Saturday, 28 February 2015

Homogenising the America's Cup (and temperature data) (BOM or BUM?)

One of the longest held sporting records was the run of the New York Yacht Club defending the America's Cup. 132 years of successful defence of the cup.
The trophy was originally awarded in 1851 by the Royal Yacht Squadron for a race around the Isle of Wight in England, which was won by the schooner America. (wiki)
In 1983, after a seven race series, the yacht Australia ll won 4:3 against the American Yacht Liberty. Australia went berserk. People who had never even been on board a yacht celebrated with old salts who were covered with barnacles. Australia's rascally Prime Minister Bob Hawke virtually declared the day a National Holiday when he said:
"Any boss who sacks anyone for not turning up today is a bum".[link]
My old neighbour, a  genius sail maker and boat designer, then known as Bob Miller, had designed a revolutionary winged keeled yacht. At the time Bob was getting information that people were preying on his name and confusing people seeking yacht and sail designs. Bob decided to change his name but decided to keep the same numerology: Bob (3) Miller (6).

 So he chose Ben (3) and looked around, saw a plastic "LEXAN", and so he would be the only one, introduced a new word Lexcen (6).

In a great article in the Australian, Graham Lloyd, referring to the "massaging" or "homogenising" of data from Climate bodies around the world, wrote:
"CRICKET legend Donald Bradman is a useful metaphor for the escalating global row over claims the world’s leading climate agencies have been messing with the weather. 
David Stockwell, Australian Research Council grant recipient and adjunct researcher at Central Queensland University, raised the Bradman analogy in his submission to a newly formed independent panel that will oversee the operation of the Bureau of Meteorology’s national temperature dataset.

Great article, and I can't write like either Graham or David do.


Now, we really do not get much information regarding the methods for temperature "homogenisation."

Back to Newport, Rhode Island.

Imagine, for a moment, if the New York Yacht Club had heard about "homogenising." We know that they used any technicality to put competitors at a disadvantage. AHHA! They would have said! Of Course! "Homogenising!"  So let's assume that they had heard of the "scientific" homogenising.

And let us  assume that the New York Yacht club decided to apply a factor of 25% to Australia's gains from the winged keel.

SO, the NYYC's "homogenising" or "massaging" would be:
Australia: 4 races -25% = 3
America:  3 races +25% =3.75.......

WOW! America wins another America's Cup! And believe me, if the NYYC had "known" of the anti-science "data massaging," there  would have not been any "hiatus" to their long run of wins.

More of Graham (and David Stockwell)'s work: (link)
Stockwell was highlighting public concerns at the BoM’s use of homogenisation techniques to adjust historical temperature records to remove anomalies and produce a national dataset called ACORN-SAT (Australian Climate Observations Reference Network — Surface Air Temperature). The panel, or technical advisory forum, which will hold its first discussions with BoM staff on Monday, was formed in December after a series of questions were raised publicly about the treatment of historic temperature records that has resulted in temperature trends at some Australian sites being changed from long-term cooling to warming.
Liberal senator Simon Birmingham, former parliamentary secretary to Environment Minister Greg Hunt, instructed BoM to fast-track the appointment of the panel, which was recommended in 2011 in a peer review of ACORN-SAT’s establishment. The make-up of the panel was announced by Birmingham’s replacement as parliamentary secretary, Bob Baldwin, in January.
In the meantime, controversy about homogenisation of climate records has exploded into a global concern after similar trend changes to those raised in Australia were identified in Paraguay and in the Arctic. Accusations of “fraud” and “criminality” have been made against some of the world’s leading weather agencies. There is now the prospect of a US Senate inquiry. 
Respected US climate scientist Judith Curry has facilitated a wideranging debate on the issue, saying more research was needed, but that it is probably not the “smoking gun” for climate science, as some had claimed.
There is a long history regarding complaints about how climate data has been handled by authorities and how poorly those making complaints have been treated.
The general trend is made clear in a 2007 email exchange, now known as Climategate, between a senior BoM official and scientists at East Anglia University in Britain. BoM’s David Jones said Australian sceptics could be easily dissuaded if deluged with data. 
“Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent,” Jones wrote. “It is also easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them)”, he said. 
Even better, noted East Anglia University’s Phil Jones, was to give troublemakers a big package of data with key information missing, making it impossible to decipher. 
But more than seven years on, as the world’s weather bureaus report more and more broken temperature records and further examples emerge of incongruous adjustments, the pressure is building for a transparent process to finally untangle the numbers 
In Australia, ACORN-SAT was created in 2009 to replace BoM’s so-called high-quality dataset after questions were raised about the quality and accuracy of that network. 
ACORN-SAT, which the Senate was told this week is managed by a two-person team in BoM, uses information from a select range of weather stations and computer modelling to compile its national temperature record. The data is also used to help create the global temperature record. 
The panel to oversee ACORN-SAT will be headed by CSIRO scientist Ron Sandland and includes a wide range of experts in statistics and mathematics. 
Sandland tells Inquirer he will hold a teleconference with BoM on Monday to decide how the process would be run. 
The panel was first recommended by a peer review in September 2011 headed by Ken Matthews. The peer review gave ACORN-SAT a glowing report, describing it as conforming to world’s best practice. But it also called for greater transparency, better communication and independent oversight. 
Despite criticisms about transparency and the results of homogenisation at some sites by members of the public, BoM was slow to act on the peer review recommendation to establish a technical advisory forum.
BoM is one of Australia’s most widely trusted organisations. Millions of people use its online weather services and a Senate estimates hearing was told this week that more than 30,000 people followed BoM’s Twitter feed in the wake of cyclones Marcia and Lam, which landed simultaneously in Queensland and the Northern Territory this week.
However, as one of the government’s lead agencies on climate change, BoM has come under greater scrutiny. A vocal chorus has been claiming that there is a pattern of historic temperatures being reduced to make the warming trend of the late 21st century look more acute.
The questioners were quickly labelled “amateurs” by atmospheric scientist David Karoly, from the University of Melbourne, as he and other climate science academics rushed to support BoM’s work.
But the issue has exploded internationally following a declaration by US agencies NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that 2014 was the hottest year on record. As in Australia, regions were found where warming temperature trends had been created or increased through a process of homogenising records with neighbouring areas, some in other countries hundreds of kilometres away.
Published examples include Paraguay in South America and the Arctic, where a warm period in the 1930s and a well-documented period of intense cold around 1970 were erased from the record by homogenisation to give a steady rising temperature trend.
“How can we believe in ‘global warming’ when the temperature records providing the ‘evidence’ for that warming cannot be trusted?” asked British contrarian and climate change sceptic James Dellingpole.
“I’m not saying there has been no 20th-century global warming, I think there probably has been,” he said. “But I don’t honestly know. The worrying part … is that neither — it would appear — do the scientists.”
The website of Britain’s The Sunday Telegraph registered more than 30,000 comments under an article by columnist Christopher Booker saying the fiddling of temperature data has been “the biggest science scandal ever”. “What is now needed is a meticulous analysis of all the data, to establish just how far these adjustments have distorted the picture the world has been given,” Booker wrote.
The integrity of global temperature records after homogenisation is fiercely defended by global climate agencies, despite the fact that satellite measurements available from 1979 show a slightly different warming trend to surface-based records.
Australia’s BoM has issued two statements ahead of the Sandland review panel. In one it says temperature records are influenced by a range of factors such as changes to site surrounds, measurement methods and the relocation of ­stations.
“Such changes introduce biases into the climate record that need to be adjusted for, prior to analysis,’’ BoM says.
“Adjusting for these biases, a process known as homogenisation is carried out by meteorological authorities around the world as best practice, to ensure that climate data is consistent through time.”
BoM’s American counterpart, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Centre, says for global temperatures it is important to keep in mind that the largest adjustment in the global surface temperature record occurs over the oceans.
“All NOAA methodologies go through the peer-review process standard in scientific inquiry,” it says. Despite this, there remains enormous and heated debate about the issue.
Climate scientist Curry has opened an online debate that includes key scientists from the independent organisation Berkeley Earth, which compiles its own global temperature record, the results of which accord with those of other international agencies.
The Berkeley scientists conclude that Dellingpole and Booker’s claims of the “biggest fraud” of all time and a “criminal action” by climate scientists amount to nothing.
“Globally, the effect of adjustments is minor because on average the biases that require adjustments mostly cancel each other out,” they say.
But their web post generated heated discussion covering both the science of homogenisation and the standing of science.
European climate change economist Richard Tol, responding to Curry’s post, says the more important question raised by the debate over temperatures is perhaps why the public has lost so much trust in climate science that it prefers to believe columnists such as Booker over climate scientists at Berkeley. A Telegraph poll suggested that 90 per cent of 110,000 readers had sided with Booker.
“I would hypothesise that the constant stream of climate nonsense — we’re all gonna die, last chance to save the planet, climate change is coming to blow over your house and eat your dog — has made people rather suspicious of anything climate ‘scientists’ say,” according to Tol.
“If my hypothesis is correct, instead of arguing with Booker about the details of homogenisation, you should call out the alarmists.”
Curry tells Inquirer her main conclusions from the heated exchange in response to the Berkeley post are that “the stated uncertainties in global average temperatures are too small”.
“More research needs to be done to understand the impacts of the adjustments and to make individual locations more consistent with the historical record,” she says.
She says much more data work is needed to clarify the temperatures in the Arctic, which is a big source of difference among the different datasets in the northern hemisphere.
“I suspect that all this won’t change the qualitative result from the dataset, that is that the Earth is warming,” Curry says.
The way in which the Australian review of the BoM ACORN-SAT data is conducted could go a long way towards answering some of the questions being asked worldwide.
A common criticism of climate authorities such as BoM is that ­justifications for temperature smoothing may sound reasonable in the broad, but are often poorly explained in the detail of individual adjustments.
It is the task of the high-powered review panel to satisfy itself that the integrity given to BoM’s dataset by the initial peer review has been maintained.
Sitting on the panel with Sandland will be:
• Bob Vincent, emeritus professor in the school of chemistry and physics at the University of Adelaide.
• Phillip Gould, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
• John Henstridge, who founded Data Analysis Australia, now the largest private statistical organisation in Australia,
• Susan Linacre, a former president of the International Association of Survey Statisticians.
• Michael Martin, professor of statistics in the research school of finance, actuarial studies and applied statistics at Australian National University.
• Patty Solomon, professor of statistical bioinformatics at the University of Adelaide.
• Terry Speed, a former president of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics.
Declining an invitation for David Jones, BoM’s manager of climate change and prediction, to write for Inquirer, a BoM spokeswoman says establishment of the technical advisory forum will provide “an independent framework for quality assurance tests and analysis of the bureau’s climate dataset, and it would not be appropriate to pre-empt this process.”
But critics of BoM are already lining up to have their questions answered.
Research academic Jennifer Marohasy has accused BoM of using “creative accounting practices” in both the homogenisation of data to remodel individual series as well as the choice of stations and time periods when the individual series are combined to calculate a national average for each year.
Marohasy says BoM’s methodologies have turned a cycle of warming and cooling over the past century into one of continuous warming.
In a submission to the review group, Marohasy makes three recommendations to render the overall official national temperature trend for Australia “more consistent with history, and reasonable accounting practices”.
The first is to use the same locations when calculating average mean temperatures for different years.
Marohasy’s research shows that while the national average temperature is calculated from a set of just 104 weather stations, the same 104 stations are not used every year.
“In particular, hotter places are added later in the time series, which currently begins in 1910”, she says.
“For example, Wilcannia is a very hot town in western NSW.
“There is a long continuous maximum temperature record for Wilcannia that extends back to 1881, but the bureau only adds Wilcannia into the mix from 1957.
“Obviously, if the national average temperature is calculated from a mix of hotter locations in the 1990s than, say, in the 1920s, then it will appear that Australia was hotter in the 1990s, even if the temperatures at individual weather recording stations were the same during these two periods,” Marohasy says.
Her second recommendation is to start the official record from 1880, not 1910, thus including the hot years of the Federation drought in the official record.
Lastly, Marohasy says adjustments should not be made to temperature series unless an irregularity exists in the original series that was caused by a known, documented change in the equipment at that weather recording station and/or a known change in the siting of the equipment.
Her view is supported by retired certified practising accountant Merrick Thomson, who has told the panel there is a lack of transparency associated with the change in the mix of weather stations used to calculate the national average.
Thomson says when BoM transitioned to the new ACORN-SAT system in 2012 it removed 57 stations from its calculations, replacing them with 36 on average hotter stations.
“I calculate that this had the effect of increasing the recorded Australian average temperature by 0.42C, independently of any actual real change in temperature,” Thompson says.
“Of the 57 stations removed from the calculation of the national average temperature, only three have actually closed as weather stations,” he adds.
Thomson asks the panel: “Why was the mix of stations changed with the transition to ACORN-SAT, and why was this not explained and declared, particularly given that it has resulted in a large increase in the 2013 annual temperature for Australia, I calculate 0.56 degree Celsius?”
He asks what criteria were used to determine whether a station becomes part of the national network.
Stockwell says although many had rushed to defend the BoM, saying the adjustments “don’t matter” as they do not change the global temperature graphs appreciably, they clearly do matter to a lot of people.
In a submission to the panel, Stockwell highlights what he considered unsound practices by BoM in handling the national data.
“Every portrayal of historical data should be historically accurate,” he says, “else it becomes revisionism and strays out of the domain of science and into the domain of ideology and politics.”
Self-declared “citizen scientist” Ken Stewart has been more pointed. “The apparent lack of quality assurance means ACORN-SAT is not fit for the purpose of serious climate analysis including the calculation of annual temperature trends, identifying hottest or coldest days on record, analysing the intensity, duration and frequency of heatwaves, matching rainfall with temperature, calculating monthly means or medians, and calculating diurnal temperature range,” he says.
“In conclusion, ACORN-SAT is not reliable and should be scrapped.
“ACORN-SAT shows adjustments that distort the temperature record and do not follow the stated procedures in the bureau’s own technical papers, generating warming biases at a large number of sites, thus greatly increasing the network wide trends,” Stewart says in his submission.
“Furthermore, the bureau does not take account of uncertainty, and the data are generally riddled with errors indicating poor quality assurance.
“Finally, its authors have not followed up on most undertakings made more than three years ago to permit replication and improve transparency.
The obvious and widespread depth of feeling about BoM’s ­treatment of historical records ­underscores the wisdom of recommendations made by the 2011 ACORN-SAT peer review.
The review panel encouraged BoM to improve the public transparency of ACORN-SAT arrangements.
“This will not only build public confidence in the dataset but should assist the bureau in its continuous improvement efforts and its responsiveness to data users,” the peer review panel said.
“The panel also encourages the bureau to more systematically document the process used, and to be used, in the development and operations of ACORN-SAT.
“Some aspects of current arrangements for measurement, curation and analysis are non-transparent even internally, and are therefore subject to significant ‘key persons risk’, as well as inconsistency over time.”
Current criticism of BoM over the temperature series is obviously unfamiliar territory for what remains one of Australia’s most highly regarded public institutions.
This criticism is by no means an existential threat to BoM but a rigorous and transparent review of ACORN-SAT data, methodology and communication is clearly needed, and long overdue.

