Charlie Martin is looking through some of James Hansen’s emails and found this:
[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. …
So he is trumpeting this approach as an innovation? Does he really think he has a better answer because he has extrapolated station measurement by 1200km (746 miles)? This is roughly equivalent, in distance, to extrapolating the temperature in Fargo to Oklahoma City. This just represents for me the kind of false precision, the over-estimation of knowledge about a process, that so characterizes climate research. If we don’t have a thermometer near Oklahoma City then we don’t know the temperature in Oklahoma City and lets not fool ourselves that we do.
I had a call from a WaPo reporter today about modeling and modeling errors. We talked about a lot of things, but my main point was that whether in finance or in climate, computer models typically perform what I call knowledge laundering. These models, whether forecasting tools or global temperature models like Hansen’s, take poorly understood descriptors of a complex system in the front end and wash them through a computer model to create apparent certainty and precision. In the financial world, people who fool themselves with their models are called bankrupt (or bailed out, I guess). In the climate world, they are Oscar and Nobel Prize winners.
Update: To the 1200 km issue, this is somewhat related.
Hansen doesn’t extrapolate temperatures, he extrapolates temperature anomalies. This is legitimate because of the large-scale spatial patterns in the anomalies.
I can hardly wait until the FDA begins allowing drug companies to extrapolate this way with in testing drugs. Soon we should see extrapolation of drug anomalies allowing “mo-betta” ™ drug testing results.
Gee, what could go wrong there?
The true believers always find these anti-scientific data manipulations to be just swell. They are not and indicate a serious level of anti-scientific religious belief has infiltrated what once was an area of science.
R. Telford:
Excellent satire. You had me going there for a second.
Neither the extrapolation of temperatures nor anomalies on this scale is legit. This kind of compromise is just one of the many reasons why the computer models the whole CAGW scam is based on, have no credibility at all.
I must agree with anon at 1:40 pm – R. Telford had me going for second, too. But, it is satire (and ONLY be satire).
“Richard Telford:
Hansen doesn’t extrapolate temperatures, he extrapolates temperature anomalies. This is legitimate because of the large-scale spatial patterns in the anomalies.”
Let’s see, we desire to estimate a statistical parameter describing the association between temperature anomalies over time for two regions in space (say grid 1 and grid 2). Should be simple enough, we just start with observed anomalies for the data from both grids, oh wait…
Great Post Warren!
Check out Briggs post today on Climate Model Uncertainty @:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2067#comments
Gavin S was the first to comment and Lucia was not far behind. Clearly the models are the fulcrum in this debate. I don’t question Gavin’s ability and integrity in climate modelling nor do I doubt Lucia’s (who I respect) very lucid though esoteric presentations of the science.
Where it falls apart for me is when the extreme tails of these chaotic models are presented as the most likely scenario. If we follow, as you suggest, the base case there is no catastrophe. There is warming, but there is insufficient evidence to suggest that it is either catastrophic or entirely man-made.
My beef isn’t with legitimate climate scientist’s per se. It’s with the IPCC process; its inappropriate guidance; and the marginal opportunists who have have presented the extremes as the median to further their careers.
Cheers
Wait so if I want to know what the climate is going to be in Sacramento, all I have to do is check the weather report in Cabo San Lucas – then extrapolate?
Great. Honey break out the sunscreen and margarita mix.
In the financial world, people who “extrapolate” asset prices and publish this as (misleading) marketing material to the public get sanctioned and/or go to jail.
This extrapolation is not some clandestine ‘trick’ of theirs, it is well in the open, and discussed outside of the climategate emails.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf
You don’t accept that monthly temperature anomalies are spatially structured? Have a look at http://climate.uah.edu/ and tell me that again. Places located near to each other have similar anomalies.
Or you don’t accept that there are statistical tools for filling in the gaps using this spatial structure? There are a range of geostatistical tools available for this – widely used in the mining industry. If they didn’t work, they wouldn’t use them.
