- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 14,185
- Reaction score
- 8,768
- Location
- Houston
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
BOMBSHELL – NOAA Whistleblower Rats Out Pause Busters
- Thread starter LowDown
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 25,834
- Reaction score
- 25,190
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Personally I do not believe these world leaders were duped but they saw this whole thing as a means to redistribute wealth from richer countries into their their own sorry messes.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 34,149
- Reaction score
- 37,611
- Location
- With Yo Mama
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It's not global warming. It is global climate change.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02...ity-in-the-global-historical-climate-network/
The purpose of this post is to confirm one detail of Bates’s complaint. The Mail article says that “The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.” and later on in the article, “Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results.”
Bates is quite correct about this. I first noticed the instability of the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) adjustment algorithm in 2012. Paul Homewood at his blog has been querying the adjustments for many years, particularly in Iceland, see here, here, here and here for example. Often, these adjustments cool the past to make warming appear greater than it is in the raw data. When looking at the adjustments made for Alice Springs in Australia, I noticed (see my comment in this post in 2012) that the adjustments made to past temperatures changed, often quite dramatically, every few weeks. I think Paul Homewood also commented on this himself somewhere at his blog. When we first observed these changes, we thought that perhaps the algorithm itself had been changed. But it became clear that the adjustments were changing so often, that this couldn’t be the case, and it was the algorithm itself that was unstable. In other words, when new data was added to the system every week or so and the algorithm was re-run, the resulting past temperatures came out quite differently each time.
The purpose of this post is to confirm one detail of Bates’s complaint. The Mail article says that “The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.” and later on in the article, “Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results.”
Bates is quite correct about this. I first noticed the instability of the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) adjustment algorithm in 2012. Paul Homewood at his blog has been querying the adjustments for many years, particularly in Iceland, see here, here, here and here for example. Often, these adjustments cool the past to make warming appear greater than it is in the raw data. When looking at the adjustments made for Alice Springs in Australia, I noticed (see my comment in this post in 2012) that the adjustments made to past temperatures changed, often quite dramatically, every few weeks. I think Paul Homewood also commented on this himself somewhere at his blog. When we first observed these changes, we thought that perhaps the algorithm itself had been changed. But it became clear that the adjustments were changing so often, that this couldn’t be the case, and it was the algorithm itself that was unstable. In other words, when new data was added to the system every week or so and the algorithm was re-run, the resulting past temperatures came out quite differently each time.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02...article-how-noaa-software-spins-the-agw-game/
The disclosures by Dr. Bates concerning Karl’s ‘Pausebuster’ NOAA NCEI paperhave created quite the climate kerfuffle, with Rep. Smith even renewing his NOAA email subpoena demands. Yet the Karl paper actually is fairly innocuous by comparison to other NOAA shenanigans. It barely removed the pause, and still shows the CMIP5 models running hot by comparison. Its importance was mainly political talking point pause-busting in the run up to Paris.
The disclosures by Dr. Bates concerning Karl’s ‘Pausebuster’ NOAA NCEI paperhave created quite the climate kerfuffle, with Rep. Smith even renewing his NOAA email subpoena demands. Yet the Karl paper actually is fairly innocuous by comparison to other NOAA shenanigans. It barely removed the pause, and still shows the CMIP5 models running hot by comparison. Its importance was mainly political talking point pause-busting in the run up to Paris.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
John Bates:
I read with great irony recently that scientists are “frantically copying U.S. Climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump” (e.g., Washington Post 13 December 2016). As a climate scientist formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, the most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data. I spent the last decade cajoling climate scientists to archive their data and fully document the datasets. I established a climate data records program that was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs), which accurately describe the Earth’s changing environment.
The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). The study drew criticism from other climate scientists, who disagreed with K15’s conclusion about the ‘hiatus.’ (Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown). The paper also drew the attention of the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, who questioned the timing of the report, which was issued just prior to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan submission to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015.
John Bates:
I read with great irony recently that scientists are “frantically copying U.S. Climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump” (e.g., Washington Post 13 December 2016). As a climate scientist formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, the most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data. I spent the last decade cajoling climate scientists to archive their data and fully document the datasets. I established a climate data records program that was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs), which accurately describe the Earth’s changing environment.
The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). The study drew criticism from other climate scientists, who disagreed with K15’s conclusion about the ‘hiatus.’ (Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown). The paper also drew the attention of the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, who questioned the timing of the report, which was issued just prior to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan submission to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
In this post, I go through the critiques of Rose/Bates made by NOAA scientists and other scientists working with surface temperature data. They are basically arguing that the NOAA surface temperature data sets are ‘close enough’ to other (sort of) independent analyses of surface temperatures. Well, this is sort of beside the main point that is being made by Bates and Rose, but lets look at these defenses anyways. I focus here more on critiques of what John Bates has to say, rather than the verbiage used by David Rose or the context that he provided.
