sda2.jpg

December 9, 2009

Y2Kyoto: Raw Vs Cooked

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?


Posted by Kate at December 9, 2009 1:57 AM
Comments

Lucie Vincent...now a person of interest and a subject for our e-mails to PMSH et al.
No wonder Suzukster is in hiding.....

Posted by: sasquatch at December 9, 2009 2:53 AM

A 5 part video of the Alex Jones show starring Lord Moncton: Click Start Button .

Posted by: Gunney99 at December 9, 2009 3:12 AM

There are some technical issues about how to compare different observational eras. I will try to explain why without being too tedious (probably a lost cause).

Many years ago, the convention was to take the daily highs from about 0700 to the next day's 0700 local time (12 GMT to 12 GMT) in the eastern time zone. The convention for daily low was something much different, ending about 7 pm.

Now every so often, you get days when the temperature peaks at midnight and keeps falling through the 24-hour period. In the older data, this will result in a mean temperature for that day somewhat higher than in a modern temperature series where the observing day has switched to the calendar day (actually more like 0100 to 0100).

If you follow this, you'll see that the same weather, observed in the 1930s, would have a higher mean than in today's methodology. Days like this amount to maybe 5-10 per cent of all days, and the difference amounts to maybe 3 C deg for those days. The convention is therefore to take about .2 C off the older monthly averages when comparing them to modern ones, or vice versa, to add .2 on to recent ones.

Now this can be abused or overestimated. And not all weather types produce the same frequency of data requiring adjustment for comparison.

I think the more robust way to compare climate data from earlier decades to modern data is to look at record highs. These don't change much for any other reason than climate change itself.

That comparison basically establishes that the period 1981-2005 was a little warmer than the period before it, but the period 1890 to 1980 was a lot warmer than the period 1840-1889. It's somewhat crude, but probably less subject to conflicting interpretations.

Record highs since 2006 have become rather infrequent. It's too short a period to draw a lot of conclusions, you can find other 3-5 year periods in the 20th century with infrequent record highs. Let's say it probably shows a slight downturn in overall temperatures.

Comparing record lows at outlying rural stations works about the same way, but using airport data is subject to the problem of expanding urban heat islands that have tended to expand around airports and probably raised their base-lines for record lows even if they are still micro-climates of relative cold in some cases.

I think about this time next week, many Canadians are going to have even more doubts about global warming than they have today. You already know what I mean in the west, but wait until Ontario gets their share from today onward.

I've spent a lifetime looking at climate data, you can really find evidence to "demonstrate" almost any theory you fancy, but I really feel that most on both sides of this debate are starting to fling about some very inflated and misleading data. The best fit to the long-term data would lead you to think that we have just come through a rather warm century, relative to the past ten, about on a par with the 11th century, and in the longer term, post-glacial era, we almost returned to the peaks of warmth seen in pre-Roman (neolithic) times, but not quite. That's really the bottom line in all this, we are gambling the economic future of western civilization on the far-fetched notions that (a) we face catastrophic warming and (b) if so, there is a damned thing we can do about it.

I think the truth is, we could be facing a colder regime more similar to the Little Ice Age, and if we happen to be warming that up a tad, (a) nobody will notice and (b) if they notice, they won't mind.

Posted by: Peter O'Donnell at December 9, 2009 3:22 AM

There's only the one full "Lucie Vincent" email in the CRU ones, that Kate's quoted above, but it looks like "Lucie" is mentioned too another 6 times.

I just read through the searchable CRU txt files and "Lucie" is mainly repeating the email Kate quoted while passing info around to the rest of the CRU crew.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=998&filename=.txt
There's this "Lucie" reference too noted in boldface by me...

