of the data – even I could understand it!
Anyhoo… to repeat what I have already asked twice: if the data was so bad that it was ignored, why is this data now being used to claim warming oceans?
Mr Russell: I have fallen for your click-bait a little too often to fall for it again… sorreeee…
Ah, yes… and there are the other questions that have yet to be answered: how accurate are the buoy temperature sensors, and how is this accuracy monitored and maintained?
vvussell, are you just trying to draw attention away from Climate Science's latest disaster, or trying to assist it's demise?
" ......... how accurate are the buoy temperature sensors, and how is this accuracy monitored and maintained?"
Feb 7, 2017 at 9:25 PM | Radical Rodent
They are 100% accurate, until they produce the wrong answers. Then they are ignored, or adjusted to homogenise them with the desired conclusion.
I have no idea if that is true, but until Climate Scientists can produce an honest answer, it is safest to assume that everything about Climate Science is worse than previously thought possible, just as they have been advocating for 20+ years, without any evidence.
Former President Obama may be coming to the same conclusion, and is probably dreading the next set of revelations, as everyone in US Climate Science starts to deny collaboration with the 97%.
Russell says
You are a despicable
humanbeing.Here's where you'll find Richard. Care to enter the discussion?
Thought not.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/07/even-more-on-the-david-rose-bombshell-article-how-noaa-software-spins-the-agw-game/#comment-2419231
Hmmmm… okay, GC. I suppose that is likely to be the best answer to those (what I had thought) simple questions.
My Blog Spawn
Personally speaking, its obvious that if we want to measure sea temperatures, we use buckets pulled up over the side rather than any of that new stuff. And if we want to measure surface temperature, we should rely on thermometers placed near runways at major airports - Phil Clarke
[snip: language]
' 'LET THERE BE LIGHT!' And there was light.'
As many a trial lawyer would despair at finding neither facts , law , or a table to pound, clipe's use of an ear trumphet as a megaphone to distract the jury .is to be commended.
Meanwhile, back in the science court, Rose and his minions stand convicted of bogus graphmanship.
"irredeemable" "deplorable" andthentheresdespicable.
Clipe's declension ends in 'anonymous'
Russell, (Hiroo Onoda) World Class Polka Dodger. Still fighting the last war.
It's not about David Rose
Feb 8, 2017 at 1:00 AM | clipe
As a result of ClimateGate, Climate Science thought they had a communication problem, and vvussell has been demonstrating ever since, that Climate Scientists are not always wrong.
[snip: language]
I quit school at 16yrs old and today a "Dr of Harvard University" said Clipe's declension ends in 'anonymous' in response to a prior comment I posted. Is that the best that can be expected from said doctor?
If so...
VVattsupVVithVVat?
Sadly, clipe, the trolls infesting the good Bishop's blog have devolved further; mostly flinging ad hominems at those who they can not rebut, distract nor ignore.
No dork, but there is another commenter who sounds suspiciously like the dork when little dorkie first appeared.
Kim: I see what you mean. Great minds think alike?
Feb 7, 2017 at 11:19 PM | Radical Rodent
everything you ever feared about climate science, is now even worse than previously feared impossible. Climate science has now proved the impossible is possible, provided Peer Reviewers are selected carefully enough.
[snip: language]
V V
her vv was all good man
Yeah I know, despicable.
Russell, does the name John Bates ring a bell?
Indeed it does , clipe- Here's what I linked yesterday to spare backtracking :
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/02/boiling-bates-down.html
vvussell, thank you for demonstrating that Climate Science has never been about Science at all. I expect you are about ready to award yourself an imaginary Nobel Prize, like Michael Mann. Are you going for an Oscar like Al Gore, for your betrayal of a sick, bitter and twisted failure?
Meanwhile, back at the thread .....
Other countries can now join the USA in pulling out of the Paris Climate fiasco, because they were tricked into signing up, by a Dodgy Dossier of Climate Science coming out of US Funded offices.
Trump may decide that the US Government should call a halt to Climate Science legislation, until someone can work out what the hell is going on in Climate Science.
If he cuts US Government Funding of Climate Science by direct means, or indirect means such as the UN, he can select his own team to decide what the hell is going on in Climate Science.
It therefore seems that Climate Science will be subjected to it's own methods, ie start with a conclusion, defund any opposition, and appoint judge jury and executioner to implement it.
I don't know how fraud investigations work in the USA, but Climate Scientists have enjoyed rubbishing the careers of others based on the slightest evidence or association. Science journals that have Peer Reviewed and published junk Climate Science have a credibility gap to resolve.
Schadenfreude, like Climate Science, is a dish best served at ambient temperature, and not overcooked.
Well now the US House Committee is involved, so all aTTp,PC,R et alia's invective has been a waste of time. I only hope the Americans can pronounce Oxburgh correctly.
It'll help that the protecting veil of Obama has been removed and we have Trump instead.
Just as with Climategate 1, you'd have thought the science community would have been as one in a search for the truth, and no matter the consequences, but yet again, as we see here, there's little chance of that.
Not long now, I sense, to "hide the pause".
Re. your strapline "ClimateGate 2.0? Just about everywhere".
Except, it seems, almost any British news outlet. Tumbleweed and crickets if you look at BBC, Sky, any UK paper except the Mail...
We are warned that the air around us is increasing in temperature by increasing Greenhouse Effect by increasing CO2.
NOAA want us to believe that what we are experiencing is not the true temperature of that air but it needs the addition of water temperature. It is therefore warmer than we feel it to be and their warnings should be heeded much more *enthusiastically.
Climate Science is worse than I thought.
*Climate science greets news of increasing temperatures with glee and falling temperatures with disdain. This was formerly only found within the population of Minesota.
Feb 8, 2017 at 9:44 AM | Capell
Expect a new brand of Dog Food called "Climate Science Inconvenient Data", quality is dodgy, but there is an unprecedented supply in bulk, available at knock down prices.
Prediction: no apologies from those who alleged data manipulation at NOAA will ever appear.
Source