In this post, I go through the critiques of Rose/Bates made by NOAA scientists and other scientists working with surface temperature data. They are basically arguing that the NOAA surface temperature data sets are ‘close enough’ to other (sort of) independent analyses of surface temperatures. Well, this is sort of beside the main point that is being made by Bates and Rose, but lets look at these defenses anyways. I focus here more on critiques of what John Bates has to say, rather than the verbiage used by David Rose or the context that he provided.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
https://cliscep.com/2017/02/06/science-one-damned-adjustment-after-another/
David Rose in the Mail on Sunday has broken a story which may be as signficant as Climategate in its implications. It concerns one single paper (the Karl 2015 “Bury the Pause” paper) which, it it is claimed, is based on false and non-replicable data. And this time the source is not some anonymous whistleblower/hacker, but the US government scientist who was responsible for laying down the rules that government scientists at NOAA and elsewhere are supposed to follow. You can read the account by the ex-NOAA scientist John Bates who provides the basis for the Mail on Sunday story at Judith Curry’s site and the reaction of Anthony Watts and hundreds of his readers here.
Defence of the Karl paper and attacks on David Rose have appeared with astonishing rapidity. Zeke Hausfather’s article at CarbonBrief came out about five hours after the Mail on Sunday article, and the Guardian followed a few hours later with an article by John Abraham, (who plays Bud Abbott to Nuccitelli’s Lou Costello as one half of the 97% team, who do the Guardian’s factual stuff now that their science and environment correspondents have given up.)
Paul Matthews will be posting soon with a more scientific analysis of this story, but in the meantime, here are some ruminations which might help discussion, (or not.)
David Rose in the Mail on Sunday has broken a story which may be as signficant as Climategate in its implications. It concerns one single paper (the Karl 2015 “Bury the Pause” paper) which, it it is claimed, is based on false and non-replicable data. And this time the source is not some anonymous whistleblower/hacker, but the US government scientist who was responsible for laying down the rules that government scientists at NOAA and elsewhere are supposed to follow. You can read the account by the ex-NOAA scientist John Bates who provides the basis for the Mail on Sunday story at Judith Curry’s site and the reaction of Anthony Watts and hundreds of his readers here.
Defence of the Karl paper and attacks on David Rose have appeared with astonishing rapidity. Zeke Hausfather’s article at CarbonBrief came out about five hours after the Mail on Sunday article, and the Guardian followed a few hours later with an article by John Abraham, (who plays Bud Abbott to Nuccitelli’s Lou Costello as one half of the 97% team, who do the Guardian’s factual stuff now that their science and environment correspondents have given up.)
Paul Matthews will be posting soon with a more scientific analysis of this story, but in the meantime, here are some ruminations which might help discussion, (or not.)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 65,363
- Reaction score
- 49,395
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Geez. Just seems like so much SOS DD.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
And the research is fake.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,809
- Reaction score
- 53,591
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Do we really need to go over this again?
How many people seriously don't know both terms have been around for decades?
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,809
- Reaction score
- 53,591
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yeah. Thousands of people over 40 years have all faked everything. It's all made up. Somehow, they did it in a coherent fashion, but massive international, interdisciplinary, intergenerational conspiracies will do that!
Musta been the lizard people! They're the only ones clever enough to pull it off.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
These clowns, along with a few others have been caught red handed faking the data.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2015
- Messages
- 3,931
- Reaction score
- 1,260
- Location
- Oz
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yawn, No hysterical "Bombshell!!!". Just an 'alternate facts' fizzer by David Rose from the Daily Mail UK tabloid.
Bates interview with Associated Press:
"However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious." "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
Major global warming study again questioned, again defended
Links to other fact checking and debunking articles:
Article by Zeke Hausfather:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise
Popular Science
The House Science Committee claims scientists faked climate change data—here's what you should know | Science | Australian Popular Science
arstechnica
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/
The AGU
https://fromtheprow.agu.org/climate-science-data-management/
Victor Venema
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/david-roses-alternative-reality-noaa-Karl.html
Peter Thorne (co-author of ERSSTv4 paper)
http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html
Gavin Schmidt on twitter correcting Rose's hilarious error with baselines.
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/828082851585388544
Phil PLait- SyFiWire
http://www.blastr.com/badastronomy/...ers-global-warming-pause-still-never-happened
Climate Feedback
http://climatefeedback.org/sensatio...ted-data-in-the-mail-on-sunday-are-overblown/
Bates interview with Associated Press:
"However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious." "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
Major global warming study again questioned, again defended
Links to other fact checking and debunking articles:
Article by Zeke Hausfather:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise
Popular Science
The House Science Committee claims scientists faked climate change data—here's what you should know | Science | Australian Popular Science
arstechnica
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/
The AGU
https://fromtheprow.agu.org/climate-science-data-management/
Victor Venema
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/david-roses-alternative-reality-noaa-Karl.html
Peter Thorne (co-author of ERSSTv4 paper)
http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html
Gavin Schmidt on twitter correcting Rose's hilarious error with baselines.
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/828082851585388544
Phil PLait- SyFiWire
http://www.blastr.com/badastronomy/...ers-global-warming-pause-still-never-happened
Climate Feedback
http://climatefeedback.org/sensatio...ted-data-in-the-mail-on-sunday-are-overblown/
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2015
- Messages
- 3,931
- Reaction score
- 1,260
- Location
- Oz
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2015
- Messages
- 3,931
- Reaction score
- 1,260
- Location
- Oz
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,809
- Reaction score
- 53,591
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No, they haven't. You were just fed this through the right-wing media filter.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Globala warming has been exposed as a hoax. It's time you accept that.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
You read it on the Daily Mail UK tabloid and heard it on Fox News so it must be true?
The government told you global warming is real so you take as gospel?
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2016
- Messages
- 12,049
- Reaction score
- 2,089
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You read it on the Daily Mail UK tabloid and heard it on Fox News so it must be true?
Unlike the liberal news media telling lies about trump based on "unnamed sources" this whistleblower has a face and a name
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You read it on the Daily Mail UK tabloid and heard it on Fox News so it must be true?
Please see my #6 and #7 links wherein Bates himself and Judith Curry discuss the issues.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Zeke has written a Factcheck on David Rose’s article. His arguments are that:
- NOAA’s sea surface temperatures have been independently verified (by his paper)
- NOAA’s land surface temperatures are similar to other data sets
- NOAA did make the data available at the time of publication of K15
Zeke Hausfather @hausfath @KK_Nidhogg @ClimateWeave @curryja and v5 is ~10% lower than v4. Both are way above v3, which is rather the point.
What Zeke is referring to is a new paper by Huang et al. that was submitted to J. Climate last November, describing ERSSTv5. That is, a new version that fixes a lot of the problems in ERSSTv4, including using ships to adjusting the buoys. I managed to download a copy of the new paper before it was taken off the internet. Zeke states that v4 trend is ~10% lower than v5 for the period 2000-2015. The exact number from information in the paper is 12.7% lower. The bottom line is that sea surface temperature data sets are a moving target. Yes, it is good to see the data sets being improved with time. The key issue that I have is reflected in this important paper A call for new approaches to quantifying biases in observations of sea surface temperature, which was discussed in this previous CE post.
Regarding #2. Roger Pielke Sr. makes the point that ALL of the other data sets use NOAA’s GHCN data set. Zeke makes the point that CRUT and Berkeley Earth do not use the homogenized GHCN data. However, as pointed out by John Bates, there are serious problems with the GHCN beyond the homogenization J
Regarding #3. John Bates’ blog post states: “NOTE: placing a non-machine readable copy of a dataset on an FTP site does not constitute archiving a dataset.
Response to critiques: Climate scientists versus climate data
Posted on February 6, 2017 | 454 comments
by Judith Curry
Not surprisingly, John Bates’ blog post and David Rose’s article in the Mail on Sunday have been receiving some substantial attention.
Continue reading →
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Victor Venema has a blog post David Rose’s alternative reality. The blog post starts out with a very unprofessional smear on the Daily Mail. He provides some plots, cites recent articles by Zeke and Peter Thorne. Nothing worth responding to, but I include it for completeness. The key issues of concern are in John Bates’ blog post (not what David Rose wrote).
The fundamental issue is this: data standards that are ‘ok’ for curiosity driven research are NOT ‘ok’ for high impact research of relevance to a regulatory environment.
[h=2]Response to critiques: Climate scientists versus climate data[/h][FONT="]Posted on February 6, 2017 | 454 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Not surprisingly, John Bates’ blog post and David Rose’s article in the Mail on Sunday have been receiving some substantial attention.
Continue reading →
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Peter Thorne is coauthor on both Huang et al. ERSST articles. From 2010 to 2013, he was employed by North Carolina State University in the NOAA Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites (CICS). He has never been directly employed by NOAA.
Thorne published a blog post On the Mail on Sunday article on Karl et al. Excerpts:
The ‘whistle blower’ is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work. NOAA’s process is very stove-piped such that beyond seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups. John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) misrepresentation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these misrepresentations are publically verifiable.
Apparently Peter Thorne does not know much about what goes on in NOAA NCDC/NCEI, particularly in recent years.
Response from John Bates:
Peter Thorne was hired as an employee of the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites NC in 2010 and resigned in may or June 2013. As such, Thorne was an employee of NC State University and not a government employee. He could not participate in government only meetings and certainly never attended any federal manager meetings where end-to-end processing was continuously discussed. As I discussed in the blog, my Division was responsible for running the ERSST code and the global temperature blend code from 2007-2011. We had begun more fully documenting that code including data flow diagrams and software engineering studies. In addition, my Division ingested and worked with the all the GHCN data and the ICOADS data. I developed extensive insight into how all the code ran, since I was responsible for it. Running of the ERSST and global temperature blend code was transferred to the other science Division in late 2010, prior to the arrival of Thorne at NCDC. Since I remained part of the management team the remainder of my time at NCDC/NCEI, I had deep insight into how it ran. . . .
Response to critiques: Climate scientists versus climate data
Posted on February 6, 2017 | 454 comments
by Judith Curry
Not surprisingly, John Bates’ blog post and David Rose’s article in the Mail on Sunday have been receiving some substantial attention.
Continue reading →
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent