Comments on: FOIed Emails on Hansen Y2K

By: Amazing IPCC: Finding Climate Change Before The Climate Changes « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:29:19 +0000

[...] news was linked later the same day by McIntyre himself. With 215 pages to go through, no wonder it took around a week for somebody to notice some peculiar [...]

By: Darrin Sideman

Darrin Sideman — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:13:40 +0000

I second that amazement and concur w.r.t. zero expectation of privacy when working for the gubberment. In my case, it’s DOE, and there is no expectation of privacy proffered, implicitly or explicitly. The mundane task of logging on to one’s government-owned computer is a constant reminder. That anyone working at NASA or any other government agency would believe otherwise is astonishing, to say nothing of the very clearly delineated rules against using agency resources or work time to conduct personal business of any sort.

By: Adam Soereg

Adam Soereg — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:58:22 +0000

Please let me ask this:

How could the folks at GISS explain the necessity of an adjustment like this? http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/olney_raw_anim.gif Changes in instrumentation and/or location? TOB adjustment? Neither is possible.

Maybe it was a correction for an ‘exceptional urban cooling’…

By: Richard Drake

Richard Drake — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:05:39 +0000

Well put, even if OT.

By: Richard Drake

Richard Drake — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:03:19 +0000

I think I understand what you mean and am sympathetic. But perhaps a better way to frame what the world desperately needs now is: we require top class standards in all areas. Given that software is being used throughout climate science – of course – all the good things that have been learned from the open source movement (including the test first and regression testing emphasis within agile methods) should be applied in that area. We should also of course do better, more honest science and not use computing as a fig leaf to try and cover up crud. We need it all.

By: Slabadang

Slabadang — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:05:43 +0000

Hi Experts!

I checked the official Arctic icehistory on Cryospfere on the year 1922
and compare it with an article from 1922 whre they sailed up to
81 lat 29 min on icefree arctic waters.So whats the conclusion?

Official icecover history.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

The article from 1922,
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Isnt this another proof of the systematic biases in historical

data of the “teams”?

By: Syl

Syl — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:07:04 +0000

Here`s a french language article stating that a new study shows that Alaskan glaciers are melting less than previously thought. This is actually from a usually pro-AGW newspaper.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/environnement/dossiers/changements-climatiques/201001/17/01-940047-les-glaciers-dalaska-fondent-moins-vite-que-prevu.php

By: dp

dp — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 07:17:24 +0000

The site is called Climate Audit because this is where you find process checks and errors in the math. And I’d presume approval as appropriate. I would guess a better place to focus on the science would be at NASA or RealClimate. But check back here often to see if you know all you can about the numbers you see there. In terms of climate websites I don’t know that this one has any peers in their area of study.

I have noticed, however, a number of posts like yours that seem to encourage changing the subject. Just an interesting data point.

By: James of Perth

James of Perth — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 05:11:07 +0000

I had to look it up too, but it is right on point. Susquehanna Hat Company. I will have to remember that!

By: Doug Badgero

Doug Badgero — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:23:50 +0000

Bender,

Isn’t it possible that inaccuracies are not random? In particular, that they may be caused by common mode time dependent effects and these effects predominately lead to low, or high, readings? Do we know if this is the case here? Finally, are the surface station thermometers on a calibration schedule or are they put in service and never touched again?