the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Gavin thinks it’s getting old

Posted by Jeff Id on December 17, 2009

The Copenhagen Kids Playing in Global Warming - Canada.com h/t Reader Mark

In reply to a commenter at Surreal Climate,WRT the Russian accusation that CRU cooked the books.

[Response: Well, journalism is in trouble in Russia too... The relevant figure from the IEA report is here which show the difference between the their 'all station' index and the HadCRU index for Russia as a whole. Since there was no check for inhomogeneities or jumps in the IEA index, it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, but even if it were fine, the differences in the 20th C trend are small. The whole 'someone made adjustments/screened stations therefore fraud!' line of argument is getting very old. - gavin]

I’m glad it’s getting old Gavin, very very happy in fact.   Yet there is a simple truth, Gavin (who is a scientist) doesn’t know which data was used anymore than we do.  BECAUSE CRU WON’T RELEASE IT! Why doesn’t he want to know?  His colleagues at CRU (Climategate central headquarters)  have recently been shown hiding data from reconstructions, blocking skeptical papers which demonstrate the problems in paleo math, and removing points from temperature curves to hide downtrends.  We know that only a single very high warming station is being used in GHCN for the Antarctic.  We know that Switzerland and Austrailia have some very unusual warming trends. We know his colleagues blocked in two cases, papers critical of the Siberian data. Even assuming that they didn’t succumb to the pressures of fraudulent selection in Russia, how is Gavin so sure his colleagues haven’t made an honest error.

He’s not.  He doesn’t know any more than we do.

The difference is  – for some reason he’s not asking.

I’ll tell you what’s getting REALLY old.  What’s getting old is our continued requests for the friggin’ data and methods to be done in the open rather than in the back of a room.  It’s getting old that ‘real’ papers with correct methods are being blocked because they don’t support the consensus.  – That’s what is getting old.

If Gavin has any scientist left in him, let’s make sure he joins us in requesting that all data, and all methods from climate science be released and available for open review. We know there are some who are biasing the results.  It’s time to ask real questions and by the way it is the scientists who should be making these requests – not us.  It’s what they get six figure plus salaries for – to ask and answer questions.

We’ll let you know when it’s old Gavin.  Right now it’s just beginning because I for one, have a lot of questions.

28 Responses to “Gavin thinks it’s getting old”

  1. Kondealer said

    And I suspect it is not just papers that where sceptical of paleo-maths, I reckon it covers just about anything considered by “The Team” to be sceptical.
    What about this? Who killed them?

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
    We are particularly interested in the linear striations which appear in Fig. 1. I have previously documented these striations in satellite measurements, and argued that their slope corresponds to the strength of feedback in the climate system. Unfortunately, two research papers containing evidence of this were both rejected for publication based upon poor reviews from a single reviewer – a rather unusual basis for total rejection by any science journal.

  2. crosspatch said

    What’s getting old is our continued requests for the friggin’ data and methods to be done in the open rather than in the back of a room.

    And there lies the crux of the entire issue. If there is nothing to hide, why do they continue hiding it? Release the data and the methods. Otherwise neither can be trusted.

  3. dearieme said

    Of course, if we had reason to think the Climate Scientologists competent and honest, we wouldn’t necessarily assume fraud. I am perfectly happy to accept that it’s warmer now than in the trough of the Little Ice Age, but I don’t believe the quantifications of this extra warmth because I think Gavin’s cronies are a bunch of duds and crooks.

  4. crosspatch said

    Strata posted some interesting stuff from the “Harry” file yesterday:

    Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ’supposed’, I can make it up. So I have :-)

    You can’t imagine what this has cost me – to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).

    This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master stations, when really I suspect nobody else gives a hoot about. So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option – to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ‘em, and it’s the main reason the project is nearly a year late.

    So you have a project that is under time pressure. You have input that would take a lot of time to sort out if done correctly and there isn’t time to do it correctly. So … as George Carlin once said “I call em like I see em, and if I don’t see em, I make em up!”.

    How much of that “station data” is fabricated? We know some of it is. Not even the programmer seemed quite sure of how much was. Just run it through the program and “hope” it all comes out the other end but there is no way to check to make sure.

    And they want to spend $10 billion a year based on that database? Absolute incompetence.

  5. Phillip Bratby said

    Jeff, Gavin is not a scientist, he is a mathematician.

    And I agree that there is nothing wrong with old. We all end up that way (if we’re lucky).

  6. Green R&D Mgr said

    I could not have said it better. Let’s keep asking and analyzing till it is all out in the open and remains that way.

  7. Greg F said

    In the world according to Gavin geographic weighting isn’t important?

  8. MattN said

    Awesome. He said “it doesn’t matter.”

    Who’d have guessed….

  9. Motorhead said

    If climate change/global warming as Gavin says were real, it wouldn’t take all this smoke and mirrors and the endless defense he’s always on to prove it. One scientist and one alone could propose a hypothesis good enough to be called a theory. But since a hypothesis has to stand up to testing, this won’t work either. We know that Gavin and his circle are clutching in vain to a lot of data that DOES NOT STAND UP TO RIGOROUS TESTING – therefore it must be thrown out.

