Oh that one is going to leave a mark.

Best part in the comments section though is the story about the Swedes raising interest rates this summer based on an erroneous calculation of shoe prices....accuracy matters in ways you can rarely imagine.

One of the most insightful comments is about what would happen if the opposite happened in say March/April AGW alarmists would have double checked the data and fixed it before rushing out the press release.

Once science crosses into politics it no longer becomes science, the basis of science is evidence and far to often evidence is an inconvenience for politics, so it gets ignored, warped and diluted.

My favourite comment is the one that states that it looks like global warming is man made after all.

Global warming, something you are not going to hear about in future election cycles. This pony just did its trick for the last time, its headed for the glue factory with gun control.

Thanks to the economic meltdown their policies have created, DemocRats and the Liberal Party will be cutting the Greenies loose over the next three months. You're not going to be hearing "Green Shaft" or Kyoto on the MSM.

So prophesies The Phantom.

BTW, didn't I read someplace last week that we are having -record- ice formation this year? Fastest ever ice pack growth?

I seem to recall this. Perhaps I am going mental, Mr. Hansen would no doubt say so.

You are a wise man, Phantom. Perhaps this economic meltdown is just what is needed to bring the airy-fairy anthropogenic global warming lemmings down to earth.

It's true that ice is spreading south at a very fast rate this autumn. The Foxe Basin, that body of water west of Baffin Island, basically froze over in about a week which is quite fast.

I think the actual October data for Russia will be generally a little below normal too, so the adjusted figures should be pretty encouraging. Just looking at today's map I see nothing but -20 to -30 C temperatures across northern Siberia at the present time, while not exceptional these are probably a few degrees below normal there.

This winter could be quite volatile, I figure (as a long-time weather researcher not associated with the profession as you can imagine) ... the arctic vortex is quite well developed for this early in the winter, and yet there are some remaining pockets of warmth such as over the western Atlantic. This should set up a very high-amplitude pattern and some areas of extreme cold, other locations of persistent warmth. The way it seems to be setting up, I would expect the cold to dominate the western half to two-thirds of North America, and the milder regime to try to hold on in the east coast regions, possibly the lower Great Lakes. Eventually the cold should win out there, but it may take most of the winter.

I don't think we'll see the enormous snowfall depths of last winter repeated in the same places, this winter I would expect more snow than average perhaps on the prairies and the northern plains states.

If you're interested in seeing real-time weather maps around the world, this is a good site:

http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/wetterkarten.html

The arctic maps on this site are updated every six hours, and you can see how cold it's getting across Siberia.

Other continents are also shown with various time scales for updates, none less than once every 24h.

this ERROR at GISS just shows that they can not be trusted to run a proper study or data collection exercise

if you extend this incompetence across their whole operation, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that it should be scarped, or totally revamped, either way Hansen should be fired for incompetence (out rite lying)

The question outstanding - if the jump in October temps was enough to trigger interest across the "Denierweb", why didn't it do the same at NASA?

Because they didn't notice? How can that be? They are either pathologically incurious or intentionally deceitful. There are no other possibilities.

Intentional deceitfulness is the obvious answer. Due to the process of elimination...if it ain't one then it's the other.

here's what's making lay awake at night...

Rumour has it that BO is considering appointing the Goracle as his energy Czar.

If this is true and the other one I have read is also true - that Robert Kennedy junior is going to in charge of the EPA then all bets are off on how low the Dow and S&P will go.

Absolutely right Kate.
And the crowded unemployment line should have a few more in it over this gross negligence.

Red flags were all over this data and nobody investigated. Didn't they realize or care that they have the entire future of Blue Planet in their hands?

Nothing less than a firing squad of snowballs should used on this sorry group of pathetic 'scientists'.

Kate: My guess would be that the data is collected almost automatically and the person putting up the data is not a climatologist, or if they are, they put up the data anyway and then just flag the anomaly to look at later. By getting the information out quickly, errors can be spotted faster which is a good thing.

While playing the "either pathologically incurious or intentionally deceitful" game is good rhetoric and can be fun, it is not really useful. For example we can take the three points I like to raise:

1) we are responsible for all the recent increase in CO2 levels.

2) CO2 will absorb and then re-emit longwave radiation.

3) If you shine more longwave radiation on an object it will either warm up or cool less quickly.

From a logic and scientific point of view they are as close to rock solid as you can get in science. SO I could say that anyone who disputes them is either in pathological denial of science or intentionally deceitful. But, as well as being rude, it would not advance the argument.

Regards,
John

John-

Are we going to have a go around on this? Or riddle me ree...

Your #1. Is atmospheric AND ground CO2 a finite set?

Your #2. No, it does several things beyond those two, unless it's in closed sole element experiment, and you are missing some other effects in that case.

Your #3. And all cats are black, in the dark. Define your system that you are casting your gaze upon and making such kingdomwide edicts. No interaction is allowed between elements within a system?

Take a chance, and think.

Porter: in order:

1) It depends on how you define "finite set". If you are familiar with the argument I make, I only need accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels and fossil fuel consumption rate.

2) Are you saying CO2 will not absorb and then re-emit longwave radiation?

3) You lost me here - can you shine longwave radiation on an object and it will not warm (or cool less quickly)?

Regards,
John

Two things John ...

Are you claiming that the best scientific approach to dealing with an unproven theory is to blindly follow it? I may have just graduated from a poor university, but I was taught that all good scientists were sceptic.

Secondly, what makes your unproven theory that many made CO2 emissions are causing global warming any more valid than theories that sunspots interact with cloud formation and (although they do not increase global irradiance) the change in cloud formation increases solar irradiation at the surface of the Earth ... Being that there has been a massive reduction in solar flare activity right before we have seen a massive reduction in global temperature, maybe you should be a little more open minded

Ahem. Globe warms. More water in gaseous form present in atmosphere. More water in atmosphere results in more cloud cover. More cloud cover results in less thermal load on surface. Less thermal load on surface results in less warming. Less warming results in less water vapor.

Water is many times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Ask any reporter, they will tell you.

Hahahahaha.. what a bunch of maroons!

Next time they'll confess that they forgot to divide by two!!!!

Tsk Tsk...Can't even trust eggheads anymore.

"Kate: My guess would be that the data is collected almost automatically and the person putting up the data is not a climatologist..."

Remind me, again - what's their annual budget?

And then tell me why someone shouldn't be fired immediately, if that's the kind of quality control practiced there.

NoOne: No, I am not saying that at all. And I agree, all good scientists are skeptics. But there comes a point when skepticism without evidence is counterproductive.

In regards to your second point - no one claims that CO2 is the only driver of climate. But as well a looking at CO2 with a skeptical mind, you must look at all possible drivers with a skeptical mind including cosmic rays.

Regards,
John

so just make the pension plans for all these public teat sucking NASA "scientists" dependent on their forecasts.

All those who push the belief in AGW should have the validity of their science used as a deciding factor in calculating the value of what they get paid.

Would probably get most of them to STFU.

John Cross: Please explain why there is a divergence between global temps and C02 levels? According to the IPCC this should not be happening.

Kate: There is always a trade off between how quickly you get the information out and how much quality control you can run. If people were willing to wait for the data for a couple of months I am sure they would be able to run more quality control. As it is I suspect they get it up there as quickly as possible so people can start to work with it.

One of the ways that people would use it would be to compare it to other global temperature data sets (like the HAD). If the problem hadn't been found already I suspect it would have been found at that point.

Regards,
John

John,
Before, or after a graphic had been formulated for consumption in public schools?

Ward: No one believes that CO2 is the only driver of climate. There are multiple drivers acting on multiple time-scales. That is why climate is generally defined to be a 30 year window.

Regards,
John

John-

1. "all the recent increase in CO2 levels" - I have defined no finite set of CO2, you seem to have intimated that all CO2 increase is ours (by that I assume you mean Human) therefore no other influences con possibly cause the formation of CO2. Not even those that might have occured prior to human existence, and any planetary absorption abilities that date from then.

2. AND reflect that same radiation. Ignoring, as you must be, that it still only is a microscopic component of the atmosphere, the whole atmosphere does not magically transform itself to only exhibit the properties of CO2. It is only entitled to the proportion that it occupies.

3. Gaseous thermodynamic properties are not Newtonian, they are gas specific, leaving alone their optical qualities. You are venturing into energy balancing equations without a fulcrum. Accuracy here using pointillist technique would be to your advantage. You are using a four inch brush.

I have been editing all day and have had enough of re-inventing the wheel for first time viewers. I'm going to bed.