Warren, great terminology.
RT – 1200km of assumed spatial correlation of anomalies?
Sorry, no dice.
Richard Telford,
“Places located near to each other have similar anomalies.”
Unless you’re an astrophysicist 1200km doesn’t qualify as “located near each other”.
Lance:
You say: ‘Unless you’re an astrophysicist 1200km doesn’t qualify as “located near each other”.’
I’ll think you’ll find a good argument that it does in this context. Again, these methods are not secret or scandalous, they are out for all to see.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf
All these skeptical comments here are the obvious prima-facie ones. Do you really think scientists would miss something so obvious?
Shills,
Thanks for the link. It’s 130 pages so it may take me a while to sort through it. But since it’s by Hansen I approach it with more than a small amount of skepticism.
The basic idea, that interpolating temperature anomalies based on station data more than 1,000 km away, is a tough sell.
I live in central Indiana and the jet stream meanders above and below this region of North America. When the jet is to the north of central Indiana it often shares anomalies with regions far to the south of here, say Dallas Texas, while diverging wildly, with an opposite sign, from regions far to the north, say Minneapolis Minnesota.
When it shifts to a position to the south of here the correlations with the temperature anomalies of those other regions flip. This means that trying to say something intelligible about the temperature about either of those regions based on the temperature anomaly here in central Indiana, without knowledge of the other atmospheric dynamics such as jet stream location etc, is useless.
I am not an expert on the atmospheric dynamics of the Arctic but I do know that the Arctic oscillation
can produce very large temperature gradients over fairly short spacial and temporal extents. This would strongly suggest that a distance of 1200 km would be highly problematic.
Oh, and a quick jab on the calculator shows that 1200km is almost 17% of the mean distance from pole to pole.
Trying to categorize this distance as “located near to each other” when they are over 1/6 of the pole to pole distance of the earth apart is abusing the words in the phrase.
What would qualify as far from each other exactly? The distance from the arctic circle to the north pole is only 3300km for Pete’s sake.
Another classic of fuckwittedness, borne of intellectual inadequacy combined with pathetic laziness. You haven’t bothered to read a single one of the papers published by Hansen and his group over the years which describe their methodology.
It’s rather obvious to most people that if it’s been an unusually cold winter in London, then there is a fair chance that it will have been an unusually cold winter in Edinburgh as well. These two places are almost 350 miles apart. More than 20 years ago, this aspect of climate was quantified by Hansen and Lebedeff. They showed that temperature anomalies were significantly correlated out to distances of 1200km.
You seem to think this means they take the temperature in one place and assume that another place had an equal temperature. This is because you’re too stupid to understand the basic terminology, let alone the science. In fact, in calculating the temperature anomaly at a given place on the Earth’s surface, the GISS method averages the anomalies from many locations, weighted by distance from the location. The weighting drops linearly from 1 at 0km to 0 at 1200km.
So through your own pathetic, wilful ignorance and appalling intellectual inadequacy, you have yet again failed to understand something extremely basic. Your stupidity really is grotesque.
Lance – not sure whether your problem is that you can’t use a calculator or that you don’t know how big the Earth is. Try again. Also, read the paper that I linked to, and look at the graphs showing correlations between anomalies against distance. Explain your thoughts on that. Merely wailing “But 1200km is a long way!” does not counter the observational evidence that temperature anomalies are correlated out to this kind of distance.
When faced with a scientific method I don’t understand – an all too frequent occurrence – I have some options.
1) I could take the authors on trust.
2) I read their papers carefully, and inspect the figures to work out what is being done and why.
3) If I still don’t understand it, or don’t believe the results, I get some data and try to replicate the method and test how well it works.
If I can find a flaw in the method at stage three, I’ll consider contacting the author for clarification, or writing a manuscript to describe the problems and suggest better methods.