  10. Harry said

    I do not hope the picture of the globe is an apocalyptic preview…..

  11. Atomic Hairdryer said

    But.. But.. Gavin has nothing to do with the data. He requested that be made quite clear, here-

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6475667/Gavin-Schmidt-a-correction.html

    Dr Schmidt wishes us to point out that he is not “involved” in Dr Hansen’ s GISS temperature record, which is one of the four official sources of global temperature data relied on by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by governments all over the world. I am of course happy to publish the correction he asked for, but I am intrigued that Dr Schmidt should want to dissociate himself from this increasingly controversial source of temperature figures.

    That was from 31st October and I thought rather odd given his expert role on everything at RC. Maybe he’d been modelling leaks and didn’t like what he saw coming?

  12. Antonio San said

    Gavin, did you ask Seth Borenstein opinion before posting? LOL

  13. Peter said

    Climate science is worse than astrology. At least with astrology they don’t hid their data and methods. It’s about time for the world to understand that climate science as carried out by institutions like the CRU, and reported by the IPCC are not only discredited but illegal. In other words, it’s not science but propaganda.

  14. DJA said

    Peter, “Climate science is worse than astrology” Its obvious, Climastrology says it all.

  15. Mary said

    Great comparison between “good” science and “poor” science…

    http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-i-saw-at-revolution.html

  16. JAE said

    Jeff:

    “I’ll tell you what’s getting REALLY old. What’s getting old is our continued requests for the friggin’ data and methods to be done in the open rather than in the back of a room. It’s getting old that ‘real’ papers with correct methods are being blocked because they don’t support the consensus. – That’s what is getting old.”

    Amen. The “climate scientists” in question seem to be taking lessons from our Democrat Congressmen, who develop 2,000-page bills behind closed doors and then ask all their buddies to vote on them without even reading them!

  17. Mark T said

    If Gavin has any scientist left in him

    You assume he had some in the first place. Tsk, tsk. ;)

    Mark

  18. TerryMN said

    Out of curiosity (because I don’t wander over there anymore) did anyone ask Gavin why (regardless of whether “it matters”) fewer stations are preferable to more? They’re collecting, storing, and sending these temps as a hobby maybe?

  19. denise said

    It’s like the Obama birth Certificate thing! If there’s nothing to hide, what are you hiding? By the why I don’t care about the BC it just was a good comparison to how they are ALL acting. Al Gore 1990′s One World Order stuff. I don’t usually comment, but I am learning a lot from all of you thanks. Happy Holiday’s

  20. denise said

    The lawyers have taken over and it isn’t going to be pretty.

  21. Nick Stokes said

    I notice that no-one has much to say about Gavin’s main point, which is that the IEA plot that he linked (from p 20 in their report) really does show very little difference in recent times between the selected plots and the larger group. Which rather suggests that it was a good selection.

  22. Jeff Id said

    #21 I see a pretty big difference. But even if you’re right, the possibility that they suffer the same bias is an issue. Also, the possibility that there is substantial independence of the two curves with a similar result would be an even more important. It would be damned nice to have a trustable trend.

  23. Greg F said

    #21
    Nick,

    From what I can make out the little difference in recent times seems to be due to how they chose to display the 2 series. Rough translation (Babel).

    For calculating the anomalies of the near-surface temperature of air above the territory Russia in comparison with the level of 1961-1990 (accepted in the contemporary climatology for the base) we produced calculations as according to all 152 cells of the five-degree reference grid (476 stations), so on those 90 cells, data on which they are represented on 121 station from [vyborki] of the center Of [khedli]. In both cases they were carried out the averagings of all accessible annual data over the cell, are calculated deviation from base level for each cell, is produced the calculation of the average significance of a deviation with respect to to all cells in each year.

    It appears they used 1961-1990 as the base to anchor both plots and therefore says nothing about the differences in recent times.

  24. Nick Stokes said

    Greg #24. These are anomaly plots. Of course they should use the same base. Using a different base would create a discrepancy, but that wouldn’t mean anything. Nor would a difference in absolute temperatures. The trend is the issue.

  25. russian said

    Russian what?

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php

  26. Greg F said

    #24
    Nick,

    First you say.

    …that the IEA plot that he linked (from p 20 in their report) really does show very little difference in recent times between the selected plots and the larger group.

    Now you say.

    Of course they should use the same base.

    Which is why you see very little difference in “recent times”. So what would it look like if we picked 1931-1950 for the baseline?

  27. Nick Stokes said

    Greg, if you picked 1931-60, say, for both curves, you’d just move them up or down together. You could keep themas is, and just relabel the y-axis. If you picked different baselines, you’d separate them, by an amount of your choosing. There just isn’t any useful info in the offset. It will all be rebaselined anyway wneh merged with a global set. All that counts is whether the gradients match.

  28. Nick Stokes said

    Greg #26 – an apology; my answer in #27 wasn’t quite right. Moving to 1931-60 would shift one relative to the other, because there is a different difference (awkward phrase) between the means during that period. But it still doesn’t tell you anything about warming, which relates to the gradient. It’s just an artefact of the definition of anomaly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 133 other followers

%d bloggers like this: