January 23, 2010

The Sound Of Settled Science

In much the same way that temperature changes recorded in Saskatoon are representative of changes in Seattle... (Or Florida).

...[Gavin Schmidt*] also said a smaller sampling of weather stations in the Canadian Arctic wouldn't have a significant impact on the data. He said any long-term temperature changes recorded at the high Arctic station at Eureka, would likely be "representative" of changes elsewhere in the region, even in a sub-Arctic city like Yellowknife.

"Temperature anomalies don't vary that much from one (nearby) station to another," he said. "You don't need thousands of stations across Canada to know what the monthly anomalies are."


If you aren't by now alarmed that public policy makers are about to tax us to the tune of billions on the say-so of charlatans such as this, there's something amiss with your cognitive abilities.

Posted by Kate at January 23, 2010 11:36 AM

Eureka isn't really that far from Yellowknife when you consider how far the moon is from earth.


Posted by: syncrodox at January 23, 2010 11:42 AM

"Temperature anomalies don't vary that much from one (nearby) station to another," he said. "You don't need thousands of stations across Canada to know what the monthly anomalies are.""

Please tell me that wasn't written by a Canuck met guy. Hoe does he explain the average 3 to 5 degree dif in summer between Edmonton's City Center Airport,and the 15 to 25 in winter.They are only 26 miles apart as the crow flies?

Posted by: Justthinkin at January 23, 2010 11:45 AM

I guess they should also consider taking fewer weather stations in the southern United States because a few would be representative of the region - who needs thousands of weather stations.
In fact take fewer of the equator belt as well because it is just a region as well - who needs thousands of weather statioins.

Posted by: Peter B at January 23, 2010 11:58 AM

I truly think that there is an impairment of the cognitive abilities of the climate change and climate instability deniers. Their scare tactics and howling have for the most part been ignored by governments and policy makers. The sooner a carbon tax, cap and trade and emission maximums are mandated the better. The deniers espouse the collapse of the economy and business with the implementation of such policies; nothing could be farther from the truth. Sweden has had a carbon tax for several years now and their economy is still intact. Most EU countries tax fuel at a much high rate than here, and hence attempt to change behavior by encouraging car pooling, using public transport or other means of transportation. Most of the entities opposed to carbon taxes, cap and trade and emission controls are fat cat companies that are going to be taxed, and individuals not willing to change a lifestyle to accommodate it. If they want to continue in a certain lifestyle, fine, however, know your behavior will be taxed more.

Posted by: T at January 23, 2010 11:58 AM

How did the human race ever last so long on this planet without thermometers? I suggest would do well to ban them right now before these loons use them to destroy what's left of the world's economies.

Posted by: Abe Froman at January 23, 2010 12:07 PM

Hey T
I noticed you make no mention of Global Warming. You thought everybody was a fool for denying Global Warming and now you have found out and conceded that Global Warming was a hoax and the fools were smarter than you and you now are the one with impairment of cognitive abilities. Now you and others are going to tell us if we spend billions we can control climate change - and we thought man was responsible for so called Global Warming was a stretch and a hoax. If these fraudsters are taking orders and can do climate change I want tropical climate for the Prairies.

Posted by: Peter B at January 23, 2010 12:08 PM

Dear mouthy leftists:

At this point, would you say there is more proof for the existence of a) WNDs in Iraq (at one point or another), or b) global warming

Take your time.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at January 23, 2010 12:17 PM

T want's more taxes, Wow. More taxes all based on lies. Why don't we devalue our currency by half and get this thing moving along faster.

Posted by: doug at January 23, 2010 12:18 PM's pointless. T is incapable of logical thought. His mother will be home soon and he will go back down the basement.

Posted by: Altaguy at January 23, 2010 12:20 PM

T...thanks for pointing out that the whole climate change matter has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with taxes.

That is, of course, something that anyone who has the ability to think critically has known for a very long time.

Back in your box, Tovarich.

Posted by: John Luft at January 23, 2010 12:25 PM

What a maroon!!

I thought Gavin was just an ideologue. Now it seems he is beyond stupid as well. The gifts just keep coming.

Speaking of gifts Richard at the EUReferendum..

is running a series about the ex railroad engineer that just keeps getting better.

A small example:

The Indian Mail Today again takes up the Pachauri story, under the heading: "Inconvenient truth about Pachauri".

Ajmer Singh, who wrote the earlier piece on "conflict of interest", this time covers some more of Pachauri's commercial interests – his involvement in the Houston oil technology firm GloriOil and the proposed India Climate Exchange (ICX).

It seems that Mr. Pauchari's interests are not entirely altruistic.

Posted by: James at January 23, 2010 12:26 PM

From the "in Seattle" link to the Windsor Star: "The Arctic is expected to warm more quickly than other parts of the globe as a result of human induced greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, if stations are missing in the Arctic, the Arctic contribution to warming will be underestimated" - Environment Canada spokesperson Sujata Raisinghani

So... they took down all the temperature monitoring stations in the high Artic that were giving them results colder than they wanted. Now they are saying that the fact that there is only one monitoring station in the high Artic means that that all the high temperatures which would prove Global Warming is really happening are going unrecorded.

I see.