When "global warming" as shown on a map follows arbitrary political boundaries, I just assume everybody knows...

but apparently not !

Bryan: If you comment was in regards to the warm October anomaly, then the answer would be before. As far as I know, this was never announced by NASA, there was no press release or statement. SO the only people who know are the people who were checking the data. And they made NASA aware of the problem. And good for them.

Now, the test will be to see if NASA keeps the old "wrong" data up of if they take it down. If they keep their data up after such an obvious error I will join you in criticizing them. But I suspect that they will take it down until they can figure out what is going on.

Regards,
John

and I think it's cool that "B.O." is catching on, Gold Tulk...

just don't remind him of those DUMBO EARS.

Porter: You do not understand my point 1. I agree that there are many causes of CO2. But I also know that the CO2 that we produce must go somewhere.

In regards to my second point, it is not true that "it is only entitled to the proportion it occupies." For example, consider ozone. The concentration of ozone is much smaller than that of CO2, yet it is able to absorb almost all the UV-B that we get.

In regards to my using a four inch brush – I still don’t follow you. Can you cite a case where adding more IR would not cause a temperature rise (or a decrease in cooling)?

Good night,
John

John Cross, are you suggesting that a data screw-up this large is just business as usual in climatology? That NASA, the same outfit that -safely- sends rockets into space with people in them can't check their data before they publish it?

Pull the other one John, it has bells on.

Fourty years ago, NASA put a man on the moon. Today they can't do a temperature map. Fourty years ago NASA was run by engineers, today?

"Once science crosses into politics it no longer becomes science..."

Absolutely true, duffman.

And remember, this same scientific bias is inherent in the very computer models MMGW alarmists base their entire argument on.

I applaud the few media members I have witnessed air the utter lack of scientific protocol in the MMGW theory. A consensus of climatologists is NOT a valid scientific method. Nor is predicting the future.

John you said

"No one believes that CO2 is the only driver of climate. There are multiple drivers acting on multiple time-scales. That is why climate is generally defined to be a 30 year window"

No one believes that C02 is the only driver of climate? You could have fooled me my freind. I guess thats why I hear Al Gore, David Suzuki, Maurice Strong and the IPCC all talking about....

C02 period.

Why didn't the IPCC models predict any of what is currently happening?

" That is why climate is generally defined to be a 30 year window".........by whom? When was the last time this window opened ?

John: One more question. How cold, for how long, does it have to get for you to admit that this was a flawed hypothesis justified by junk modelling?

Quote from above:

Fourty years ago, NASA put a man on the moon. Today they can't do a temperature map. Fourty years ago NASA was run by engineers, today?

Political scientists.

That is why climate is generally defined to be a 30 year window.
Posted by: John Cross at November 11, 2008 10:20 PM

I have never come across this definition. I'm not being argumentative, John, but I would like to see a source for this. I know temperature records have become very reliable since about 1979, when satellites started measuring such things, but that doesn't mean that the 30 some-odd years since then is the window we ought to be using to determine climate change norms versus anomalies.

From my own layperson's perspective, for something like climate a 30 year time-frame seems but a blip in time. Personally, I'm of the opinion that climate is a chaotic system -- just too many damn variables.

"Kate: There is always a trade off between how quickly you get the information out and how much quality control you can run."

OK. Then, let's make this simpler.

As in "Holy heat-seeking-map-missile, Batman! Look at the colour of Russia right next to Alaska there!"

From the Daily Mail in Britain
Record snow falls in Europe and North America mean ski resorts open early

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 6:03 PM on 11th November 2008

Ski resorts across Europe and North America have opened early this season after heavy snowfall in the last month.

A series of snowstorms since early November in North America and late October in Europe has enabled several resorts to open ahead of schedule.

The Italian resort of Bormio has opened a month early after heavy snowfalls at the end of October and start of November delivered 50ins to the resort's upper slopes.
A snowboarder opens the door of his snow covered van in Saas-Fee. Heavy snow caused numerous delays for travellers in Switzerland

A snowboarder opens the door of his snow covered van in Saas-Fee. Heavy snow caused numerous delays for travellers in Switzerland

More heavy snow is forecast for many resorts across Austria, Switzerland and Italy this week.

Hintertux, in Austria, which already boasts 60ins of snow, is expecting a further 30ins over the next few days. Obergurgl, which is expecting 25ins of snow midweek, is set to open on Friday.

In Switzerland, Zermatt already has more than two metres of snow on its upper slopes, while Saas Fee has 75ins. Both resorts expect a further 20ins this week. Geilo, in Norway, has also opened three weeks early with a 25ins base.

The Scottish resorts of Cairngorm and The Lecht have also seen some early flurries and were briefly open at the start of November.
Ski pass: People walk behind a table and two chairs covered with snow on October 30, 2008 in the Swiss Alps ski resort of Saas-Fee

Ski pass: People walk behind a table and two chairs covered with snow on October 30, 2008 in the Swiss Alps ski resort of Saas-Fee

However, Cairngorm is now closed for annual maintenance work and mild and wet conditions has seen The Lecht shut down again.

The U.S. resort of Snowbird, in Utah, opened last Friday - the second earliest start in the resort's 38-year history - after 35ins of snow fell the weekend before.

'The west coast of America has received some significant snowfalls recently and it looks like mid-winter rather than autumn in many resorts,' said a spokesman for the Ski Club of Great Britain.

'While in Europe, a good amount of snow has fallen in recent weeks with more snow forecast,' he added.

Other resorts to open early include Mammoth, in California, which has opened 10 days early.

Skiers who headed to its slopes last weekend were rewarded with 15ins of fresh powder; Mount Norquay, in Canada - which forms part of Banff's Big Three ski area, along with Lake Louise and Sunshine Village - has opened almost three weeks early.

"Kate: There is always a trade off between how quickly you get the information out and how much quality control you can run."

Michelle Malkin calls that a crap sandwich. The question, then, is why are you making us taste test it?

I wonder if they're testing any O-Rings for ice buildup lately?

John Cross:

"...2) CO2 will absorb and then re-emit longwave radiation..."

If only GHG theory were that simple. Unfortunately the transmission of energy to the top of the atmosphere is affected by many details of quantum mechanics not nearly as well understood as John would have us all believe.

Clearly something is wrong with greenhouse theory if the pattern of warming in the troposphere is compared with actual data from weather balloons. The complex models incorporating adsorption/emission models for IR, convection, cloud/water vapour feedbacks are not predicting what is actually been happening (since 1979 the start of the satellite era).

Whether the errors in the model originate from quantum mechanics assumptions, or feedbacks, or convection theory know one seems to know. What we do know is that most IR is adsorbed by CO2 low in the atmosphere (and theory has it) transfers this upward through an emission/re-adsorption chain of events. This is the alleged "solid ground" John thinks he is standing on.

But small details of quantum mechanics affect how this theoretical "chain" works. For example how likely is a CO2-captured photon to be re-emitted before it transfers the energy in a collision have potentially great impact on whether adding CO2 has significant leverage on surface temperatures or not.

The bottom line is that some assumption(s) must be wrong with current GHG theory.

Regards, BRK

From realclimate.org --
As many people will have read there was a glitch in the surface temperature record reporting for October.[...]
That analysis has now been pulled (in under 24 hours) while they await a correction of input data from NOAA[...]
It's clearly true that the more eyes there are looking, the faster errors get noticed and fixed. The cottage industry that has sprung up to examine the daily sea ice numbers or the monthly analyses of surface and satellite temperatures, has certainly increased the number of eyes and that is generally for the good [...]

BUT [...]
there is a strong yearning among some to want to wake up tomorrow and find that the globe hasn't been warming, that the sea ice hasn't melted, that the glaciers have not receded and that indeed, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Thus when mistakes occur (and with science being a human endeavour, they always will) the exuberance of the response can be breathtaking - and quite telling.

A few examples from the comments at Watt's blog will suffice to give you a flavour of the conspiratorial thinking:
"I believe they had two sets of data: One would be released if Republicans won, and another if Democrats won.",
"could this be a sneaky way to set up the BO presidency with an urgent need to regulate CO2?",
"There are a great many of us who will under no circumstance allow the oppression of government rule to pervade over our freedom—-PERIOD!!!!!!" (exclamation marks reduced enormously),
"these people are blinded by their own bias", "this sort of scientific fraud", "Climate science on the warmer side has degenerated to competitive lying", etc…
(To be fair, there were people who made sensible comments as well).

AND [re this thread's title]
The amount of simply made up stuff is also impressive - the GISS press release declaring the October the 'warmest ever'? Imaginary (GISS only puts out press releases on the temperature analysis at the end of the year). The headlines trumpeting this result? Non-existent.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/#more-620

Let me see (cue the Simpsons):

To Pull a Homer is "to succeed despite idiocy"

I believe Hansen is wanting his own phrase.

To pull a Hansen is "to lie without speaking"

I think that sums it up nicely!

Hansen's "credibility" has been taking a pounding of recent even amongst the hard-line alarmists. The problem is that they can't dump him without egg on their face as well.

So, we will slowly see his reports being given less and less importance and they fade him away into oblivion and hope no-one really calls them on it.

Perhaps someone like John Cross can take up his case? You know, somone who can stick to his three choice points and remain totally oblivious to the world around him.

Sometimes I regret moving to the east coast: I miss all the late night jousts in the comments section.

As I've mentioned before, sunspot activity has been unusually low as of late, solar winds are at an all time low (as far as we have been able to measure) and yet humanity is to blame forglobal warming... errr, change? I'm surprised that nobody has brought up dinosaur flatulance as the cause of the last ice age. I've even had people tell me that burning wood to heat your house is somehow "green". I can imagine how lovely the air over Toronto would be if everyone was burning wood. It would be like living downwind of a forest fire permanently. From a personal point of view the sunsets would be great but breathing would weed out the weak of our species.

" If people were willing to wait for the data for a couple of months I am sure they would be able to run more quality control. As it is I suspect they get it up there as quickly as possible so people can start to work with it. "

Simplified version....so that the Goracle,FruitFly.Mo Slong,IIPC,etc, can spread as much BS about AGW as possible,before people catch on to the ponzi scheme.
So tell me John. If the computor models for AGW are so good,why isn't/wasn't there are program built in to catch such obvious duplicate info and ring some alarm bells? Because pseudo-religions(which is what AGW is) don't like to be outed?

Kate writes: "OK. Then, let's make this simpler.
As in "Holy heat-seeking-map-missile, Batman! Look at the colour of Russia right next to Alaska there!"

Or better still, ask someone who can see Russia from the house.

Dizzy's cut and paste from Realclimate.org would have you thinking "blinded by their own bias" is a one way street in climate science. But it is not, and clearer point couldn't be made on that topic than the fact that this warm record was posted without investigation into the big disconnect between surface and satellite data.

As Steve McIntyre has pointed out, if it was a cold record, the scientists at the GISS (one of who authored Dizzys cut and paste) would likely not have let it be posted without serious investigation into where the cold record was being driven from.

Regards, BRK

Justthinkin, not only is there no "quality control" program to check this data, there's nobody looking at the temperature map who knows enough (or cares a damn) to say "Oh I doubt that!" and go check the numbers. But there's John Cross, leaping to the defense, Dizzy mentions another apologist.

This is like putting a 1972 Volkswagen on a dynomometer and getting 1,100 horsepower. Did the wheezy little four banger really pull that, or is there something wrong with the dyno? Would you really issue a press release that says "Hottest four banger on record! 1972 Volksy pulls 1100 hp on pump gas!!!" No, you check the machinery is what you do.

Like Kate says, what would it take to make that temp difference along the Alaska border? An orbiting alien heat ray? A magnifying glass the size of Saturn? Come on!

Incompetence of this magnitude offends me, it really does. You've got a whole f-ing office full of scientists and grad students, it takes BLOGGERS to find this? WTF is that?

When you hype something so hard, sell it to the point of exhaustion and demonize all those who oppose is it really surprising that this kind of a pasting happens when you slip so badly?

John C is putting on the most charitable defence. But this is an old story, the "data" showed a previously conceived worldview so it was never questioned, even though it was an outlier and objective and dispassionate viewers would have questioned it.

Hansen, in his zealotry, jumped all over it because it vindicated his worldview. John C is counselling a caution that, wuite frankly, was never heard from the AGW side. That CO2 contributes to temperature cycles.

You know I would believe that on the surface, and it is an interesting working hypothesis that you would need a lot of study to prove. How much is cyclical/natural, how much is additive from manmade CO2. It all implies a really good understanding of the climate system. Sadly, all agree we arent there yet.

So as I have said countless times, study it, figure it out...if there really is a climate issue then people like Hansen and Gore should be punished becasue they have done more with their stridency to hold back our understanding. In Gore's case, for personal gain.

Right Answer + Wrong Method = Bad Science

You should never base policy on bad science, especially when it is tantamount to reshaping humans and their behaviour. This will definitely leave a mark, that of shredded credibility.

The Phantom: Are you saying that they can launch a rocket as quickly as they can put up data on a website? ;-)

Ward: Please read through the IPCC that you reference. In it you will find them discussing a large number of different drivers of climate.

CJ: I was posting from memory so to get a reference I went to Google and searched for “climate definition”. The first hit was Wiki so I ignored it and went to the second from answers.com. If you scroll down the page a bit you will find the following: “A summary of mean weather conditions over a time period, usually based on thirty years of records.” And then later on “Condition of the atmosphere at a particular location over a long period of time (from one month to many millions of years, but generally 30 years).”

Justthinkin: The fact that no one made a press release about this and the only people who put it on the web are those who found the error negates your argument. In regards to the computer models, they have nothing to do with the GISS. Completely different things. Finally, if they didn’t really like to be outed, then they would sit on the data for a month or a year to make sure that it was sound and solid. The problem then would be that people would be saying they won’t release their data.

Regards,
John

"Like Kate says, what would it take to make that temp difference along the Alaska border? An orbiting alien heat ray? A magnifying glass the size of Saturn?"
Phantom

Nope! All the Alaskan wolves and caribou ran away from animal killer Sarah Palin into Russia. Their breath and flatulence warned up Russia...The drastic temp differences at the borders are because Sarah's hunting helicopter's wind displacement, obviously not allowed to enter Ruskie air space kept all the warming from entering Alaska.
Simple!

Now, someone wake up John Cross to tell him the good news: I will be receiving a Nobel peace prize.

John Cross:

1) we are responsible for all the recent increase in CO2 levels.

2) CO2 will absorb and then re-emit longwave radiation.

3) If you shine more longwave radiation on an object it will either warm up or cool less quickly.

But as you know John, this CO2 effect diminishes with increasing concentration in logarithmic fashion, and thus in and of itself is of no concern. In order for AGW to be of concern, positive water vapour feedbacks must exist, and those are only a theory promulgated by computer models which are now out of bounds on predictive skill to the 95% confidence level. The theory is wrong.

Brian: As always, your posts are the most enjoyable since they are usually a little more detailed than others. First, I agree that my points are fairly simple and there are a huge number of things that I do ignore. It is hard to get a complex subject down to just three simple points, but the points I make do stand (i.e. are valid in spite of the process being more complex). For example, in your fourth paragraph (where you are talking about quantum effects) I think you are referring to the Breit-Wigner effect (correct me if I am wrong). If so, then I agree but what this would do is show why the IR bands are not saturated in the lower troposphere.

However the main thrust of you argument seems to boil down to the alleged disagreement between the troposphere warming shown by models and the radiosondes. In fact, if you accept that there are other drivers of the climate besides CO2 then the difference becomes less than the noise (i.e. is not statistically significant). See “Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere”.

Regards,
John

A more cynical person might wonder how poorly paid are some of the key Russian Met staff and have they been doing any "outside consulting" to keep the wolf from the door.

Phantom: "You've got a whole f-ing office full of scientists and grad students, "

OK, care to take a guess at how many people they have working on this? An office full of scientists and grad students would imply what - 10, 15? Does that sound about right?

Regards,
John

PS Terry Tory: Let me know when you are going to receive it. I will see if I can wrangle an invite!

As the late and great Michael Crichton would say;

The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?

And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established.

Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron.

So much of the recent warming comes from Russia with love... I wonder just how often they make this mistake

Global Warming vs. Global Cycle

Of course, as far as Global Warming is concerned, my theory has been and still is Planetary Alignment. Every century (give or take a few years) Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus and Mercury all fall in the same eliptical plane opposite from the Earth's eliptical plane. Now that's a lot of universal celestial magnetic power on display. You cannot have 5 of the 9 planets all in the Western Sky on the same eliptical plane without somekind of dimensional compression in the Earth's Orbit. Our Planets' orbit is directly proportional to the magnetic pull from the sun, and having 5 planets like ducks in a row in the opposite quadrant of our orbit every century is going to have a significant effect on our weather, like cooling and heating when you pull your hand away from the fire the 5 planets alignment pulls Earth closer and farther away from the sun, hence; A Global Cycle.

So, you see, it's not Global Warming, it is a Global Cycle, not caused by man, but God, seeing as how he built the solar system we live in, and seeing as how this is causing the Democrats and the Liberals so much grieve he and his son must be smiling amongst the Stars.

And, just for grins and giggles, are the Ice Caps on Mars still melting ?
,

Arguing against the existence of AGW with a fanatical true believer is identical to arguing against the existence god to a fanatical true believer.

The reasons for that are also identical.

Anyone who believes in a theory that only works in a heavily manipulated computer hard drive and which can't even be used to back-test objective reality using IN-SAMPLE DATA is beyond hope.

The models don't even work for the data set that was used to produce the models.

Computer models are not proof absent corroboration from observed data. On that file, the models fail. They are nothing more than computer animations of the sort used by Hollywood to illustrate an idea - they don't prove fact.

Those that believe have faith - not truth - behind them. Just like other religions.

Warick; "Those that believe have faith - not truth - behind them. Just like other religions."

Exactly !

And now, having lost Kyotolgy to the simple truth, the End-Of-The-World Alarmists are about to move onto the next calamity 'du jour'. -- WATER !! Or lack, thereof.

[Canadian activist Maude Barlow has been appointed as the United Nation's first senior adviser on water issues, a role she hopes to use to establish water as a human right and to convince Canada to "change its shameful position" on the issue.] CBC

John Cross said:

1) "The Phantom: Are you saying that they can launch a rocket as quickly as they can put up data on a website? ;-)"

Yes John, NASA operates all manner of mission critical aerospace equipment from jets to rockets, some of which has pretty fast response times. Like the Blackbird. In the wider US military they still have lots and lots of turn-key-push-button launch capability for ICBMS, satellites and etc.

I think you're overplaying this GISS "speed of posting thing" anyway. This wasn't some kind of automatic web update of a database, this was a no-guff press release. Different level of oversight on your average press release, one would hope. Hence the level of suspicion that the scre-up was let stand for nefarious purposes.

2) "An office full of scientists and grad students would imply what - 10, 15? Does that sound about right?"

Yes, it does. You're asking me to believe 10-15 trained guys who do this for a living couldn't look at that map for two seconds and say "No way that's right." It was let pass, knowming it was wrong.

This is a mistake on the same order as Mr. Fumducker in assembly forgetting to mix the hardener in the epoxy, and then pretending he didn't forget, and gluing up a whole shipment of chairs. In a -normal- workplace somebody checks to see if the glue is set before they ship the item. Its called quality control.

Not these guys. They shipped it, and it fell apart when the client opened the box. I'm the client, John. Should I buy another chair from these clowns?

Phantom: It might take a little while to get a Blackbird ready for launch these days ;-)

But what do you mean when you say "this was a no-guff press release." Could you please link to this press release? As fas as I know there was no press release involved.

In regards to the office, in fact there is 1/4 full time equivalent who looks at GISTEMP. Should you buy another "chair"? That depends - how much did you pay for that specific chair?

"And, just for grins and giggles, are the Ice Caps on Mars still melting ?"

Not sure but just 2 days ago the MSM was reporting that the last of the two rovers has shutdown for good...the last transmission sent back to earth was data on a soil sample and footage of a snow fall.

I'm a solar intensity believer. If solar minimum is currently cooling Earth, it certainly would be tied to this snow fall on Mars.

Here's the Phoenix Mars Rover; NASA's last report:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/phoenix/release.php?ArticleID=1936

BRK wrote --
"Dizzy's cut and paste from Realclimate.org would have you thinking "blinded by their own bias" is a one way street in climate science. But it is not, and clearer point couldn't be made on that topic than the fact that this warm record was posted without investigation into the big disconnect between surface and satellite data.

As Steve McIntyre has pointed out, if it was a cold record, the scientists at the GISS (one of who authored Dizzys cut and paste) would likely not have let it be posted without serious investigation into where the cold record was being driven from. "
+++

Agreed on the first point. As for the rest -- indeed, the data were posted without investigation. [And there's a reason for that]

First, a comment from someone who seems to agree with McIntyre's take on "serious investigation".
"What has happened is that GISS has put out an *analysis* of the raw data without noticing major major errors in it. The error should have been picked up by normal quality and data handling procedures. That it wasn’t, and was picked up by external commentators, is a failure on the part of GISS. It reduces confidence in GISS and opens the door to the possibility of other major errors not being revealed."

And the reason --
[Response: Rubbish. All real-time data products are substantially automated - otherwise they won’t get done at all. That means that the analysis gets done initially without much supervision. Subsequently a much wider circle of people look at it and if anything seems awry it will be brought up. If you don’t mind waiting years for the data, fine, let all the QC happen prior to it being put online (many datasets work fine that way), but if you want to know what is happening in real time, you have to put up with the occasional glitch. This is true for sea ice measurements, sateliite temperatures and the surface analysis. Deal. - gavin]

Dizzy, your post is unclear. Is it reasonable that, although the data collection is, supposedly, automated, it is not overviewed, sanity checked and analyzed; in case a failure had occured?

No, it is not reasonable. I suspect it was overviewed, but, because it went in the desired direction, Hansen, et al, were creaming themselves over the press release, which they did release, rather than questioning a screw up.

I eagerly anticipate the NASA press release apologizing and noting the resignation of Hansen for his incompetence.

I also await the GISS web site to come back on line.

Oh, there is shit going on in GISS.

John, I note that the harder I press you the further you seem to stray from the point. Yeah they parked the 'Bird, did NASA stop flying aerospace testing? Did they stop caring about accuracy?

I discovered my error with the press release. It was a data analysis, not a press release. Unlike GISS I fix my screw-ups up front.

But this is my favorite: "Should you buy another "chair"? That depends - how much did you pay for that specific chair?"

So John, what's the GISS annual budget? I'm thinking over a million, right? For a million bucks plus, these guys could be a bit more concerned with their work. Seeing as how major gigabuck public policy is being decided based on these measurements, eh?

But my main question is, would they have fixed it if nobody had made a fuss? Because due to the on-going thermometer beside the air conditioning in the parking lot saga, I think maybe they wouldn't have. Toss a shrimp on the barbecue boys, Congress is in session and we need another warm month.

Ward: Please read through the IPCC that you reference. In it you will find them discussing a large number of different drivers of climate.

John: Please find me the numerous news releases by Mr. Gore, Strong, Suzuki at all that explain the other forces affect climate.
They sing a one note song, and its out of tune.

Other question was "how cold for how long?"

Phantom: I was not aware that you were pressing me. I was only pointing out that your analogy was not particularly appropriate since in order to launch rockets, blackbirds, etc. requires a significant infrastructure. But if you want to talk about pressing I note that you ignore the fact that instead of a room full of scientists and grad students there is one guy working 1/4 time on it.

In regards to the chair, you miss my point. How much of that $1,000,000 did you pay. So in essence you get extremely fast information for next to nothing. If you want it with more quality control, wait 2 or 3 months before you look at it. Sounds like a deal to me.

Regards,
John

RW: you say "Hansen, et al, were creaming themselves over the press release, which they did release".

Do you have a link to the press release? I did not think there was one.

Thanks,
John

Ward: I was going by what you said in your post and I was not aware that you were looking at press releases. I am not a big fan of press releases myself since IMHO they never have enough detail. The IPCC report has sections on clouds, stratospheric water vapour, albedo, land cover changes, solar variations, volcanoes and others.

In regards to cooling that is a more complex question, but to me it is not a matter of cooling, but what is causing the cooling.

Regards,
John

Posted by: RW --
"Dizzy, your post is unclear. Is it reasonable that, although the data collection is, supposedly, automated, it is not overviewed, sanity checked and analyzed; in case a failure had occured?
No, it is not reasonable. I suspect it was overviewed, but, because it went in the desired direction, Hansen, et al, were creaming themselves over the press release, which they did release, rather than questioning a screw up." etc
+++
The paragraph above your first sentence explains that analysis comes after the data is generated.
Your "sanity checked" phrase implies that the results were prima facie bizarre. See this comment #4 & answer --
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/#comment-102651

Your "desired direction" accusation is made & answered here --
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/#comment-102880

And what you "suspect" is, I suspect, your problem.

PS
"The corrected data is up. Met station index = 0.68, Land-ocean index = 0.58, details here. Turns out Siberia was quite warm last month."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/#comment-102895