The “sceptic” approach so often, as aptly demonstrated above, gets stuck on the first stage – “I don’t trust the author, therefore their results must be fradulent”.
@ Lance:
My link is not 150pp long. Why are you skeptical about Hansen?
I would suggest that the obsession with anomalies, in the context of what information they actually give about the direction of the climate, is pointless.
The most significant thing about the climate scientists who are claiming we are experiencing a CO2 driven climate catastrophe is that they are making huge claims based on nothing of any significance at all.
The AGW community that has built up around those claims has, as my little copy-cat so well demonstrates, in many cases gone literally crazy from worrying about temperature variations that are significant only in their minds.
Richard Telford,
Are you trying to tell us that there are secret scientific methods?
You misunderstanding of the scientific method and skeptics is interesting. Boiled down, you are basically making the same argument from authority rationalization that our trolls, past and present, makes.
Do you have anything of any significance to offer at all?
One good rule to apply to dramatic claims by practitioners of very young scientists is the same rule of thumb to apply to any human enterprise:
The credibility of a cause is inversely proportional to the number of scary headlines the promoters of the cause generate.
A corollary is:
When promoters of a cause that is barely recognizable and based on data the promoters control demand huge amounts of money to solve what they claim to have discovered, be very wary.
Richard T,
By the way, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, should we conclude that you are stuck at 1) of your list of dealing with science- accepting on faith?
Here’s a great piece on precision vs. accuracy by Pat Frank. Very articulate, well reasoned argument.
http://tinyurl.com/635bf8
h/t Brent at William Briggs
I guess you’re %100 correct about everything on this site. What would a bunch of climate scientists know about climate science anyway. After all, they don’t have your non-climate degree, so they are just clueless. Just because the polar caps are melting, the sea levels rising, the sea coral dying, and my favorite ski slopes in Switzerland melting away more each year so that some of my favorite slopes are being moved to a higher elevation, doesn’t mean the earth is warming. Hell, there’s no such thing as various logical errors people fall into when they search for arguments to support a conclusion to which they have arrived at a priori.
Jones agrees with Hansen that Gistemp is crap.
Anthony was shocked that Jones displays moments of lucidity while in private.
We know from Oct 2008 that Hansen doesn’t know whether to spit or swallow until Tom Karl says so.
And we know that Tom Karl isn’t a climate scientist. He’s a doctor just like Julius Irving – because it sounded good for publicity purposes. A cheap sound effect to pretended gravitas that came in handy when NOAA went begging for gov handouts.
“…my favorite ski slopes in Switzerland melting away more each year so that some of my favorite slopes are being moved to a higher elevation…”
from today’s ski report – Switzerland.
15cm of fresh snow fell at Zermatt (22/132cm) on Wednesday 10th March. This greatly improved the skiing both on and off piste and the Ski Club rep in Zermatt at the moment said the snow is in amazing condition. Some of the best snow can be found in the more sheltered areas as it was fairly windy on Wednesday, but on the whole Zermatt has some great skiing at the moment. It was snowing at Adelboden (15/140cm) on Thursday 11th March. Around 10cm fell over the course of the day and with a sunny weekend ahead the prospects are great. Cold weather is helping to maintain the snow as well so it is in good condition right down to the bottom. Some of the best skiing at Saas Fee (85/228cm) at the moment is on the lower half of the mountain. Higher winds up at the top mean the snow is fairly hard packed but lower down it is much softer. As with everywhere at the moment the cold weather means the snow is good even down at the lowest levels.
“…Just because the polar caps are melting…”
nsidc reports that Antarctica is cooling and sea ice is increasing.
‘from today’s ski report – Switzerland.’
Lol. Someone using the weather to disprove warming again.
Re Papertiger’s link:
The situation with Antarctica is not completely understood, but negative effects from warming are apparent. Even though ice extent seems ok the NASA article is talking about net mass loss, so the two claims are not contradictory. Not sure if Goddard is being honest there. Also he is trying to portray the NASA report as being alarmist by putting the the two quotes together, when actually the 60m rise statement was no where near the context of the 24 cubic miles statement. This doesn’t really hurt AGW science, but it makes Goddard seem like a douche.
Weather that has persisted over many years, putting the lie to Janus’ claims of “… favorite ski slopes in Switzerland melting away more each year…”
And wasn’t that a “weather” lie Janus told, as opposed to “climate”, that went uncommented by shills?
You know it was.
the situation in Antarctica seems pretty clear cut. The nsidc has a good handle on it, even going so far as acknowledging their own reports bias.
To it;
“While our analysis focuses on Arctic sea ice, we note that Antarctic sea ice has reached its summer minimum extent for the year, at 2.87 million square kilometers (1.11 million square miles). This was 88,500 square kilometers above the 1979 to 2000 average minimum. Through the austral summer, the total extent of sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent has remained within two standard deviations of the 1979 to 2000 average.”
Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade.However, the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas show a strong negative trend in extent. These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic.
Notice how they deemphasize the positive trend while presenting 3.1% per decade as some novel recent occurance. Well here’s the lie exposed. That “novel” Feb anomoly is the 30 year trend.
For comparison this is how nsicd describes a lesser trend in the Arctic.
“The average ice extent for February 2010 was the fourth lowest February extent since the beginning of the modern satellite record. It was 220,000 square kilometers (85,000 square miles) higher than the record low for February, observed in 2005. The linear rate of decline for February is now 2.9% per decade.”
That’s 2.9% per decade over the entire 30 year record.
Let’s recap, 2.9% neg trend in Arctic – noteworthy and important – gets the lions share of coverage, 3.1% positive trend in Antarctica – without illustration – not worth mentioning except as a tag on at the end of the report.
Papertiger
Janus could be at fault too if her experience is less than a few decades, but you refer to one single winter.
Then you give half a dozen links to 3 of the same news articles (why?) which only cover half a decade.
If you like news reports, here a some others:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1661704.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6420825.stm
And why not a scholarly paper:
http://www.cnrm.meteo.fr/icam2007/ICAM2007/extended/manuscript_74.pdf
You say: ‘Notice how they deemphasize the positive trend while presenting 3.1% per decade as some novel recent occurance. Well here’s the lie exposed. That “novel” Feb anomoly is the 30 year trend.’
What? no I don’t notice that. They even say ‘overall trend’, which is at odds to the ‘novel’ word you just pulled out of thin air and than put quotes on it as if they said it. The ‘unusually high in recent years’ part fits fine with the graph.
Lol. And you pull that graph from the same peeps who you say it exposes, silly them.
You say: ‘Let’s recap, 2.9% neg trend in Arctic – noteworthy and important – gets the lions share of coverage, 3.1% positive trend in Antarctica – without illustration – not worth mentioning except as a tag on at the end of the report.’
Lol. They skim over the Antarctic in general, not depending on the results. Most of their studies are on the Arctic. They said so in the FAQs.
Papertiger
Janus could be at fault too if her experience is less than a few decades, but you refer to one single winter.
Then you give half a dozen links to 3 of the same news articles (why?) which only cover half a decade.
If you like news reports, here are some
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1661704.stm
(other links to follow due to posting limits)
You say: ‘Notice how they deemphasize the positive trend while presenting 3.1% per decade as some novel recent occurance. Well here’s the lie exposed. That “novel” Feb anomoly is the 30 year trend.’
What? no I don’t notice that. They even say ‘overall trend’, which is at odds to the ‘novel’ word you just pulled out of thin air and than put quotes on it as if they said it. The ‘unusually high in recent years’ part fits fine with the graph.
Lol. And you pull that graph from the same peeps who you say it exposes, silly them.
You say: ‘Let’s recap, 2.9% neg trend in Arctic – noteworthy and important – gets the lions share of coverage, 3.1% positive trend in Antarctica – without illustration – not worth mentioning except as a tag on at the end of the report.’
Lol. They skim over the Antarctic in general, not depending on the results. Most of their studies are on the Arctic. They said so in the FAQs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6420825.stm
And why not a scholarly paper:
http://www.cnrm.meteo.fr/icam2007/ICAM2007/extended/manuscript_74.pdf
Shills,
Sorry, a glitch in my older version of adobe reader showed 130 pages when the document is 14. I’ll read it tonight.
pseudo-Hunter,
“Lance – not sure whether your problem is that you can’t use a calculator or that you don’t know how big the Earth is. Try again.”
Yes, it was almost two in the morning and I divided 20,004km by 1200km instead of the 1200km by 20,004km.
Still, 1200km is 6% of the pole to pole distance.
Your pointing out that I made a simple mistake in a late night internet post, and your scathing insults have proven to me that James Hansen and the rest of the climate catastrophists are correct.
Your work is done here. You are my hero.
Where do I sign to turn over my future income and relinquish my free will?
You guys do realize that global warming has pretty much been proven?
Shills,
“Why are you skeptical about Hansen?”
Here are a few quotes from Dr. Hansen.
“A year ago, I wrote to Gordon Brown asking him to place a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in Britain. I have asked the same of Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd and other leaders. The reason is this – coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet.”
Really more than asteroid strikes or poverty or disease or famine etc?
“Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know.”
Destroy the planet?! Not just alter it or change it but DESTROY it!
“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
Yes that’s right, the nice people at Duke Energy’s coal fired electrical generation plants, that provide energy for my home and millions of others here in the mid-west, are really just like the Nazis shipping Jews to Auschwitz and burning them.
He also uses one of the most despicable tactics employed by demagogues for centuries, appeals to emotion with images of children in danger.
“Our planet is in peril. If we do not change course, we’ll hand our children a situation that is out of their control. One ecological collapse will lead to another, in amplifying feedbacks.”
Now, I could see being alarmed that climate change might produce impacts that were on the whole more negative than the benefits of burning fossil fuels but Hansen’s remarks are idiotically irrational and purposely inflammatory.
The only solid data point, even if one agrees with his questionable GISS data, is that the mean global temperature has risen less than one degree Celsius in the last one hundred years. Does this really portend the “destruction of the planet”? PUH LEEZE!
He is a fanatical advocate of his own delusional take on the evidence. It is hard to view his work as the honest inquiry of a dispassionate scientist given the back drop of his irrational opinions.
Lance
‘Really more than asteroid strikes or poverty or disease or famine etc?’
How many asteroids or diseases do you know that pose a likely threat in the near future? Since when has poverty threatened civ? GW has the potential to cause em all (except roids).
‘Destroy the planet?! Not just alter it or change it but DESTROY it!’
Here is that line in context: ‘Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know. Carbon dioxide would increase to 500 ppm or more. We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with sea level 75 metres higher. Climatic disasters would occur continually. —- He means destroy the planet WE KNOW (don’t know how to italicise).
‘Yes that’s right, the nice people at Duke Energy’s coal fired electrical generation plants, that provide energy for my home and millions of others here in the mid-west, are really just like the Nazis shipping Jews to Auschwitz and burning them.’
See this link for an explanation of that: — And you sure you aren’t appealing to a little emotion with your ‘nice people at Duke Energy’s…”
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/averting-our-eyes-james-hansens-new-call-for-climate-action/
‘appeals to emotion with images of children in danger.’
Yeah I hate it when Dr’s tell pregnant women to smoke and drink less because it can harm the child. Despicable rhetoric.
Why don’t you like Hansen’s Data?
Lance – wow, you really fucked up that calculation. Time of day is no excuse for making an error of that magnitude. It shows that you have no scientific intuition at all. If you can’t even notice when you divide a big number by a small number instead of vice versa, what makes you think you are capable of understanding complex climate science?
We see the same lack of intuition in you and everyone else here who thinks that just because 1200km is larger than the distance from their house to the nearest corner shop, then temperature anomalies can’t possibly be correlated. Merely by virtue of the fact that 1200km is a long way in your tiny narrow-minded world view, you don’t believe the observed fact of temperature anomaly correlation out to this sort of distance. Read the paper that I linked to, and look at the graphs showing correlations between anomalies against distance. Explain your thoughts on that. Merely wailing “But 1200km is a long way!” is inadequate.
The extrapolation of “station measurements as much as 1200 km” was not revealed to us in the “climategate” e-mails. The issues, problems and implications of this technique were subject to much discussion before climategate. Perhaps the nuance of the e-mail that is noteworthy is this attitude: “It is a good thing that we extrapolate or else we would not have known that 2005 was the warmest year ever.” In my understanding of science, such a proposition is quite unscientific.
Although there was much “documentation” of temperature anomaly derivation, much of this documentation has been confusing and sometimes simply misleading. For example, a number of years ago I had an extended conversation with Global Warming pessimist on whether Phil Jones adjusted HadCru baseline estimates for UHI. We both were reading the same documentation and came to different conclusions. (There seems to be consensus –supported by statements from Jones — now that HadCru is not adjusted for UHI, but the error band is slightly expanded. Many learned people apparently still do not understand this.) In another example, Hansen’s 1988 documentation was apparently quite clear that Scenario B had no increase in CO2 emissions post 2000. However, when Gavin Schmidt released the data assumptions years later, it turned out that Hansen was assuming no increase in growth – more of a linear trend, and interestingly, Scenario B’s CO2 ppm were very close to Scenario A’s CO2 ppm for decades.
Two points on the extrapolation: First John Daly’s work raises questions on whether Telford etal. are solid footing in claiming that “places located near to each other have similar anomalies.” At least in what the data bases are assuming about “near.” Daly found it strange that the stations used by GISS for anomaly trends in the Arctic did not match the larger picture of stations overall. See http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm. BTW, John Daly was the one whose death was gleefully received as wonderful news by Phil Jones and company.
Second, extrapolation gets extra interesting if land based temperatures are extrapolated over the ocean. Based on response to my inquiries to Hansen and others, it appears that extrapolation is also used when a land-based station is “nearby.” Even though Hansen’s documentation says that sea surface temperatures are from satellite data, large portions of the Pacific could be quantified by the thermometer in Honolulu. Hence, the UHI effect could be spread into the ocean via extrapolation. This could be especially troubling when the Honolulu airport thermometer was known to be reading high and no correction for that malfunction was made. Also, thermometers in Alaska have been shown to be subject to siting issues independent of UHI.
The reason the AGW community is losing the argument is perfectly demonstrated by my little copycat wannabe scientist, who turns out to be, in every post she/he makes, a neverwuzzer.
Real scientists, just like people who have the truth on their side, do not act as he/she does.
If we were actually suffering from a climate crisis, as the AGW community alleges, certainly by now there would be some actual data to show it?
But, alas, all there ever has been are huge claims based on trivial results, supported by boorishness, defamation, and contrived models.
The lack of reality drags the AGW true believers, as we see here and elsewhere, farther and farther from anything else to do with reality, science and integrity.
AGW theory is for climate science what the tulip mania was for horticulture.
JANUS,
The point this site makes is that AGW- the theory that CO2 at present or likely levels is going to cause a climate crisis- is not a valid theory for describing what CO2 is doing to the climate.
Do you have any evidence that it is?
The skeptics who post here are as qualified to look at the evidence as anyone else.
The typical true believer responds with self defeating arguments from authority, ad hom, or trollishness. Do you have anything else?
Lance, it’s
“destroy the planet we know”
Not
“DESTROY the planet.”
Actually a big difference there. It is interesting, but I have yet to see a complete interview of any of the denosphere targets posted on any of the denosphere blogsites. Only soundbites taken out of context or statements deliberately misquoted.
And then, at some future point in time (as with countless posts from the past), the denier camp is going to accuse some journalist or politician or scientist of fudging the facts and misrepresenting some unqualified, amateur scientist or some clearly politically driven neocon commentator.
Textbook.
Shills:
And why not a scholarly paper:
http://www.cnrm.meteo.fr/icam2007/ICAM2007/extended/manuscript_74.pdf
March 13, 2010, 9:30 pm
So when fucking up the temp records becomes too much for the crooks to handle without being caught, you want to switch over to an amalgum of 10 squiggly lines, with ten fuzzy splices, and who knows how many new lines of adjustments.
No dice crook.
“Lol. They skim over the Antarctic in general, not depending on the results. Most of their studies are on the Arctic. They said so in the FAQs.”
What does NSIDC stand for anyhow?
Here’s the wiki; The National Snow and Ice Data Center, or NSIDC, is a United States information and referral center in support of polar and cryospheric research. NSIDC archives and distributes digital and analog snow and ice data and also maintains information about snow cover, avalanches, glaciers, ice sheets, freshwater ice, sea ice, ground ice, permafrost, atmospheric ice, paleoglaciology, and ice cores.
You know I’m not seeing where they claim to be the North Pole Snow and Ice Data Center, so I don’t give a flying FAQ what they say in their faqqed up propaganda excusing faq.
Really nice find. It’s just another example but how many does it take before people wake up to the insanity.
@ Enquirer
Glad to see someone who doesn’t think this issue is another climategate nugget.
The issues with the data are out for all to see. If peeps have a genuine concern with it then do something about it. Surely the heavily corrupted gatekeepers of the journals are playing nice now, due to all the eyes on them.
‘John Daly was the one whose death was gleefully received as wonderful news by Phil Jones and company.’
Yeah it is a shame that the asses who released those emails had to cause his widower to relive his death.
@ Hunter (denialist one):
‘The reason the AGW community is losing the argument is perfectly demonstrated by my little copy…’
Lol. AGW is losing!? Where are all the scientists admitting defeat? And there are plenty of observed changes in line with warming, just look at the pole data stuff above for one such.
‘The skeptics who post here are as qualified to look at the evidence as anyone else.’
Look all you want. But understanding is a different thing.
@ Papertiger:
you say: ‘So when fucking up the temp records becomes too much for the crooks to handle without being caught, you want to switch over to an amalgum of 10 squiggly lines, with ten fuzzy splices, and who knows how many new lines of adjustments.’
Umm. I gave you a paper that I felt had more scientific muscle than a newspaper article. No one said ‘switch’. They are called regression plots.
‘You know I’m not seeing where they claim to be the North Pole Snow and Ice Data Center, so I don’t give a flying FAQ what they say in their faqqed up propaganda excusing faq.’
Wow. Easy tiger. Is that your well thought-out theory? You got no uncertainty there? They manipulate the FAQs to hide their wrongful bias? No dice.
If you want more stuff that focuses on Antarctica:
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp
Umm. I gave you a paper that I felt had more scientific muscle than a newspaper article. No one said ’switch’. They are called regression plots.
When you just drop your shit pellet without comment or direction you have to expect that people will assign you with a motive. Perhaps you could be a little more explicit about wtf you mean in the future.
Oops there you go again, dropping a link to nothing in particular from a labyrinthian dot gov.
I got an idea. Why don’t you take your aad.gov and blow it out your ass.
Easy tiger. Is that your well thought-out theory? You got no uncertainty there?
I gave it about ten seconds more thought then it deserved, that’s my theory.
Waldo,
Either form of destruction is a vast over statement of the risk, but if parsing makes you feel better, great.
By the way, what is a ‘denosphere’?
Shills,
Do you agree then that your understanding is deficient to comprehend AGW, and that you are simply making a decision based on faith in authority?