Posted by: Black Mamba at January 23, 2010 12:30 PM

Hey T,

youre a dick, public transportation is great for you in the city. What public transport do we have away from urban centers.

great, what works in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, et al will work for everybody. you are such a useful idiot.

and its called weather for fecks sakes

Posted by: tom@drum at January 23, 2010 12:31 PM

T's concept of critical thinking is criticizing those astute enough to realize and declare that the "hockey team" GISS, RealClimate, the IPCC, the UN, the Demo-Rats and Gore are charletons.

T is still dening the emperor is nude.

Posted by: sasquatch at January 23, 2010 12:35 PM

T it might be a good idea for you to look at moving to Sweden. Saskatchewan is getting away from the nanny style policies you have been so accustomed to. Life will be so much better for you there and you won't have to be so bitter. Of course you will need to talk your mother in to going too so you have a place to live. And they can always use another leftard moron on the Nobel Prize Committee.
P.S. I know you love the attention and I hate to give you any but it is fun! Keep the comments coming... You remind me of your hero Owebowma...just when you thought he couldn't get any more stupid...voila!

Posted by: Altaguy at January 23, 2010 12:57 PM

I think you guys/gals are missing the prick of the point here.

Leftherds use data and premises after the conclusions. Always did, do, and will.

Posted by: noel at January 23, 2010 12:59 PM

Climate scientists and journalists have lower ethical standards than lawyers and brokers. We can't trust the data, we can't trust the analysis, and we can't trust those who deliver the data and analysis.
Guess we'll have to do what all lefties abhor: we'll have to do the work ourselves.

Posted by: Dave in Mississauga at January 23, 2010 1:03 PM

Weather data simplified:

One station in the Arctic, one on Antarctica, four on the equator.

There, settled science.

Posted by: Sylvanguy at January 23, 2010 1:07 PM

The AGWers need to get their story straight:

Environment Canada says climate scientists who track global temperature trends may be underestimating the amount of warming in the Canadian Arctic, because they are working with data from a declining sample of weather stations across the region....Only one station -- Eureka, on Ellesmere Island -- is included in the 2009 database to measure the temperature for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle, even though the federal government still operates more than 100 stations in the high Arctic.

So more station data is readily available but the GISS/NOAA do not use it. Why would any scientific agency choose to have less data and therefor a greater chance of inaccuracy? Other agencies disagree and argue for more data inclusion. It must be more of that famous Climate Change Consensus.

I have also noticed that the carbon story is evolving (progressing ?). Fewer "all deniers are flat-earthers/corporate shills" and "we're all gonna die without carbon taxes". More "the facts don't really matter, carbon taxes are the right thing to do." I especially like the carbon tax pushers who think that carbon taxes will replace other forms of taxation. What planet do these guys live on? The carbon tax will be in addition to existing taxes and its effect will ripple through the economy. Funny how those who preach that one link disturbed on the food chain causes irreparable damage , can not grasp that the same thing happens when energy prices are unnecessarily meddled with.

Posted by: LC Bennett at January 23, 2010 1:08 PM

He forgot the 'in less you want to have useful data.' at the end of the quote.

Posted by: Speedy at January 23, 2010 1:24 PM

I think he's talking about temperature changes in Eureka being representative of changes at other stations. Be careful about creating a straw man when attacking these eco-criminals.

Of course Eureka and Yellowknife have different temperatures. He's saying that changes in temperature at one place are similar to changes at the other. That could be true. We have to see exactly how he is using temperature variations in his analysis, not temperature differences.

Don't confuse his conniving for idiocy. These people aren't stupid, they're liars and ideologues whose political beliefs steer their scientific inquiry.

The science of statistics is predicated on the fact that a relatively small number of observations can produce damned good estimates for unobserved population parameters provided the sampling technique is essentially random. Otherwise, you introduce bias into the estimate.

There are physical limitations and costs to the placement and maintenance of weather stations. Clearly we don't want (or need) thousands of them. But I seriously doubt that the few, scattered, and sometimes poorly placed stations provide the quality of data we need to make a policy decision which will, one way or another, cost trillions of dollars.

The map showing the distance between Yellowknife and Eureka is brilliant. I got a real chuckle out of that. The comment about the distance between the earth and the moon was funny. But remember that we are also observing global warming on other planets too, casting doubt that terrestrial global warming comes from anthropogenic sources.

The valid criticism is that Eureka temperature variations are being used to "validate" or even "adjust" temperature readings from distant places. In other words, data is being selected by virtue of their correlation to data at stations which support their hypothesis.

The map is also a Mercator projection which exaggerates the distance between the two places. Nevertheless, we Americans often don't think about how vast Canada is or how far it stretches into the Arctic. The map was helpful.

Keep fighting the good fight. When we expose these liars for what they are, they need to be jailed not only for the hundreds of thousands of public dollars they have misused but also for the trillions of dollars of damage they attempted to cause to the economies of the world's developed nations, particularly in the West. This level of crime deserves a life sentence.

Posted by: POWinCA at January 23, 2010 1:26 PM

I'm surprised the Warmer welfare bums want any stations. Hell, the damn things produce data and that gets in the way of their narrative. Oh well, if they have to fake it by having some stations it may as well be as poor a data set as they can possibly imagine so they have a built-in excuse for error. Socialized science = Lysenkoism.

Posted by: John Chittick at January 23, 2010 1:29 PM

Real scientists like data; the ClimateGate
thingies seem to regard data as a nuisance - gets
in the way of their narrative.

Posted by: John Lewis at January 23, 2010 1:31 PM

Gavin doesn't know crap about micro climates.

On any given summer day in the Vancouver region, if the temperature downtown is 22, it will 26 in Surrey just 20km away, 30 in Abbotsford 50km away and 40 in Hope about 200km east.

Not "much" difference.

Posted by: Fred at January 23, 2010 1:32 PM

POWinCA, you have it right when you say "These people aren't stupid, they're liars and ideologues whose political beliefs steer their scientific inquiry". Just follow the money and power grab trail.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at January 23, 2010 1:33 PM

Eureka to Yellowknife is 2148km or 1335 miles.

New York to Havana Cuba is 1312 miles. Vancouver BC to San Diego is 1182 miles.

LC Bennett: Only one station -- Eureka, on Ellesmere Island -- is included in the 2009 database to measure the temperature for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle, even though the federal government still operates more than 100 stations in the high Arctic.

There must be an inconvenient truth in over 99 stations.

Posted by: nextstopmars at January 23, 2010 1:44 PM

T found a Thesaurus!!! Good boy.

Posted by: Speedy at January 23, 2010 1:46 PM

and this is happening under the very watchful eye of steve-o harpoon?

so why do you avidly support him? hmmm ???

Posted by: curious_george at January 23, 2010 1:46 PM

curious_george cuz he's better than the rest??

Posted by: Speedy at January 23, 2010 1:54 PM

Posted by: Speedy at January 23, 2010 1:57 PM

I agree with curious george. Why Harper is instituting a Cap N Trade Carbon Tax Green Shaft as we speak.

What's that? He's not?

Well then I think curious george is an idiot!

Posted by: Joe at January 23, 2010 1:57 PM

I don't know about anyone else but if I were trying to establish changes in the 'earth's temperature' I would seek the most stable measuring locations for that have been there the longest time.

Posted by: Joe at January 23, 2010 2:01 PM

If we stick to the point of the issue, it is about anomalies and trends in temperatures not absolute temperatures. Most of the comments above seem to have missed that.

But look at the circular reasoning by the ecochondriacs, including T. To paraphrase, "Since global warming is global, a trend in one place will show up in another place. We don't need to measure both locations because global warming is global." Uh, what if the warming is just local?

Statisticians will tell us to have more confidence in conclusions based on a lot of sample points than in conclusions based on a smaller number. One local measurement station could have any number of unique factors influencing what is recorded.

All the climate modeling and Pembina Institute studies and cap-and-trade schemes and carbon taxes mean squat if the basic temperature data can not be relied on. The relentless closing of rural, high altitude and high latitude stations has been well-documented beginning with "Taken By Storm". The remaining measurements have UHI bias and siting problems that are thoroughly discussed on websites like SDA and Watt's Up With That.

If the data can't be trusted, the conclusions can't be trusted, and the policy recommendations definitely can't be trusted.

Tell me again why politicians and big media have not realized this? I think that the first Canadian public figure to declare "we were conned" will gain a surge of new popularity that will drown out the shriekers and hand-wringers.

Posted by: Halfwise at January 23, 2010 2:06 PM

Does anyone else notice the irony in mentioning Eureka [which means either 1) I found it or 2) I discovered it] in the wake of the discovery of the fraud now known as ClimateGate?

Posted by: Brent Weston at January 23, 2010 2:14 PM

Good to know life doesn't exist beyond the 49th parallel.

Brent, how true, Eureka.

Posted by: john brooks at January 23, 2010 2:20 PM

There is not one thing stopping T and all the alarmist kooks out there from taxing themselves, stop driving, get rid of air conditioning in their homes and on and on and on. Go ahead, knock yourselves out, save the planet. Do you believe in the massive problem or not? What's stopping you? Nothing. It's just that they want other peoples money to do it. Thankfully, most people can see right through you.

Posted by: Sounder at January 23, 2010 2:28 PM

I just came into this "discussion" and found that most of the posts here are in reply to T-the-troll.

Can we just agree to ignore the bozo?

Posted by: mj at January 23, 2010 2:47 PM

Maybe I'm reaching here but in the Niagara region, there are micro-climates. Saint Catharines might be drenched with rain but Niagara Falls will have nothing. I'd submit that various weather stations are needed to determine what things are like.

Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at January 23, 2010 2:50 PM

From your Windsor Star article [the one labelled "Seattle"]
//Fewer temperature reports could mean warming underestimated: scientist
Note the Canadians suggest the the arctic changes might be UNDERestimated.

In the Gavin Schmidt quote each term is important "representative""long term changes" "anomalies" [not temperatures]

Another quote from Schmidt --
I’m from Canada, and there’s no way 39 thermometers can give an accurate reading of the average temperature in Canada.

[Response: Schmidt -- Actually you are over-estimating enormously. First, the fact is that temperature anomalies have very high spatial correlation at the monthly and annual scale - that is to say that if Montreal is having a cold winter, than so is Toronto and Quebec City. For the monthly scale, the number of spatial degrees of freedom is around 60-100 in each hemisphere. Thus if they were well placed you could get away with ~200 stations for the globe in order to get a good estimate of the mean anomaly (within 0.05 deg C say). But there are many more than that so that they can provide good checks on each other. You can check this by simply dropping half the stations and seeing whether you get basically the same number. - gavin]

There’s quite a difference in climate between Montreal Toronto and Quebec City. I live 25km north of the city of Montreal. The difference in average winter temps just between the south shore and north shore is about 2 C. They are about only 50km apart.
Besides, NASA never really explained why they dropped 5000 thermometers from the mean temperature calculation. More resolution is always better than interpolation.

[Response: Schmidt -- You aren't paying attention. It is the anomalies that are similar - not the absolute climate. That is, if Montreal is 1 deg C above normal, then it is likely that Toronto and Quebec City will be around 1 deg C above normal too.[over a year] And NASA didn't 'drop' any stations. Please read Peterson and Vose (1997) to get a clue about how the GHCN data was put together. - gavin]

Posted by: dizzy at January 23, 2010 3:31 PM

>>Can we just agree to ignore the bozo?
I agree. In a previous post I compared him to the Jehovah's Witness at the door. It's a waste of time to argue with him.
On the topic of distances, it's interesting how illogical some people can be. I was in Pattaya when the tsunami struck along the Gulf of Andaman coast. In spite of the fact that I was on the other side of Thailand, on the Gulf of Thailand, (we didn't even hear about the tsunami until several hours after it happened), I had friends frantically e-mailing me to fly to safety in Australia (Perth, to be specific). This was akin to suggesting that if an earthquake hit Vancouver while I was at home in Edmonton, that I should fly to Toronto to be safe. Some people simply have no concept of distances or even general geography.

Posted by: albertaclipper at January 23, 2010 3:57 PM

Dizzy, that line of reasoning is totally insane. I'd have loved to work in a lab where you could get away with that sloppy work. Imagine...

LC : All done my analysis, boss.

Boss: You're done? All those samples?

LC : Yep, I tested one area and used it to predict the other values.

Boss: Excuse me, you did what? You are predicting the entire 2 mile coal seam based on samples in only 1 area?

LC: Sure. I'm sure there is very high spatial correlation at the monthly and annual scale - that is to say that if Coal Seam A is having a higher than average BTU value, than so is Coal Seam B and C.

Boss: We rely on these numbers for estimating BTU's, sulfur emissions and ash sales. I'm not really comfortable with your methods. Maybe you could do a few more samples. The mine brought over a hundred.

LC: The science is settled. I have a very expensive and highly advanced computer program that verifies my results.

Boss: Can I look at your data and methods?

LC :

Posted by: LC Bennett at January 23, 2010 4:11 PM

//Boss: Can I look at your data and methods?//

Data --

Methods --
The following journal articles describe the methods used in developing the GHCN-Monthly Temperature dataset:
Peterson, T.C., and R.S. Vose, 1997: An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network temperature database. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78 (12), 2837-2849. (PDF Version) got
Peterson, T.C., R. Vose, R. Schmoyer, and V. Razuvaev, 1998: Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) quality control of monthly temperature data. International Journal of Climatology, 18 (11), 1169-1179. (PDF Version)

OK, boss?

Posted by: dizzy at January 23, 2010 4:25 PM

the American Spectator by Chris Horner: Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal – for nearly three years – to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “ClimateGate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.

All of that material and that sought for years by CEI go to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, “cap-and-trade” legislation and the EPA’s threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.

CEI sought the following documents, among others, NASA’s failure to provide which within thirty days will prompt CEI to file suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

- internal discussions about NASA’s quiet correction of its false historical U.S. temperature records after two Canadian researchers discovered a key statistical error, specifically discussion about whether and why to correct certain records, how to do so, the impact or wisdom or potential (or real) fallout therefrom or reaction to doing so (requested August 2007);

- internal discussions relating to the emails sent to James Hansen and/or Reto A. Ruedy from Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre calling their attention to the errors in NASA/GISS online temperature data (August 2007);

- those relating to the content, importance or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or “blog” RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked “Hockey Stick” that is so central to the CRU files. is implicated in the leaked files, expressly offered as a tool to be used “in any way you think would be helpful” to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt’s active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by “skeptics” attempting to comment on claims made on the website.

This and the related political activism engaged in are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time. These documents were requested in January 2007 and NASA/GISS have refused to date to comply with their legal obligation to produce responsive documents.

Posted by: LC Bennett at January 23, 2010 4:30 PM

Dizzy, the agwers credibility is pretty much mud.

BTW, the Russians are also questioning the validity of the results and suspect there was cherry-picking of stations. Anyone with any kind of science or statistical background should be suspicious. A business operation could never get away with this kind of 'science' to verify their results to shareholders or government agencies.

Posted by: LC Bennett at January 23, 2010 4:38 PM

The whole 'scientific/msm' talking heads shrilled the AGW lie to the minions; the minions, with a few notable exceptions, swallowed the hysteria hook, line and sinker. Exceptions that come to mind were Kate and some of her commentators and posters at sda, the President of Checkoslovakia Republic, Mr. Vaclav Klaus, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Mark Steyn, Glen Beck. Our Prime Minister called it a Socialist plot when he was leader of the opposition but he was PM at hoppen hagan time and had to listen to the screechers in his nation. If PMSH had 'denied' AGW he would have been replaced by the Canadian minions with the Troika of Traitors- a Medusa that would have made Barry O, in USA look like an incompetant nation destroyer!), same goes for President Bush..and look at who the Americans got; and look at the 'other guy' (McCain!) both shrilling for 'hot air' taxes with the other AGW bedwetters.

But for the WHISTLEBLOWER, who sent out the e-mails, we would still be fighting the 'scientific'/msm 'experts' with limited ammo. But for Lord Moncton we would still be piecing together the rest of the story.

Now what could have been the motivation for the msm, politicians and climateology 'scientists' to have gathered together to make up such an outrageous lie and why did so many people 'buy the bull'? Sane people were saying Global Warming and Climate Change with a straight face. Limited education and stupidity cannot explain the 'buy in' but fear can - once we, the people, feared the wrath of the elitist Bolshevik bastards - now we laugh at them. A massive tectonic shift has shaken up the slavers(Bolsheviks) in the political world way more than the earthquake in Haiti shook up the physical world. The fallout in Massachusetts was the first aftershock; more will follow. We, the People, are now a force to be reckoned with; the Bolsheviks have been foiled and just in the nick of time.

Thank-you Kate, Glen Beck, PMSH, President George W Bush, Mr. Moncton, the whistle-blower and people who never stopped questioning the AGW lie by providing facts that exposed the hoax.

Always follow the money; it was never about temperature, it was always about economic control over free people; people are free when they have the wealth to make them insolvent and therefore are not subject to monetary bribes and/or threats. A person cannot bite the hand that feeds them if they wish to eat. I hope Quebec and the Yukon Territory (both dependant AGW shrills, demanding pampers from productive provinces) are taking notes.

Posted by: Jema 54 at January 23, 2010 4:52 PM

Let us see now,

Current gas bill indicates that the house used $50.40 of gas.

There are three taxes added to it beside other charges, the taxes look like this:

Carbon Tax $6.33,
one can wander if this goes to the fund to stop the sun from shining. More likely it keeps a whole lot of otherwise useless people well compensated, with no impact (not that anybody can do anything about it) on the climate whatsoever.

Clean Energy Levy $0.35,
one wanders if it was worth to collect it since it probably cost more than not collecting it at all,though, maybe, it keeps some useless paper pusher well compensated.

GST $4.61,
well, everyone knows that this is to spread the wealth around.

Hey T, you are welcome to spend all of your spare cash on any cause you wish, nobody here would care, though, it may make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Posted by: Lev at January 23, 2010 4:57 PM

Once more.

Why do we need thermometers when we have so many trees?

First take the temperature from the rings and then cut them up into 2X4's.

Posted by: foobert at January 23, 2010 5:13 PM

When doing trace analysis for whatever, one does not take the sample from one corner of the product. One takes samples from all of the exterior and interior. The sample should be representative of the whole. Grain grading works like that, residue analysis works like that. Someone forgot to teach the scientist that. Yes the computer will 'smooth' data but I see that as a shortcut to make things look better. The BS. in science increased dramatically with the introduction of the computer. It isn't the 'puter's fault, it is just too easy to cook analysis of data. East Anglia got too far in to be able to spin anything or reproduce original data.

Posted by: Speedy at January 23, 2010 5:21 PM

LC Bennett at 4:38 PM

it's from the statistical perspective that I'v been "watching" this AGW fiasco for some time now, and have concluded that there are many mathematically challenged people in this world

Posted by: GYM at January 23, 2010 5:54 PM

"HIGHNOON for Pachauri(sic)"

"The Times of India has just run their first political cartoon on the subject."

"Political satire from the Times of India - click for source"

"There’s also been quite a bit of first class investigative work done by Christopher Booker of the Telegraph and Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum about Dr. Pachauri’s connections to TERI (The Energy Research Institute) and his IPCC position. As I pointed out about his email usage, it seems he has a difficult time delineating the two to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

Now it appears that conflict of interest charges are about to go to a higher level.

The “IPCC 2035 glacier error” has been used to solicit funds for new projects, and guess where the money goes?

This PDF File is from the EU’s HighNoon website, and shows how the EU set up a project to research the ‘rapid retreat’ of glaciers in the Himalayas based on the bogus IPCC report. Some of the EU taxpayers’ money put into this project has gone to TERI, which is run by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.

See slide number 5 for the IPCC citation.

It appears that the is using this single “…disappearing by the year 2035″ statement as justification for an entire research [roject, funded by the EU, which is funded by taxpayers.

As we see in slide 7, they got a nice tidy 10 million Euros ($14.13 millon USD) to study a false statement based on nothing more than a passing opinion.

I have word through a backchannel that Jonathan Leake of the London Times is about to make know financial linkages to this and several more TERI/IPCC projects funded by taxpayer dollars.

Here’s his Times report from last week.

I’ll make his newest report available here as soon as it appears."

More to follow.

Posted by: maz2 at January 23, 2010 5:55 PM

GYM, I agree. I fear that math illiteracy will only get worse. Our schools seem to be determined to dumb down math and science in the same way they wrecked history and language arts. Then there is the lowest common denominator (sorry) teaching method that ensures that the slowest students determine the pace of learning for the rest of the class.

Posted by: LC Bennett at January 23, 2010 6:11 PM

The reduction of stations are problematic in that they result in no data or insuffcient data for comparison research...It's a sneaky way to avoid comparative trends to global climate change

A) 100 Stations with little manmade CO2 (GHG)

B) 100 Station with MAX manmade C02 (GHG)

Do they both track the same climate change trend?


Posted by: Phillip G. Shaw at January 23, 2010 6:42 PM

Osumashi @ 2:50 Until 1974 when we lived in the Queenston, Niagara area, the temperatures were consistently 5 degrees cooler above the escarpment.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at January 23, 2010 7:08 PM

As people from Britain like to ask "Oh, you're from Canada. How's the weather there?"

