Warming to Failure

The American Thinker ^ | March 6, 2007 | J.R. Dunn

[libstripper]

A certifiable paranoiac would have a high old time tracing out the patterns behind the global warming campaign of the past month. The effort has the feel of something long planned, well scripted, and worked out to the final detail. It's hard to avoid thoughts of conspiracy when contemplating the activities of the Greens.

Not that it's necessary to believe any such thing. (In analyzing cases like this, I apply Dunn's First Law: With enough idiots, you don't need a conspiracy.) It's part of the natural order -- birds flock, insects swarm, and Greens campaign. But the actual point is, whether carefully-hatched scheme, herd instinct, or sheer accident, it's clear at this juncture that the effort has failed.

. . .

Three major factors are responsible for the Green's failure:

* The weather * Al Gore * Science

[Grampa Dave]

"People like Al Gore jet about the earth, living from mansion to mansion and say that they want to drastically lower the living standards for most people on the earth. Then, the so called peoples's people, who talk about "eqality" the most, think this is just fine."

[sergeantdave]

Or we both may be correct. Here are alternate names for water, according to Wikipedia -

Aqua
Hydrogen oxide
Hydrogen hydroxide
Hydrate
Oxidane
Hydric Acid
Dihydrogen Monoxide

[CyberAnt]

PROVING .. TA DA ... RUSH WAS RIGHT AGAIN!!!

[palmer]

With enough idiots, you don't need a conspiracy

perfect

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

Consider the source...

[SoCal Pubbie]

80 degrees yesterday in So Cal. Today should be in the high 70s. No big deal.

[edsheppa]

I wouldn't advance Roy Spencer as an icon for the anti-AGW POV. He's Christy's collaborator in the UAH group that has made at least two mistakes in the satellite temperature data analysis. These mistakes were discovered by others - if they were good scientists, Christy and Spencer should have been skeptical of their own work and found their own errors.

Their current analysis (which after correcting for their errors, is in much better agreement with ground-based measurements, but still shows less warming), is still at odds with anther group's whose results are in very close alignment with ground readings. The current point of contention is inter-satellite calibration. If I had to bet on which group was wrong, I'd go with the ones who've been wrong twice already.

Also, Spencer is an adherent of ID; I read one of his articles at TCS. That is a very strong indicator that his science work should be viewed extra-skeptically.

[ancient_geezer]

These mistakes were discovered by others - if they were good scientists, Christy and Spencer should have been skeptical of their own work and found their own errors.

Kinda like Michael Mann the UN/ IPCC and their Hockey Stick temperature reconstructions?

Or perhaps James Hanson over at GISS and his latest "adjustments" to global temperatures.

[ancient_geezer]

Seems the sins of global temperature measurment must be pandemic, a tweak here, a tweak there, no big deal:

Satellite and gridcell

Jones and the Russian UHI

Phil Jones and the Dutiful Comrades

Phil Jones and the Great Leap Forward

Phil Jones and the Kazakh Copper Smelter (47N 67E)

Adjusting USHCN History

HadCRU3 versus GISS

Gridcell 62N, 77E- Tarko-Sale, Russia

[edsheppa]

Yes, just like that.

[CDHart]

"dihydrogen monoxide"

What is that?

Carolyn

[ancient_geezer]

Yes, just like that.

Interesting then that Cristy & Spensor allowed full open public access to their data and methods at all times for review of others while Mann, et al. have resisted tooth and nail.

I would say one was open for review regardless of peer review, the other one can only wonder about.

[cinives]

Too dam cold to be naked today ! 17 deg here at 1600, and blowing up to 35 kn. !

[gakrak]

Same here in upstate ny. Amen.

[cinives]

2 hydrogens, 1 oxygen. H2O

Did you skip chem class ?

[edsheppa]

I don't disagree, the standard should be that every aspect of a scientist's investigations should be open. Any scientist who doesn't reveal their data and methods should be ignored.

In fact it would be a useful government effort to create a public repository for all that information. Scientists who refuse to be open or who collaborate with those who refuse would not get public funds.

BTW, the satellite data the couldn't have been hidden anyway by the UAH team and because it wasn't theirs. It's NASA data from NASA satellites.

[ancient_geezer]

BTW, the satellite data the couldn't have been hidden anyway by the UAH team and because it wasn't theirs. It's NASA data from NASA satellites.

Interesting then the NASA GISS adjustments and historical raw data and methodology remain out of the reach of the public under the control of Hansen isn't it.

An interesting point to be noted in spite of the "corrections" applied to satellite data:

Satellite global temperature trends; still much less warming than Jones and GISS

There is a tendency around to claim that satellite Lower Troposphere (LT) T trends now agree with Jones et al (land & sea) and GISS land based trends. 
But this is not so.
Trend differences of circa 0.047 C per decade are huge when viewed against the claims by Jones et al / IPCC of only 0.05 C UHI contamination over the century plus surface record.

[sergeantdave]

The dihydrogen monoxide site http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

[edsheppa]

Thanks for that link, the comments make for interesting reading.

BTW, I did misspeak (miswrite?). It is NOAA data, not NASA data.

Also, it is the RSS analysis of the MSU data that is in conflict with UAH and in alignment with ground-based measurements.

[ancient_geezer]

James Hansen runs NASA GISS which provides the GISS global surface temperature analysis and NASA's global climate model information.

NASA GISS NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

NASA GISS Dataset Index

MSU data is interpreted for NASA by Cristy/Spenser :

MSU Science Homepage

under GHCC

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_more.html through grants to University of Alabama, UAH Huntsville.

Separate areas under the same agency.

---

 

NOAA, on the other hand, is primarily a weather service operating under the Department of Commerce, though NOAA does maintain a rather large data base of climate related information, the GEOS (Global Earth Observation System) program and such providing regional and global weather information it is not an independent agency in the sense that NASA is.

http://www.noaa.gov/

Seems somewhat of an overlap of responsibilities but that's government for yah.

RSS on the other hand is neither, it is a commercial research enterprise that uses output of raw MSU, doing contract work for NOAA. RSS has created its own product selecting a separate set of weighting coefficients applied to the raw MSU data and is a competing but not necessarily more accurate interpretation designed to be consistent with GISS adjusted global surface temperature data.

Once the essential corrections to the satellite data were accomplished accounting for satellite drift, what has been added by RSS above and beyond the base requirement of physics of the situation looks to be more an ad hoc modification of coefficients to make their product reflect surface temperature rates rather than one of fundamental physics requiring the particular coefficients without regard to AGW surface measures.

Bottomline, looks to me more like turf battles than science going on.