Hi, Phil,
Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their
interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of sympathy, but
I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii - I left Monday morning
and flew out Tuesday evening and am now in the Houston airport on my way
home.
Data that we can't release is a tricky thing here at NCDC. Periodically,
Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would violate agreements
and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you don't
specifically cite me or NCDC in this.
But I can give you a good alternative. You can point to the
Peterson-Manton article on regional climate change workshops. All those
workshops resulted in data being provided to the author of the
peer-reviewed paper with a strict promise that none of the data would be
released. So far as far as I know, we have all lived up to that
agreement - myself with the Caribbean data (so that is one example of
data I have that are not released by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for South
America,
Enric for Central America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern data,
Albert for south/central Asian data, John Ceasar for SE Asia, Enric
again for central Africa, etc. The point being that such agreements are
common and are the only way that we have access to quantitative insights
into climate change in many parts of the world. Many countries don't
mind the release of derived products such as your gridded field or
Xuebin's ETCCDI indices, but very much object to the release of actual
data (which they might sell to potential users). Does that help?
Regarding AR4, I would like to be part of it. I have no idea what role
would be deemed appropriate. One thing I noticed with the CLAs in my
old chapter is that if one isn't up to doing his part (too busy, or a
different concept of timeliness, or ...) it can make for a difficult
job. You and I have worked well together before (e.g., GSN) so I'd be
delighted to work with you on it and I know you'd hold up your side of
the tasks. We touched on this briefly at the AOPC meeting. If I get an
opportunity, I would say yes.
But I also don't know what the U.S. IPCC nominating approach would be or
even who decides that. There is an upcoming IPCC report on extremes and
impacts of extremes and I wasn't privy to any insights into the U.S.
nominations other than when it was over it was announced in NCDC staff
notes that the nominations had been made. However, Kumar had earlier
asked if he could nominate me, so he did (I provided him with the details).
Regards,
Tom

Tom,
If you look on Climate Audit you will see that I'm all over it!
Our ftp site is regularly trawled as I guess yours is. It seems that
a Canadian along with two Americans copied some files we put there
for MOHC in early 2003. So saying they have the CRU data is not
quite correct. What they have is our raw data for CRUTEM2 which
went into Jones and Moberg (2003) - data through end of 2002.
Anyway enough of my problems - I have a question for you. I'm
going to write a small document for our web site to satisfy (probably the
wrong word) the 50 or so FOI/EIR requests we've had over the weekend.
I will put up the various agreements we have with Met Services.
The question - I think you told me one time that you had a file
containing all the data you couldn't release (i.e. it's not in GHCN). Presumably
this is not in your gridded datasets? Do you know off hand how much
data is in this category? Would NCDC mind if I mentioned that you
have such data - not the amount/locations/anything, just that there is some?
On something positive - attached is the outlines for the proposed Chs in AR5/WG1.
Ch1 is something Thomas thinks he can write himself - well with Qin Dahe, so
only 13 chapters. There are a lot of issues with overlaps between some of the
data chapters 2 with 3, 2 with 5 and 2 with 14.
I'm still thinking about whether to get involved. It would be 2 if I decide. At the
moment I'd say yes, but I might change my mind tomorrow! Nominations are
from Nov09 thru Jan10 with the selection made in April 10. Are you considering
getting involved?
I have got the IPCC Secretariat and Thomas to raise the FOI issues with
the full IPCC Plenary, which meets in Bali in September or October. Thomas
is fully aware of all the issues we've had here wrt Ch 6 last time, and others in
the US have had.
Cheers
Phil

Posted by: andycanuck at December 9, 2009 3:33 AM

Kate your a Juggernaut of truth compared to the AGW leaking lying fishing boat.
Thanks for the amazing job your doing on this con that will effect Billions adversely. If the eco-nuts & frauds prevail.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at December 9, 2009 3:35 AM

"Big Winners, Big Losers"

Here is a great piece showing Al Gore testifying before Congress and being questioned by Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana. It really shows Gore at his finest. 'Deniers' are wrong. Man made global warming is an incontrovertible fact. Oil companies are lying to you.

Then, at about the 3:00 mark he gets asked about his associations with Kenneth Lay and Enron and whether he had involved Mr. Lay in his carbon trading schemes. Ken Lay you may recall, died in prison.

Watch Gore's expressions, body language and listen to his words - "I didn't know him well enough to call him Kenny-boy". There is also a nice tid-bit regarding his 'business dealings' with the recently bailed out Goldman-Sachs.

http://tinyurl.com/yfl9qyj

Posted by: No Guff at December 9, 2009 3:35 AM

Real nice post Peter. Well put. It has been said ad nauseum on this subject already, but it is patently clear that the AGW crowd was never that concerned about climate or its change, but simply a method of circumventing the mostly global rejection of socialist ideals and practices. Attempting to subject citizens worldwide to a system of government that those same citizens voted against time and again could only be done through ways not involving legitimate measures and voila, here we are reviewing the toils of those charged to legitimize the latest scheme. All the while, a complicit media voices the denials and defenses of the cockroaches caught in the light beam. All hail the world wide web. Generally, I hate spreading conspiracy theories, but this "(AGW) theory" just keeps on resembling a larger and larger conspiracy.

Posted by: SaskHab at December 9, 2009 3:48 AM

Kate and commenting crew - you are the most knowledgeable on this issue on the web - you know that. I will get off here so my betters may continue to exchange information.

HOWEVER - you can help me perhaps. I thought you were supposed to protect us down here from cold weather through NORAD. What has gone wrong? Was there a miscalculation?

One last bit, the Chinese are attending the Copenhagen Climate Change under the guise of "underdeveloped country."

Posted by: SamHenry at December 9, 2009 4:19 AM

Kate and crew - Thank you for fighting the good fight against these liars pushing Climate Change. I hope more people follow suit, just as I hope more will see the truth.

Posted by: David at December 9, 2009 4:44 AM

If the warmies would be as clear and concise as Peter O'Donnell, there would be many fewer arguments about this stuff.

Posted by: tim in vermont at December 9, 2009 6:13 AM

Kate et all - love your work. The readership of this blog must be going through the roof.

Seems to me that Global Warming is one of those causes like the war on poverty in which the advocates are much more comfortable discussing solutions in theory rather than with facts.

It's clear they are trapped here, like cornered rats, and are using all of the mouthpieces at their disposal to try and maintain a shred of credibility exploiting the fact that the man on the street may not be able to inderstand statistical manipulation, collusion.

This is why I think it imperitive that somebody bring these revelations from the e-mails into the fraudulent and criminal realm, and quick! This will really shift public opinion.

Rock steady,

B n' P

Posted by: Beer and Popcorn at December 9, 2009 6:26 AM

The NEW most terrifying words in the English language...

I'm a Climate Scientist and I'm here to help you.

Damn pesky cold bias, I can fix that for you right away!

I have always wondered how the Canadian Temperature Anomalies never matched conditions recorded by Environment Canada in the GISS recordset in particular and why the sampling was so small. So I think I need to take a look at EC adjustments because Canada does not have have nearly enough reliable stations to run comparative neighbour stations analysis because the spacing is far too sparse, it would be in the 600KM resolution to get 10 stations to adjust against which would be the Distance from Calgary to Vancouver.

Which are notorious for having the same temperature.

Posted by: Illiquid Assets at December 9, 2009 6:56 AM

Goreacle/UNabomber Canadian Mao Stlong Strong Fraud Report.

Mao Stlong Strong, holed up in China, is Uncle Mo to Canadian “Liberal leader” Bob Rae.

NYSlimes on the AGW Fraudsters Wine Tasting Party.
…-

“Climate Conference Begins to Feel Pressure of the Clock

Hundreds of government functionaries awoke on Wednesday feeling the rising pressure of a weekend deadline to hash out a realistic draft of a new climate agreement.

This is the stretch when sherpas, as such delegates are called, race among the booths and offices of countries large and small, comparing contentious competing “nonpapers” — sections of the proposed text with no official existence — that amount to trial balloons.

The pressure is rising because the drafts need to be in decent shape before top ministers arrive to prepare for their bosses, including more than 100 heads of state, scheduled to close out the negotiations on Dec. 18.

As if to make the point, a digital countdown clock on the Web sit of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change http://www.unfccc.int has stood at 0:00:00:00 since Monday.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2403582/posts

Posted by: maz2 at December 9, 2009 7:08 AM

Martin Luther: "*some young monk’s conscience got the better of him".

"Project Wittenberg
Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther
on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences

by Dr. Martin Luther, 1517"
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html
...-

"*Lorne Gunter: The skeleton of climate change

Imagine if, on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, some young monk’s conscience got the better of him and he leaked to the world the fact that the Catholic church had been hiding the actual Earthly skeleton of Jesus of Nazareth.

The council — the 1960s gathering of theologians to update Catholic theology and liturgy — would have been thrown into disarray.

The Resurrection is the central mystery of the Christian faith and if, suddenly, Christ’s bones were found, well, that would prove that he was a mere mortal.

It would prove that Christians had been worshiping a fake.

It wouldn’t matter that most people had never heard of the Office of the Ossuary or whatever Vatican agency was in charge of keeping things quiet. The fact the teachings of the Church had been debunked would be all delegates could talk about.

That’s because the council was about theology.

The proof that the current climate summit in Copenhagen is not about environment and science, but rather about politics and ideology, can be seen in that fact that two weeks ago, some young computer programmer’s conscience got the better of him and he released computer code and emails exposing the skeleton of climate change. Yet almost no one in Copenhagen is talking about it."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/09/lorne-gunter-the-skeleton-of-climate-change.aspx

Posted by: maz2 at December 9, 2009 7:53 AM

Kate you are a wonder and a treasure. Eschenbach's revelations re: Darwin Zero are stunning. They globalized the hockey stick. Isn't that imperialistic?

Posted by: nick at December 9, 2009 8:13 AM

I think the funnest part of all this is that we mere mortals get to watch Otto von Bismarck's "sausage" being made, live and unedited.

Peter O'Donnell's point about using record high and low temperatures to short circuit the fancy "adjustments" is very well taken. In any data set there is the possibility to make it show any freakin' thing you want, with sufficient massaging. There is also a way to expose any such fraudulent activity, as his common sense method certainly does.

Clearly Mr. O'Donnell is some kind of Conservative racist/bigot/homophobe/climate denier/baby eater for squealing like that...

Now that Kate has re-discovered the Medieval Warm Period for us in super science ice core data, we can put some perspective on all the "tipping point" verbosity. The tipping point comes -after- I get my new wheat farm in Greenland, not before. Last I heard, Greenland isn't a big wheat exporter.

Now I'm going to go rev up my truck, because I want to plant palm trees on my front lawn next year.

Posted by: The Phantom at December 9, 2009 8:34 AM

My hairline has receded by two inches.

But after using homogenization formulas and special computer tricks,

I actually have more hair now than I had twenty years ago!!!
and I have the graphics to prove it!!!

I'm not bald anymore and I've just saved $ 10,000 on a hair transplant job!!!

All this thanks to data manipulation Climategate style ...

Posted by: Friend of USA at December 9, 2009 8:51 AM

Btw, for all of y'all out West getting dumped on, some free schnadenfreud: Southern Ontario where I live is getting the most filthiest imaginable mixture of rain/slush falling from the sky that I've seen in many a year. Its disGUSting!

Where's my palm trees, damnit?!!! Where's my Saguaro cactus?!

Posted by: The Phantom at December 9, 2009 9:06 AM

Is it possible to get a "Darwin Award" for data analysis?


Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at December 9, 2009 9:10 AM

Read this rot in the Montreal Gazette. Hiring of reporters is based upon their displaying absolute ignorance of how Canada works. This windbag seems to know nothing of the $250 billion dollars Alberta has contributed to Canada, and in turn to Quebec for his health care, day care, reduced income taxes etc.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/reader-comments/pains/2315027/story.html

Posted by: Sylvanguy at December 9, 2009 9:13 AM

The kind of statistical tricks used to inflate global temperatures are strikingly similar to those used to lower inflation and unemployment statistics. For instance, if the U.S. measured unemployment the same way they did in 1980, the unemployment rate today would be around 16%, not 10%.

Thankfully, the debate over global warming has now moved from the MSM to the internet. Instead of having a handful of carefully stage-managed "debates" over the issue spoon-fed to the public, we now have literally millions of unfettered debates raging across the blogosphere. This is already shifting public opinion, much to the dismay of the AGW tribe.

Posted by: Dennis at December 9, 2009 9:22 AM

you got some splainin to do Lucie !

Posted by: john begley at December 9, 2009 9:35 AM

However, not a single MSM outlet would let this information get published. After consulting with their "climate guru", they would dismiss this as "cherry picking of data". This will then require a complete analysis of every single station in order to prove it's not just cherry picked. It's a delaying tactic, of course, while they slam through some regressive tax on CO2 law. Anyone know how to burn fossil fuels in such a way as to produce both energy and carbon nanotubes? Diamonds? Graphite?

Posted by: pete at December 9, 2009 9:37 AM

pete, doesn't that kinda go against the laws of thermodynamics? Energy -and- nanotubes from oxidation?

Oh well, not to worry. If we all just WANT it really hard I'm sure real diamonds will start falling out of exhaust pipes across the nation. And if they don't, we'll just have to find the bad guys who aren't wanting sincerely enough.

Posted by: The Phantom at December 9, 2009 9:50 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQXY4tWaoI&feature=player_embedded

It's A Climategate Christmas

from the Minnesotans 4 Global Warming

ENJOY!

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at December 9, 2009 10:01 AM

First, I am not a "denier". I have believed for the last 61 years, 2 months and some days that the earth is warming and cooling. CONSTANTLY!
The arrogance of some of the polititians and some in the scientific community to think that we are powerful enough to "heat" the earth up, is ludicrious, at least to me.
There have been tool using hominids on the earth for a long, long time. Between you, your God, and your favorite estimation, lots of years. We are here, because we have adapted to constant and severe drastic changes in our environment. To think that 100 to 200 years of the most accurate measuring of temperature in our complete history (100,000's of years) becomes (thanks to strident yapping) the yard stick of what is happening is rediculous never mind the obvious tampering and fudging of the data and the results. I am reminded of the "nuclear winter" scenarios of years gone by. More energy expended in the average Thunderstorm than in the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. How stupid can our scientific community be?
I am a result of 12 years of education in Alberta, and (as a poke at some of our "first nations community" I am a survivor of 2 Province wide horrors that were called Departmental Exams. These terrible things ensured that not only was I judged as to my accomplishments in the educations system, but my teachers and their support staff were judged as well. Yup, just a grade 12 education, passed with a 72% average, but even those such as I can see through the crap behind the Global Warming issue, right to the monies being made and already spent. Politics and greed. The only 2 reasons behind this situation.

Posted by: winnipegman at December 9, 2009 10:06 AM

"The earth is warming!" is the new "the earth is flat!"

Posted by: Pierce at December 9, 2009 10:09 AM

I have wondered about the historical weather data at weatheroffice.gc.ca.
Some of it does not tally with my own recollections, e.g. of exceptionally cold days in July of 1991 and 1992.

So there is a cook working for them!

Posted by: John Lewis at December 9, 2009 10:11 AM

Heavenly days. We are all bent out of shape over 'Climate Change' when according to what I read from Peter O'Donnell we haven't even agreed on how to read the bloody thermometer!!!!

Posted by: Joe at December 9, 2009 10:20 AM

You have to admit it's a very neat, you should excuse the expression, trick. First, you refuse to release your data and methods, then you dismiss all criticism of your work on the grounds that the critics don't have access to your data and methods. Then, you delete all your raw data, and only release "homogenized" data (and for all the dairy farmers out there, wouldn't "partially skimmed" be a more apt term?) that, surprise, surprise, surprise, confirms your conclusion.

How should we describe this? Tautological? Or to use a more colloquial term, "circle jerk"?

Posted by: KevinB at December 9, 2009 10:21 AM

Remember, if you torture the data enough, they WILL confess!!

Posted by: John Lewis at December 9, 2009 10:32 AM

This is absolutely scandalous. Everyone that thinks a strong U.N. would be good for the world should realize it all it would do is consolidate power that would tend towards corruption. Lies, lies, and damned statistics!

Check out our interview with Dr. Tim Ball on Climate gate. All climate change heretics are bullied, excluded, intimidated until control is maintained: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNnqKVGA1LA.

Posted by: Lee Harding at December 9, 2009 10:40 AM

US Government absolute political control.

CO2 designation as a pollutant allows control of all industry and transportation...absolute control of economic life. In addition, everybody breathes out CO2...so the air can be cut off from political opponents.

The head of the EPA says he will use "common sense" in enforcing CO2 restrictions. Our government must have been saving up common sense in a vault for decades, so there should be no problem.

Posted by: ezag at December 9, 2009 11:06 AM

One intelligent, well-written, thoughtfull response so far (Peter O'Donnell). And, of course, largely ignored. Both deniers and believers so far contributed nothing.

Posted by: Erwin at December 9, 2009 11:12 AM

Moses
When ole Charley came down off the "Mount" with the "raw data" what did he find?
Similar what's going on in Copenhagen eh?

Posted by: SleepingCoyote at December 9, 2009 11:20 AM

Pete at 9:37
Yes we can!!

Anaerobic gasification (in the absence of oxygen) allows for the extraction of all usable hydrocarbons as a syngas that can then be converted to virtually any hydrocarbon product or feedstock you want.

The production of CO2, SO2, NO2 and other undesirable oxides is dramatically reduced. For example, a plant that processes 25,000 tons of coal per day into 55,000 barrels of diesel will produce only about 700 tons of CO2. Other gasification systems in use will produce over 30,000 tons on the same production. Other oxides are reduced by a similar factor.

Fixed carbon is recovered as pure carbon black, a suitable feedstock for carbon fibre, carbon nanotubes and diamonds, although most will likely be activated for the filter market.

Posted by: Wayne at December 9, 2009 11:21 AM

I guess that includes your comment too, then, Erwin.

Posted by: andycanuck at December 9, 2009 11:21 AM

This climate thing is no longer a debate or a theory other than in the minds of young (and many not so young) useful idiots. This fantasy is a reality to them.

We will need to adapt to the fact that, like the American revolution against tyranny and high taxation we must be ready to actually and truly fight these bastards.

This global climate fraud will morph into outright street war. If not, then we will need to adapt to the pretend world of global warming and then adapt to a lot less money, then adapt to almost no freedom at all.

I would prefer to have them adapt to the fact that some of us will not be enslaved and will do whatever it takes to remain free.

Start thinking about it that way. Pondering the numbers and making an air tight case proving the climate change theory wrong and fake is an interesting pass-time, but it's only a speed bump to these tyrants in waiting.

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?

Posted by: Abe Froman at December 9, 2009 11:22 AM

Pete at 9:37
Yes we can!!

Anaerobic gasification (in the absence of oxygen) allows for the extraction of all usable hydrocarbons as a syngas that can then be converted to virtually any hydrocarbon product or feedstock you want.

The production of CO2, SO2, NO2 and other undesirable oxides is dramatically reduced. For example, a plant that processes 25,000 tons of coal per day into 55,000 barrels of diesel will produce only about 700 tons of CO2. Other gasification systems in use will produce over 30,000 tons on the same production. Other oxides are reduced by a similar factor.

Fixed carbon is recovered as pure carbon black, a suitable feedstock for carbon fibre, carbon nanotubes and diamonds, although most will likely be activated for the filter market.

Posted by: Wayne at December 9, 2009 11:23 AM

Kate for Prime Minister!!!

Posted by: Melvin at December 9, 2009 11:28 AM

Well I'm glad my emails to Prentice got forwarded to Environment Canada, I guess I'll send another bringing up Lucie.

Posted by: Mugs at December 9, 2009 11:31 AM

Thanks 'Kate and crew' for supplying links.

Posted by: Merle Underwood at December 9, 2009 11:34 AM

There is no climate change - that is the new the earth is flat. Continue to stick you heads in the sand or wherever else for that matter. Bring on cap and trade and a carbon tax. Those are the only two approaches that will force a change in behavior of major polluters.

Posted by: T at December 9, 2009 11:35 AM

Whatever. All this reading is interupting the latest Tiger 'the cheetah' Woods revelations.

Posted by: gobi desert at December 9, 2009 11:41 AM

Since Gobi desert started it. Comic relief 4U.

Tiger Splains it ...

Posted by: Abe Froman at December 9, 2009 11:51 AM

@andycanuck
You guessed correctly.
My opinion is that the subject matter is too complex to make any conclusions yet and that includes outright denial. While I'm not a denier, I think that even if the most extreme alarmists are correct, the measures aren't efficient or well-thought over.
However, try to to be reasonable and both 'churches' of the alarmist and deniers will declare you a heretic.
What could I add to a shouting contest?

Posted by: Erwin at December 9, 2009 11:54 AM

T. Unfortunately all the AGW true believers are the ones sticking their heads in the sand. Let's just crush our economy with yet another odious useless baseless tax. Up the bureaucracy. A reasoned and measured approach to cleaning up our air and water would win over a large portion of the "denier" community. The very idea of modifying our climate is arrogance of the highest order. Earth is changing, what a headline. The startlingly obvious.

Posted by: Rick Rae at December 9, 2009 11:57 AM

Dec 8th: 140 Scientists send open letter to the UN challenging the AGW theory. http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
In light of Climategate it is death by thousand cuts for the AGW theory.

Posted by: Claude at December 9, 2009 12:04 PM

It's obvious that anyone directly in the game not being trashed in the climate fraudsters emails is suspect. Those receiving active email encouragement and praise by the scammers are likely complicit or very gullible. In any case their helpful "work" should be under intense independent review ordered by the government.

Posted by: Sgt Lejaune at December 9, 2009 12:09 PM

Erwin:
When a government body like the EPA declares CO2 a pollutant you have to know that the game is rigged.
Under EPA's pronouncement, every time we exhale we pollute.
I don't call that complicated, I call it politics.
And I'm not shouting when I say that.
Why are you saying anything when you say you have nothing to say? Can you figure out that question?

Posted by: Ghost of Ed at December 9, 2009 12:11 PM

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.

Posted by: Erwin at December 9, 2009 12:27 PM

@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.

Posted by: Erwin at December 9, 2009 12:27 PM

@ 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.

Posted by: Kathryn at December 9, 2009 12:30 PM

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.

Posted by: bob at December 9, 2009 12:33 PM

@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.

Posted by: Erwin at December 9, 2009 12:44 PM

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

Posted by: b_C at December 9, 2009 12:47 PM

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.

Posted by: Michael at December 9, 2009 12:48 PM

I see we have been gifted with a new troll, a better one than T, in fact. Allah be praised!

Posted by: gordinkneehill at December 9, 2009 1:05 PM


Erwin - please explain how scientist are 'trying to create a little breathing room' - I don't follow.

Posted by: Beer and Popcorn at December 9, 2009 1:17 PM

Erwin @11:12 "Both deniers and believers so far contributed nothing."

That's the post I was commenting on.

Posted by: Kathryn at December 9, 2009 1:28 PM

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)

Posted by: b_C at December 9, 2009 1:32 PM

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.

Posted by: Oz at December 9, 2009 2:05 PM

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.

Posted by: LindaL at December 9, 2009 2:18 PM

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.

Posted by: Michael at December 9, 2009 2:53 PM

Linda -
Heh, CP4IPCC
Nice ring to that.

Posted by: b_C at December 9, 2009 2:54 PM

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?

Posted by: KevinB at December 9, 2009 2:54 PM

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.

Posted by: chutzpahticular at December 9, 2009 3:15 PM

Scoundrels, one and all, those homogenizers. Where are the leg irons?

Posted by: Woodporter at December 9, 2009 3:17 PM

Woodporter, good one.
From hence forth let them be know as Climate Homos.

Posted by: Oz at December 9, 2009 3:25 PM

knowN

Posted by: Oz at December 9, 2009 3:27 PM

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

Posted by: Joe Citizen at December 9, 2009 3:46 PM

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

Posted by: Joe Citizen at December 9, 2009 3:47 PM

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.

Posted by: Black Mamba at December 9, 2009 4:00 PM

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?

Posted by: LC Bennett at December 9, 2009 4:02 PM

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.

Posted by: kelly at December 9, 2009 4:15 PM

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?

Posted by: Lev at December 9, 2009 4:40 PM

Why is there a difference between the left hand and right hand vertical temperature values?

Posted by: Herman at December 9, 2009 4:44 PM

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.....

Posted by: bluetech at December 9, 2009 4:55 PM

Black Mamba:

Hey, eating pancreas worked for Ferris.

Save Ferris!!

Posted by: KevinB at December 9, 2009 5:25 PM

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.

Posted by: LC Bennett at December 9, 2009 5:46 PM

Gunney99 at December 9, 2009 3:12 AM
It was well worth watching . Thanks for posting the vids.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at December 9, 2009 5:55 PM

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.

Posted by: GreenNeck at December 9, 2009 6:52 PM

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.

Posted by: Kursk at December 9, 2009 8:10 PM

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


Posted by: GaryB at December 9, 2009 9:00 PM

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.

Posted by: John Moore at December 9, 2009 10:22 PM

Not anti-science Gary...

just anti-AGWscam,
anti-NWO,
anti-Gore.

and too bad some scientists can't be trusted

Posted by: bluetech at December 10, 2009 5:59 PM
Site
Meter