the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

I thought we didn’t need new series

Posted by Jeff Id on February 23, 2010

Climategate continues to pay off. There is a new proposal to create an open temperature dataset.   At least we won’t have to listen to the bullcrap verification that it matches other series – which happen to be from the same data.

Lucia has a post on it here.

I wonder how they will resolve those ever so difficult confidentiality agreements.


8 Responses to “I thought we didn’t need new series”

  1. Its like the great florida recount.

    Tm moshpit

  2. In my bones, I believe this is a set up. They will do whatever they have to, to make it seem they were right all along…and then they’ll trumpet the findings to the press and try to put a lid on the whole business. “Well, we felt we needed to clear the air, just to make sure there were no significant mistakes, and now we’ve done that, in an open fashion. It’s time to move forward to save the planet with all due haste…”

    When criticisms of their work show up, they’ll say, “Now really, how much of this irrelevant carping do we have to endure. The clock is ticking. We’ve done all we were asked to do, and from this point on, it’s just flagrant obstruction. Some people are never satisfied.”

    Keep the pressure on.

  3. My approach will just be to push for more openness and accountability.

    My expectation about the final results? Dunno.

    The key will be

    1. accuracy about metadata that classifies sites as Rural
    2. Ensuring that raw data sources are not cherry picked.
    3. Step by step verification of all adjustments including error propogation
    4. Applying statistically informed methods.
    5. Side by side comparisons of statistical methods.
    6. On going data quality management.

  4. Peter of Sydney said

    When is everyone going to realize that nothing has changed. Western governments like the US, Australia and the UK are still pushing very strongly for some form of greenhouse gas tax. If not by legislation then by some other means. There is no stopping them barring their eviction at the next election. However, it may be too late by then. There is only one other possible way to short circuit the AGW scam. Charge many of the leading AGW alarmists with fraud and any other criminal charges. Take them to court and it would be not too unreasonable to expect a guilty verdict given all the mounting evidence. Then and only then will the real tide turn. Meanwhile, the governments have the power to push through their AGW agenda as it stands. There is no doubt about that as it can be plainly seen. We can have evidence discounting the AGW thesis coming out of ears but nothing will change. Some would say we already have it coming out of our ears. We need to take this “fight” to the proper level; in the court room, before it’s too late.

  5. Gary said

    Most important is to get the design of the database right. It’s got to be comprehensive and include all sorts of meta-data as well as original documentation (reporting forms, historical photos, etc.) of the stations. THEN, the researchers can have at it, adjusting the raw data any way they think is plausible and analyzing in a hundred different ways.

    Some effort ought to be put into testing the accuracy of well-sited and poorly-sited stations to get a quantitative handle on the microsite biases. Anthony Watts has a good handle on how to do it have run experiments on CRSs several years ago.

  6. boballab said

    You might want to take a look at this:

    1. Abstract: DATSAV2 is the official climatological database for surface observations. The database is composed of worldwide surface weather observations from about 10,000 currently active stations, collected and stored from sources such as the US Air Force’s Automated Weather Network (AWN) and the WMO’s Global Telecommunications System (GTS). Most collected observations are decoded at the Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA) formerly known as the Air Force Global Weather Central (AFGWC) at Offutt AFB, Nebraska, and then sent electronically to the USAF Combat Climatology Center (AFCCC), collocated with NCDC in the Federal Climate Complex in Asheville, NC. AFCCC builds the final database through decode, validation, and quality control software. All data are stored in a single ASCII format. The database is used in climatological applications by numerous DoD and civilian customers.

    DATSAV2 refers to the digital tape format in which decoded weather observations are stored. The DATSAV2 format conforms to Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS). The DATSAV2 database includes data originating from various “codes” such as synoptic, airways, METAR (Meteorological Routine Weather Report), and SMARS (Supplementary Marine Reporting Station), as well as observations from automatic weather stations. The users handbook provides complete documentation for the database and its format.

    AFCCC sorts the observations into station-date-time order, validates each station number against the Air Weather Service Master Station Catalog(AWSMSC),runs several quality control programs, and then merges and sorts the data further into monthly and yearly station-ordered files. AFCCC then provides the data to the collocated National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/documentlibrary/tddoc/td9950.pdf

    This “official” dataset is behind a paywall.

  7. Ausie Dan said

    Peter of Sydney
    Hi again – I share your view that the people who are consciously making up the AGW scam should be punished.
    In the case of Australia, I fear that it would be hard to prove in court.
    They would all hide behind the “I was relying on expert advice” from someone else – IPCC or whoever.
    The cost of prosecution would be vast.
    It is unlikely that the Commonwealth or NSW state governemrnts would initiate the action or foot the bill, which likely would mount in the milti $A000,000’s.
    Do you have that type of loose change?

    I thnk the better course of action would be to sue for damages.
    That is much more likely to succeed.
    But still very difficult.
    The whole issue of arguements for and against AGW would need to be made before judges so weasle arguements “proving” AGW would collapse in the light of real evidence.

    There are real people financially affected by AGW – particularly those property owners prohibited from building below the (I think it is) one meter mark above high tide, which the Commonwealth is pushing and which some councils are enforcing.
    Slater & Gordon could be interested in leading and financing a class action.

    Again it is just possible that there could be a “people’s” action against the Sydney City Council for wasting money making the town hall self suffiicient in electricity. They jack hammered the whole floor of the town hall at great expense to install the necessary equipment.
    The state government is wsting money (or plans to do so) in protecting Fort Denison agains a non existent one metre sea rise in Sydney Harbour.
    (Data is available showing that the mean tide level in Sydney harbour has risen at a rate of 8.4 centimetres per 100 years since 1914 and there is no evidence in the latest figures suggesting that this rate is increasing.)

    So I’m with you. It’s just that I think the legal route is very difficult unless those directly effected have the knowledge, willpower and money to pursue the issue.
    A well run legal case would stop the sham in its tracks.
    But it would take a change in government and a huge popular push for action.
    That seems very remote at present.

    The Rudd government is obviously running away from the issue.
    Many Liberals and National Party representatives (and probably some Labor members too) understand the issue clearly. Some do not.
    Public belief in AGW is falling.
    But there is no “fire in the belly” at present.

    The various USA state government cases now being instigated against the EPA seem to be the best bet at present.
    These should open the whole issue up in a court setting where ridiculous claims should not stand up.

  8. timetochooseagain said

    1-They only want to redo the temperatures from blue counties in one state and determine “atmospheric intent” for the actual temperatures?

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 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: