By now, everyone will have learned through our betters in the mainstream media that the revelations contained in the Climategate document drop are of little importance to the overall climate change debate – that the temperature reconstructions at East Anglia CRU have been duplicated by “hundreds” of other researchers. Why, thousands even!
Well, no.
Willis Eschenbach explains: there are three main global temperature datasets.
One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there’s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data….
Presto homogeno!
Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized Darwin [northern Australia] records, I then went to see how they had homogenized each of the individual station records. What made up that strange average shown in Fig. 7? I started at zero with the earliest record. Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized versions.
Figure 8 Darwin Zero Homogeneity Adjustments. Black line shows amount and timing of adjustments.
Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data!
Go read “The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero”.
And now for a Canadian connection!
Guest blogger Mark Jaeger mentioned this to me privately just after the scandal broke;
I notice in e-mail 1255477545.txt Phil Jones mentions what a good job Lucie Vincent did on homogeneity adjustments at Environment Canada.
According to GEDS Lucie Vincent is indeed still at work in Environment Canada:
The comment by Phil:
> > In the papers, I’ve always said that homogeneity adjustments are
> > best produced by NMSs. A good example of this is the work by Lucie
> > Vincent in Canada. Here we just replaced what data we had for the
> > 200+ sites she sorted out.
So – this would be something to challenge the media or interested commenters to find out. Which are these 200 stations are what were the adjustments? If Phil calls them a good job I’m interested to see how the adjustments differ from the original raw data – and if the original data still exists.
Related – Lucie Vincent explains how to adjust…
Several years ago, a database of long-term and homogenized temperatures was created for the analysis of climate change in Canada. Using a technique based on regression models, the annual means of the daily maximum and minimum temperatures were tested for “relative homogeneity” with respect to surrounding stations. Monthly and daily adjustments were derived from the regression models and were applied to create homogenized temperature datasets at 210 locations across the country. The causes of inhomogeneities were mainly due to station relocation and change in observing time.
A Second Generation of Homogenized Temperature is currently under development. The new homogenized datasets are prepared for a greater number of stations (336 stations). Series are extended to cover the period 1900-2008 as much as possible by joining the observations of two or three nearby locations. New procedures are applied for adjusting the cold bias in the daily minimum temperatures introduced by the redefinition of the climatological in 1961 at synoptic stations. Newly developed techniques based on regression models and surrounding stations are also considered for homogeneity assessment and adjustment of the discontinuities due to station relocation. The methodologies used to generate the new homogenized temperatures will be presented along with the impact of the adjustments on climate trends.
Cold bias?
What I see, or I think I see (I lack the complete self-assuredness that seems to pervade this debate) are scientists trying to create some breathing room the alarmists and the deniers have taken away from them.
It has become impossible to be reasonable or wrong. I claim the right to be wrong. I have been wrong. Wrong about the nuclear winter scenario. I have been wrong about acid rain.Still, I never claimed to be right. If anything I claimed what my position was at that moment in time, to be changed at a moments notice if evidence demands.
Suppose that I was, at one point, entirely convinced of immediate catastrophy. Imagine the response would I reconsider my position. Let me try what I what hear “You see, you see!! I was right all the time! neener neener Whaaaaahoooohahaha! I was right you are an idiot”. That kind of intelligent reaction. Going the other way, same deal.
Any side claiming to know what is going on is wrong. You can make an uneducated guess and turn out to be right but that’s all.
@Claude
What I see, or I think I see (I lack the complete self-assuredness that seems to pervade this debate) are scientists trying to create some breathing room the alarmists and the deniers have taken away from them.
It has become impossible to be reasonable or wrong. I claim the right to be wrong. I have been wrong. Wrong about the nuclear winter scenario. I have been wrong about acid rain.Still, I never claimed to be right. If anything I claimed what my position was at that moment in time, to be changed at a moments notice if evidence demands.
Suppose that I was, at one point, entirely convinced of immediate catastrophy. Imagine the response would I reconsider my position. Let me try what I what hear “You see, you see!! I was right all the time! neener neener Whaaaaahoooohahaha! I was right you are an idiot”. That kind of intelligent reaction. Going the other way, same deal.
Any side claiming to know what is going on is wrong. You can make an uneducated guess and turn out to be right but that’s all.
@ Erwin – You say you haven’t yet reached any conclusions even while you use the word ‘denier’, a word designed to smear the skeptics. Either you’re sloppy in your speech or you have reached a conclusion. If it’s the first, take more care; if it’s the second, admit it.
Warmies:
Look up IETA
International Emissions Trading Association, check out thier members list.
Ask yourself why the all the worlds large Oil companies,Chemical companies,Financial companies all “care” about AGW?
You are giving the keys to the planet to your enemies.
@Kathryn
If you look close you might find that I use both the terms alarmists and deniers, in close proximity as well.
I have not reached a conslusion. What I do find is that I’m sometimes told I did and that assumed conclusion is most of the time the opposite of that of the person saying just that.
No, I have not reached a conclusion. I don’t see how you can conclude I did. Again, I might be wrong but I believe I said ‘alarmists and deniers’. Tell me were I did not and I’ll explain or apologize.
Time for an ATIP request?
Vincent, Lucie
Environment Canada
Climate Data and Analysis
4905 Dufferin Street
Downsview, Ontario M5H 5T4
Canada
Telephone : 416-739-4378
No problem. This afternoon I shall contact Suzuki, chief Disciple of the Goreacle, and he will place a telephone call to Luci at Environment Canada. Within a few hours we should have all the alGOREithms uploaded so that we, the public, may understand the homogenization process. Your government is committed to transparency! lol.
I see we have been gifted with a new troll, a better one than T, in fact. Allah be praised!
Erwin – please explain how scientist are ‘trying to create a little breathing room’ – I don’t follow.
Erwin @11:12 “Both deniers and believers so far contributed nothing.”
That’s the post I was commenting on.
WTF (Who the F*) are these people and what are they saying about us, or on our behalf, and how vociferously, at COP15?!?
Mr. Christian Van Houtte Montreal Canada
Ms. Cynthia Dickson Whitehorse Canada
Mr. André Richer Ottawa Canada
Mr. David Adams Toronto Canada
M. André Bélisle St. Léon -de-Standon Canada
Ms. Lisa Doulas Kingston Canada
Ms. Dawn Marie Turner Winnipeg Canada
M. André Turmel Ottawa Canada
Mr. Channa Perera Ottawa Canada
Ms. Fiona Oliver-Glasford Toronto Canada
Mr. Govinda Raj Timilsina Calgary Canada
Mr. Shai Spetgang Toronto Canada
Ms. Paula Margaret Dunlop Ottawa Canada
Name not given Victoria Canada
Mr. Pierre Fortin Ottawa Canada
Name not given Toronto Ontario Canada
Mr. Colin Hunt Ottawa Canada
Mr. Christopher Paul Henschel Ottawa Canada
Mr. Bruce Boyd Ottawa Canada
Mr. Marco D’Angelo Toronto Canada
Ms. Yasmin Tarmohamed Toronto Canada
Ms. Luba Mycio-Mommers Kanata Canada
Mr. Kevin McCort Ontario Canada
Ms. Jennifer Clapp Waterloo Canada
Mr. Sebastien Jodoin Montreal Canada
M. Philip Raphals Montréal Canada
Ms. Hélène Lauzon Montreal Canada
Name not given Montréal Canada
Ms. Alysia May Garmulewicz New Denver Canada
Mr. Ray Rivers Toronto Canada
Ms. Stephanie Thorson Toronto Canada
Ms. Montana Burgess Ottawa Canada
Ms. Carol-Ann Brown Calgary Canada
Mme Eliane Héry Montréal Canada
Mr. Meinhard Doelle Halifax Canada
Ms. Morag Carter Vancouver Canada
Ms. Ghita Benessahraoui Montreal Canada
Mr. Dominique Neuman Montréal Canada
Mr. Richard John Joseph Dartmouth Canada
M. Eloi Lepage Montréal Canada
Ms. Francesca Vivian Hyatt Ottawa Canada
Ms. Sylvie Delaquis Ottawa Canada
Mr. Paul Lansbergen Ottawa Canada
Ms. Dinah Fuentesfina Montreal Canada
Mr. Joseph Lin Vancouver Canada
Mr. Brian Williamson Victoria Canada
Mr. Tom Roy Tevlin Vancouver BC Canada
Name not given Montréal Canada
M. Thomas Dandres Lachine Canada
Ms. Bridget Larocque Inuvik, NT Canada
Mr. B. John Plant Kingston Canada
Mr. Andreas Hardeman Montreal Canada
Jean Lebel Ottawa Canada
Name not given Toronto Canada
Ms. Jo-Ellen Parry Winnipeg Canada
Ms. Corinne Gray Ottawa Canada
Mr. Scot Nickels Ottawa Canada
Mr. Mark Earl Miller Winnipeg Canada
Ms. Renée Sieber Montréal Canada
Mr. Dan Paszkowski Ottawa Canada
Mr. Dale LeClair Ottawa Canada
Ms. Margaret Celeste McKay Ottawa Canada
Ms. Barbara MacKinnan Fredericton Canada
Ms. Carol Ann Audet Thunder Bay Canada
Ms. Nikki Skuce Smithers Canada
Ms. Genevieve Light Toronto Canada
M. Claude Desjarlais Montréal Canada
Mr. Matthew Bramley Alberta Canada
Ms. Marie Angie Desfosses Regina Canada
Ms. Mary Pattenden Toronto Canada
Mr. Nicholas George Vincent Ottawa Canada
M. Philippe Bourke Montréal Canada
Mr. Christopher Holcroft Ottawa Canada
Ms. Louise Zimanyi Toronto Canada
M. Ian Dessureault Montréal Canada
Ms. Louise Comeau Vancouver Canada
Mr. Daniel Spence Ottawa Canada
Name not given Victoria, British Columbia Canada
Mr. Thomas Welt Montréal Canada
Mr. Patterson Partington Toronto Canada
M. Normand Parisien Montréal Canada
M. Jean-Eric Turcotte Montréal Canada
Mr. Marc Paguin Montréal Canada
Ms. Karen Barkley Calgary Canada
Mr. Barry Smit Guelph Canada
Mr. Malcolm Wilson Regina Canada
Mr. Matthew Hoffmann Toronto Canada
Mme Diane Pruneau Moncton Canada
Mme Valérie Demers Montréal Canada
Ms. Jocelyne Néron Québec Canada
M. Jérome Vaillancourt Montreál Canada
Mr. Brent Kopperson Aurora Canada
Ms. Kelly Montgomery Woodbridge Canada
Ms. Dawn Bazely Toronto Canada
M. René Coignaud Ottawa Canada
Mr. Robert Oullette Toronto Canada
Mr. Steven Guilbeault Montréal Canada
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/COP15%20NGO%20attenders.zip
(XLS file of attendees)
My opinion is that the subject matter is too complex to make any conclusions yet and that includes outright denial.
~Erwin
Too complex for you to understand.
I can read a graph.
The green line is the average raw data and it shows no warming compared to the black line which has been adjusted downward before 1940 and upward after 1940 to generate hysteria among Climate crisis believers.
The hypothesis of the Climate Crisis is that CO2 concentrations have been climbing and forcing the temperature upward.
To this date, CO2 concentrations continue to climb, but observed fact is temperature has been declining.
That means CO2 has been shown not to force temperature upward as concentrations continue to increase.
The hypothesis has been falsified, the Climate Crisis is not happening.
Dr. Kevin Trenberth from the CRU e-mails:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
Trenberth et al can’t account for the lack of warming because the answer, the hypothesis is wrong, is staring them in the face and they have rejected the obvious fact that they are wrong, leaving them with no explanation.
b_C — These all look to be climate activists of one sort or another — some affiliated with NGO’s, others alternative energy lobbyists. I am betting they all had their fees paid by the U.N. — same trick Mo Strong used at Rio to secure his agreement. Climate prostitutes would be another description for them.
http://www.thefoxnation.com/climate-change/2009/12/09/famous-weather-scientist-climate-gate-tip-iceberg
Famous Weather Scientist: Climate-Gate ‘Tip of the Iceberg’
The Colorado scientist [Dr. William Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science] described by the Washington Post as “the World’s Most Famous Hurricane Expert” says the “ClimateGate” e-mails from the United Kingdom that revealed possible data manipulation are evidence of a conspiracy among “warmists,” those who believe man’s actions are triggering possibly catastrophic climate change.
“The recent ‘ClimateGate’ revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years,” said Colorado State University’s Dr. William Gray.
Linda –
Heh, CP4IPCC
Nice ring to that.
This is a continuation of the cold war and it is about to heat up. We have our freedom and prosperity to lose.
How far will you go to protect it?
I dunno – eat pancreas? Pretend to be the sausage king of Chicago?
Meanwhile, our dipshit Canadian presscorp (with some smart exceptions) are on high hysteria buzz regarding the Afghan detainee issue.
Time for NORMAL people to be heard.
Scoundrels, one and all, those homogenizers. Where are the leg irons?
Woodporter, good one.
From hence forth let them be know as Climate Homos.
knowN
Temp at Eureka Staion, Nunavut at 2:00 PM CST on this cold Dec. 09–09
Minus -39° C
Do icebergs melt at -39°C ?
Love
Joe
XX-OO
Temp at Eureka Station, Nunavut at 2:00 PM CST on this cold Dec. 09–09
Minus -39° C
Do icebergs melt at -39°C ?
Love
Joe
XX-OO
Woodporter @3:17 – if you can catch those homogenizers, I’ll let you borrow my leg irons.
KevinB – Don’t eat pancreas. Just….. don’t.
Coming from a background that included environmental sampling and testing, I have trouble understanding the rationale for their data massaging, homogenizing and blending. It is not uncommon for test sites to be moved, updated, repaired etc. When this happened the sites are given new numbers to signify the change (from #103 to #103 B, for example)and then explained on the reports. Tracking and graphing data over time and through changes was simple and understandable.
The climate scientist “trick” methods and deliberate complexity, OTOH, is ripe for the very abuse that is coming to light. As shown, it allows you to substantially change the nature of the results by tweaking the variables. Is there any valid rationale underlying these, for the most part, hidden and complex adjustments? If so, then wouldn’t access to before and after adjustment graphs be essential to track any suspected tampering?
It’s been said many times before and I’m gonna say it again…
I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.
Right here http://www.cics.uvic.ca/scenarios/pdf/workshop/PresCliSce.pdf you will find a paper by Lucie Vincent with some help.
Note on page 4 how homogenization works as a scientific practice.
You start with raw data trend of -1.2 degrees of Celsius from @ 1915 to @1995, then you start your homogenization process and the final result looks like a trend of + 0.1 over the same period of time.
Can you say that these people know magic?
Why is there a difference between the left hand and right hand vertical temperature values?
Erwin…I shudder when presented with some of the heavy hi-tech academic info from WUWT…and I am a TECHY.
However this last post that Kate linked was very clear, even for an old lady like myself.Actually…read thru the whole thing last night.
What did you find difficult about it?
And Erwin…we are only commenters on a Canadian blog. Don’t take our word for anything. There are too many sources available that have contributed the information on so-called AGW scams….try some links, eh?
The scientist that were hiding the decline were hardly ‘creating breathing space’. They were sticking with their agenda.
“Presto homogeno”…Kate that is classic.
Glad to have the Canadian connection(Lucy) that Kady O’ was so desperately missing. Now we can count on the CBC getting some research on this topic, right?
Silly me…..
Black Mamba:
Hey, eating pancreas worked for Ferris.
Save Ferris!!
Thanks, Lev. I read the year 2000 report and, as expected, it explains nothing. Yes, on page 4, a before and after graph was included showing the statistical magic of turning obvious cooling into slight warming. I especially liked the summary, “It’s not getting warmer, it’s just getting less cold..”. Sounds good to me but I wonder how much that little nugget of knowledge cost taxpayers.
Gunney99 at December 9, 2009 3:12 AM
It was well worth watching . Thanks for posting the vids.
Warmies:
Look up IETA
International Emissions Trading Association, check out thier members list.
Ask yourself why the all the worlds large Oil companies,Chemical companies,Financial companies all “care” about AGW?
You are giving the keys to the planet to your enemies.
Amen. The socialists and liberals supporting carbon-trading schemes are useful idiots. The wealthy global elites will be at the receiving end of whatever ‘redistribution’ this scam entails.
David Suzuki is a liar.Whatever happened to his ‘we’re all going to freeze to death in the dark’ scare mantra he used to espouse in the 1970’s?
How did we go from freezing to death, to burning up or drowning?
Tell us, you f’in Marxist liar.
Willis Eschenbach has cooked data before by using a single year as a baseline giving a partial degree drop in temps. In this case he did the opposite, he joined data sets without adjusting them to have the same base.
This adjustment procedure has hardly been hidden and has been used for good reason. If you want to get past your obvious anti-science bias you might read this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_overview.pdf
Or more specifically the following: http://reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2004/dellamarta.pdf
Please be very, very careful when looking at these claims of finding data manipulation. I have seen pretty good arguments refuting Willis Escshenbach on Darwin, and although I haven’t verified them, they are enough to give pause. Not every skeptic is like M&M in their care.
I did take a look at the Wellington, NZ assertion – very similar to Darwin – about bogus adjustments.
It is clear to me that the Wellington allegations, by (sadly) my fellow skeptics, were hot air, so to speak. I fear the same is true of Darwin.
There are lots of good reasons to be very skeptical of the warmist claims based on surface temperature trends. However, uncritically jumping on each new claim of “fraud” or “manipulation” will provide more evidence for the warmists that skeptics are simply irrelevant. Check out the opposing link that I posted above. Like I say, I don’t know if it’s correct, but it reads better than Eschenbach’s.
To his credit, Eschenbach has posted a comment on that site inviting his attackers to post in his comment section, which if done, should provide an enlightening debate.
Not anti-science Gary…
just anti-AGWscam,
anti-NWO,
anti-Gore.
and too bad some scientists can’t be trusted