Comments on: The Wisdom of Solomon

By: Climate Bureaucracies Are The Choice Because They Perpetuate Problems

Climate Bureaucracies Are The Choice Because They Perpetuate Problems — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 04:54:27 +0000

[...] It is no surprise John Houghton was the first Co-Chairman of the IPCC from 1988 to 2002. This overlapped with his bureaucratic role as Director General of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) from 1983 to 1991. However, as Phil Jones notes in a May 5, 2005 email to Kevin Trenberth, “IPCC has a lot of clout – much more than GCOS (Global Climate Observing System) and/or WMO.” He makes this argument to suggest IPCC should push for more weather stations and better determination of global temperature. A good idea but doing so would undermine the certainty of IPCC claims. Steve McIntyre reports on this ironic event because it involved another influential bureaucrat, Susan Solomon, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) representative on the IPCC. Solomon, as Co-chair of Working Group I of the Science Report, illogically opposed Jones’ proposal. [...]

By: John Ritson

John Ritson — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:16:05 +0000

Yes Gerald, due to the current perfection of climate modelling computer generated infilling is actually preferred over observation as it eliminates weather noise. It also allows us to robustly validate the models to 9 decimal places.

By: E.M.Smith

E.M.Smith — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:51:06 +0000

Craig Loehle: This is hilarious because most of the “decline” in obs networks is simply that they don’t bother to collect the data from stations that still exist (yes, of course some stations shut down).

I find it hilarious when they claim that it is just an artifact of being a “historical creation”. This manages to turn it from a sin of commission into a sin of omission. Wow, what an improvement! “We didn’t drop them over time, we dropped them as we created the set so any bias was built in at the creation” seems a weak excuse…

Then we get the “Well, it’s because they don’t report electronically” where I’ve found at least 90% of truncated countries have real time live data on Wunderground.com and METARS on line. (See Ogimet)

Eventually the “excuse” ends up at: “It’s because they don’t issue CLIMAT reports”. Yet I’ve found a half dozen countries that DO and are still dropped ( Bolivia for at least a few years and Papua New Guinea come immediately to mind but there were others as well).

http://www.ogimet.com/cgi-bin/gclimat?lang=en&mode=1&state=Boli&ind=&ord=REV&verb=no&year=2010&mes=01&months=

So I’m still waiting for an “excuse” for truncating stations that holds up to scrutiny.

The fact that NCDC creates both the USHCN and the GHCN and the stations dropped from GHCN are most often still in USHCN means they would have to move that data all the way from their right pocket to their left pocket for the USA stations… That they can’t find more than 4 stations near the beach in California for the GHCN, yet have them in the USHCN, speaks volumes to me…

Finally, the world over GHCN is becoming the Airport Historical Climate Network. France. USA. Pacific Basin. All over 90% headed for 100% AIRPORTS. Hardly pristine rural climate sites. The complaint is often made “But how would they know what stations would warm to keep them in?” and the simple answer is “Airports grow and warm over time”. That is especially true over the baseline to present period as it incorporates the entire growth of the Jet Age.

So, IMHO, the reason they don’t want to address the question of “what do they measure and why” is for the simple reason that the question itself is too much of an embarrassment…

By: TAG

TAG — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:41:55 +0000

By: Paul Linsay

Paul Linsay — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:19:16 +0000

In thirty years as a working physicist I never heard anyone discuss “philosophy of science” whatever that is. All the effort was towards making sure that instruments were understood, correctly calibrated and operational, and that calculations were right. Contrary to Kuhn, people would change their minds on the spot if the data proved them wrong or a better idea was presented.

Observational science doesn’t work quite as well and is subject to take over by authorities in a way that experimental science isn’t because their views can’t be overturned by experiment. That’s what you see with AGW, and once they got mixed up with government via the IPCC, the interest in truth was completely subordinated to politics.

By: Top Posts — WordPress.com

Top Posts — WordPress.com — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:32:28 +0000

[...] The Wisdom of Solomon If IPCC authors think that it’s important to improve the measurement of some variable, should they say so in an [...] [...]

By: Dany

Dany — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:32:28 +0000

As Lindzen said in one of his papers, It is extremely difficult for the IPCC team to strongly suggest to the policy makers that much further basic research needs to be done, either on just temperature measurement, or on basic physical climate science ; indeed to use his words it would be an “embarrassment” for the policy makers to let it know that they devoted billions to a supposed climate crisis without the basic know how about climate ; this is why any research ‘shopping list’ should remain hidden deep in the report, which no one ever reads !

By: sky

sky — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:22:29 +0000

Among the records that are NOT updated by GHCN, I’ve observed a significant correlation with historical record trend. Care to guess the polarity of that correlation?

By: Craig Loehle

Craig Loehle — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:57:27 +0000

If I remember correctly, some of Cantor’s work was not only not accepted but was vilified. So, he knew whereof he spoke.

By: Gerald Machnee

Gerald Machnee — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:22:37 +0000

Will they consider infilling to be an adequate replacement for the gaps? They are doing it already.