Posted by: rabbit at January 23, 2010 7:20 PM

I fear that math illiteracy will only get worse. Our schools seem to be determined to dumb down math and science in the same way they wrecked history and language arts. Then there is the lowest common denominator (sorry) teaching method that ensures that the slowest students determine the pace of learning for the rest of the class.

They (whomever they actually are .. usually government committees stacked with control freak lefties) are only trying to create a level playing field for Blacks and Hispanics. See Kate's previous post "Is there nothing Obama can't do?"

Posted by: Abe Froman at January 23, 2010 7:41 PM

You heard it here first!

Results for the 2010 UK elections:

Conservative 280
UKIP 200
Labour 150
Lib-Dems 5

Posted by: Robert of Ottawa at January 23, 2010 7:41 PM

Scam Scam Scam
European Parliament, Strasbourg - 20.01.2010 ► Debate: Council and Commission statements - Outcome of the Copenhagen summit on climate change Speaker: Godfrey Bloom M...

Posted by: G at January 23, 2010 7:52 PM


And your prediction of the temperature on that day?

Posted by: set you free at January 23, 2010 7:53 PM

O'AGW: "Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."

"UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions."

"The latest criticism of the IPCC comes a week after reports in The Sunday Times forced it to retract claims in its benchmark 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035. It turned out that the bogus claim had been lifted from a news report published in 1999 by New Scientist magazine.

The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC's 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: "One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend.""

Posted by: maz2 at January 23, 2010 8:28 PM

"HIGHNOON for Pachauri
23 01 2010

UPDATE: links to new information posted at the bottom of this article, including a new story from the Times

UPDATE2: Jonathan Leake’s story at the Time is Online, linking Pauchari’s TERI organization to government funding grants that were solicited using the bogus “Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035″ claim.

Christopher Booker of the Telegraph has a story that shows Pachauri’s own employee at TERI was the source of the bogus glacier claim. Now the corruption comes full circle.

UPDATE3: Pachauri now bizarrely claims in a press interview that the IPCC’s credibility has been strengthened.

IMHO, Dr. Pachauri is toast. He has nowhere to go except out."

Posted by: maz2 at January 23, 2010 8:34 PM

Most EU countries tax fuel at a much high rate than here, and hence attempt to change behavior by encouraging car pooling, using public transport or other means of transportation.

Right - the EU has a population density of over 270 people per square mile, the US's is 76 p/sq.mi., and Canada's 32 p/sq mi. Gee, do you think when you average 9 times as many people per square mile that transit, car pooling, etc. just might be a bit more successful than in countries with much more widely dispersed populations? Or, in T's case... do you think?

Posted by: KevinB at January 23, 2010 9:05 PM


The Times also says those non-melting Himalayan glaciers were cited by Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, to get large grants:

Quite a little industry he's built up there.

Posted by: rabbit at January 23, 2010 9:11 PM


Speaking of math literacy, Canada's population density is less than 10 people per square mile, not 32.

Posted by: rabbit at January 23, 2010 9:19 PM

You're right to be concerned about this, Eureka is probably not correlated with any other parts of northern Canada when it comes to their temperature anomalies, and they should be using a minimum of ten stations north of 60 just to get a fairly representative sample. Besides Eureka, they should probably be using Resolute, Cambridge Bay, Inuvik, Yellowknife, Whitehorse, Baker Lake, Iqualuit and one or two other stations to capture the regional variations that exist in the arctic climate. And if they had to go with one station north of 60, Eureka is not as likely to be representative of some overall anomaly as any station closer to the centre of the region. Using just one station invites some sort of subterfuge with dodgy "exposure corrections" and other subjective tampering that can provide the desired results.

Cambridge Bay on southern Victoria Island has perhaps the longest reliable period of record in the region, it's more or less continuous from about 1938 onwards, and has some years from before that. You can see quite clearly in the data for that station, a rise in temperatures from about 1970 to 2000, and a fall since 2000 that brings the running mean about halfway back down to the colder base line from the 1940s to 1960s. It's hardly a catastrophe, more like an interesting quirk of nature. For such things, I don't see why we should be risking the integrity of the global economy. There never was any "runaway global warming" but what little there was, has recently reversed. I think everyone but the board of directors of certain influential corporations can see that by now.

Posted by: Peter O'Donnell at January 23, 2010 9:34 PM

To claim that Eureka's temperature and weather data are representative of the rest of the arctic is risibly absurd. We frequently scrambled medevac flights from Iqaluit to evacuate patients from various nursing stations around the eastern arctic only to find them unable to land at the nursing stations in question due to storms, cloud etc. while the flying conditions at Iqaluit were pristine. Iqaluit was known to the locals as being in "the banana belt" of the arctic because the temperatures were often well above those of other communities in the region. The area in question is enormous and has huge variations in the weather patterns within it. Schmidt's comments simply reflect the abysmal ignorance of most southerners wrt the north.

Posted by: DrD at January 23, 2010 10:09 PM

What is it going to take before the mains stream media and our politicians wake up. We are very close to having legislation passed regarding Cap and Trade based on this BS.

Wet Roads cause Rain....Rain leaves worms on the road.

Posted by: Triple Bay at January 23, 2010 10:59 PM

Ken (Kulak), when I visit relatives, I find one place is clear and once a I get to a certain point on the highway, snow.

Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at January 23, 2010 11:15 PM

During my research days not once can I recall a situation where there was such a thing as too much data; generally we had a problem of not enough data. In the 1980s there were problems with storing huge amounts of digital data but these problems have disappeared with the ready availability of cheap Terabyte disk drives and machines fast enough to crunch the data at speeds I could only dream of in the 1980's.

There are thousands of weather stations around in the south of Canada and quite a few in the north and to say that one station is representative of an area roughly the size of the US is absolutely asinine. The only way to sort out the significance of microclimates is to dramatically increase the number of weather stations. If one is measuring temperature, then scatter thousands of thermometers attached to a microprocessor and GHz radio transmitter (Zigbee techology does this and is very cheap and uses very little power), let the thermometers organize themselves into a mesh network and read out data from the network. If the average temperature of such a large network of thermometers is significantly correlated with a single weather station then one can use that station as a proxy for the area that one sampled with the thermometer array; if not then one has a problem of not enough thermometers.

I suspect that the reason this hasn't been done, or why the AGW proponents have discarded most of the weather data, is because even the existing readings they are getting don't fit their preconcieved ideas about what should be happening to global temperature. A true scientist may have an idea about what he thinks should be happening in a particular experimental situation but is ready to change his hypothesis should experimental data not conform to the predictions of their hypothesis. The other essential component of true science is reproducibility of results and it is quite telling that when a number of individuals who are curious about this area run analyses of their own, they can't reproduce the IPCC temperature graphs without adding a large warming fudge factor.

Also, there are significant bugs in the GISS source code one of which produces 0.5 degrees of warming namely the program line:
if( itemp(m)=nint( 50.*(temp-32.)/9 )

This is part of the F to C conversion code and EM Smith shows how the results of this seemingly trivial bit of code produce different results depending on what FORTRAN compiler one happens to use to compile GISSTEMP. Link at:

To me the (50.*(temp-32.)/9.) represents extremely poor programming practice and can only have been written by a programmer who was brought up on superfast modern machines where one doesn't think of the performance penalties of running an inefficient operation millions of times. The proper way to code this is:
const1 = 50./9. (outside of loop)
itemp(n) = nint(const1*(temp-32.))
Multiplication is much faster than division and one replaces division with multiplication whenever possible. In optimized code one computes 50./9. only once and then uses that result in the loop which is executed once for every temperature reading (millions of them). Read EM Smith's blog entry to find out how that line of code alone produces 0.5 C warming depending on how a particular FORTRAN compiler handles rounding of numbers.

This is real peer-review of the code and we're supposed to accept crappy programming without question? A student who made this type of an error in my first year Numerical Methods in programming course would have flunked. This is one course I've very glad I took as it made me extremely aware of the pitfalls of adding millions of numbers together without thinking of the artifacts that occur as a result of this process (this is a similar situation of the negative temperatures notes in the "Harry readme file" where a variable overflowed and became negative and this error wasn't caught until much later).

What the IPCC and their co-conspirators didn't think of is that now anyone with an average computer can download all of the GISSTEMP data and run their own analysis. It's rather trivial actually and the speed of my latest 2.9 GHz dual core 64 bit machine is faster than the fastest supercomputer of 20 years ago. If suddenly raw temperature data starts to disappear then we'll know that they've figured it out so it's crucial to archive all of it privately before this happens.

Posted by: loki at January 23, 2010 11:29 PM

Just as I hit post it suddenly occurred to me that we've been ignoring one very important factor in this whole temperature measurement problem namely that the problem of trying to determine an average temperature of an area is isomorphic to the problem of measuring the length of a coastline. Given the prevalence of very numerous microclimates in any given area the function which describes temperature(x,y,t) is fractal, not a well behaved numeric function as is assumed in all of the assumptions from the AGW group.

In the coastline measuring problem the result one gets is a function of the size of ones ruler and so coastline length using a ruler 1 cm long is much greater than if one uses a 1 km long ruler. I don't know what the result of performing this sort of analysis would be on the temperature measuring problem would be and temperature is more constrained than coastline length, but it suggests that significant differences probably on the scale of several degrees C would result depending on the distance between thermometers. My gut feeling is that this function would asymptotically approach a limit.

I'm just very surprised that I haven't heard this mentioned before, but then again, I just thought of it now. Perhaps one of the SDA readers who has some formal training in mathematics rather my random explorations of mathematics can determine more rigorously whether the two situations are in fact isomorphic.

Posted by: loki at January 23, 2010 11:42 PM

Temperature anomalies don't vary that much from one (nearby) station to another," he said. "You don't need thousands of stations across Canada to know what the monthly anomalies are."

I guess one light bulb lights whole city as well?

Posted by: Revnant Dream at January 24, 2010 2:44 AM


Let's assume for a moment you are correct - "the anomaly" in Eureka should be the same as "the anomaly" in sub-Arctic Yellowknife and "the anomaly" in high Arctic Alert.

How does one measure "the anomaly"? Just repeating "the anomaly's what matters" can't save your analysis if the baseline for measuring "the anomaly" doesn't change as stations are added or drop out. So the question, to me, is simple: Does the baseline change as stations are added or dropped out?

Suppose that, for years, the baseline for the GIStemp box including Yellowknife was based on the temperature for Yellowknife. Yellowknife is suddenly removed from the data set. Now, instead of using the actual temperature at Yellowknife, GIStemp estimates the temperature in Yellowknife based on that of the closest towns still in the data set - say a combination of, (mainly) High Level, Alberta to the south, Whitehorse to the west and Eureka to the north. Eureka's furthest away and gets the lowest weight.

If "the anomaly" is computed using a baseline of the same averaging of those three cities for the reference period, perhaps "the anomaly" can save you - assuming your theory is correct. But if the baseline isn't adjusted to reflect that Yellowknife has been removed, you have a major problem - "the anomaly" compares apples (average temps in three far-flung locations) to oranges (actual historic temperature at Yellowknife during the baseline period).

So which is it? Is the baseline adjusted when stations are added and removed?

Posted by: cinyc at January 24, 2010 3:16 AM

My position is actually very simple.

The questions are:
Is the world warming?
Is it mainly caused by CO2 consentrations?

The answer is ready.
No verifiable science has shown either.
The Hockey-team of experts doesn't think so....(appeal to authority)....because of all the junk science/lies they have produced.

End of subject---the science is settled.

Posted by: sasquatch at January 24, 2010 3:48 PM

My position is actually very simple.

The questions are:
Is the world warming?
Is it mainly caused by CO2 consentrations?

The answer is ready.
No verifiable science has shown either.
The Hockey-team of experts doesn't think so....(appeal to authority)....because of all the junk science/lies they have produced.

End of subject---the science is settled.

Posted by: sasquatch at January 24, 2010 3:49 PM

Aww c'mon ... that's close enough!

Posted by: OMMAG at January 24, 2010 6:24 PM

time to jack up the gas prices folks, and solve the problem that we created with our drive everywhere consume everything in sight lifestyle. You all know we just can't keep consuming the earths resources at this rate. Think, just for a one unselfish second, of the people that have to live here in the future generations, do we still want to keep using the air, water and land as a garbage dump? Do we? And Troll answers don't count.

Posted by: BobbyTBare at January 25, 2010 6:27 PM

Posted by: Halfwise
"Since global warming is global, a trend in one place will show up in another place. We don't need to measure both locations because global warming is global."
//Uh, what if the warming is just local?//

In global terms the variation has a limit. There is only so much heat moving around. It's obvious that the global temperature won't vary as much as [see above] that between the Edmonton airport & the city, [or night & day at either]. That's why when Europe was frozen solid last month, temperatures in the arctic were 5-9 Celcius degrees above normal. And in smaller units, anomalies [average temp changes over extended periods] do reflect a larger area than where the thermometer is. On that UK satellite map it was clear as ice that december was cold in London & Reading & Aberdeen etc.
//Statisticians will tell us to have more confidence in conclusions based on a lot of sample points than in conclusions based on a smaller number. //

Statisticians will tell you that it is pointless to use huge samples when smaller ones give statistically valid information. And much of statistics is involved with judging this.
One could learn some statisics reading how the climate scientists calibrate their measurements.
//One local measurement station could have any number of unique factors influencing what is recorded.//
That's why they spend so much time checking -- "could have" is not good enough.These include statistical tests relating one station to others. Tests that will show, in the data, when a thermometer was changed, for example.

Posted by: dizzy at January 26, 2010 8:36 PM

Posted by: LC Bennett
// Dizzy, the agwers credibility is pretty much mud. BTW, the Russians are also questioning the validity of the results and suspect there was cherry-picking of stations. //
Hadley response ""The World Meteorological Organisation
chooses a set of stations evenly distributed across the globe and provides a fair representation of changes in mean temperature on a global scale over land. We don't pick them "

// A business operation could never get away with this kind of 'science' to verify their results to shareholders or government agencies. //
You must have missed the recent bubbles.

Posted by: dizzy at January 26, 2010 8:39 PM

// dizzy- Let's assume for a moment you are correct - "the anomaly" in Eureka should be the same as "the anomaly" in sub-Arctic Yellowknife and "the anomaly" in high Arctic Alert.//

Don't put words in my mouth. Make your own anomalies map --
Default -- For Dec 2009 Yellowknife neg 2C+ Alert & Eureka pos 4C+ Evidently different.

The valid scope of station data was first developed 20-odd years ago
"Before defining a procedure for extracting large-area temperature change from measurements, it is important to have a quantitative measure of the size of the surrounding area for which a given station's data may provide significant information on temperature change. For this purpose we computed the correlation coefficient between the annual mean temperature variations for pairs of stations selected at random from among the station pairs with at least 50 common years in their records. The distribution of correlation coefficients as a function of station separation is shown in Figure 3 for the same latitude zones as in Figure 2.
At middle and high latitudes the correlations approach unity as the station separation becomes small; the correlations fall below 0.5 at a station separation o f about 1200km,[...]"
Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature -- 1987 by the American Geophysical Union.

Remember, these are global studies. The arctic above 65Lat is only about 5% of the globe. The British leave the arctic blank, with little difference in the result. [slightly cooler, since the arctic is warming more]

And if you play with the map on GISS's station data page [say clicking along the top; ie pole] there are always several stations within 1200km.
"In our analysis, we can only use stations with reasonably long, consistently measured time records. For a list of stations actually used click here, for the full list (copied from GHCN's website and augmented from SCAR) click here."

If you think your question is well-formed, ask it where they are disucssing the 2009 anomaly map.

Daily Penguin

Posted by: dizzy at January 26, 2010 8:43 PM