Thursday, 26 February 2015

Climate Revolt Spreads.

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” prepared for The Carbon Sense Coalition by Viv Forbes and volunteer helpers. 


Strange Allies in the War on Carbon Fuels.

What great cause could unite Prince Charles, President Obama, the Pope, the Arab Oil sheiks, the United Nations, the European Union, the Russians, the Chinese, Pacific Island Nations, most undeveloped countries, the glitterati of Hollywood, left-wing politicians, unrepentant reds, government media, the climate research industry, Big Oil, Big Gas and the Green Blob. It must be something posing a clear and urgent danger to all humanity?

No, the crusade that unites them all is the War on Carbon Fuels, focussed mainly on that most vilified target, coal.

The biggest group, and the generals in this war on carbon, have no real interest in the facts or science of global climate change – they see climate alarmism as a great opportunity to achieve their goal of creating an unelected global government. They have even laid out their plans in a document called Agenda 21.

This group naturally includes the United Nations and all of its subsidiaries, the EU, and left wing politicians and media everywhere. At a news conference in Brussels recently, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but “to change the economic development model” i.e. destroy what is left of free enterprise and private property. See:

The next big group of carbon warriors is the anti-western failed states who see this as their big chance to enrich and entrench their ruling classes with “climate reparations”.

Then there are the enviro-entrepreneurs forever seeking new crusades to energise their supporters and get the donations rolling in – Greenpeace, WWF, Get Up etc...

In the dark corner are the anti-human Malthusians and the Deep Greens who want to get rid of most of us other people – personified by the rich and powerful such as Prince Charles and Maurice Strong. They know that carbon fuels support millions of people by cultivating, harvesting, transporting, processing and storing most of the food that supports the cities of the world. Killing the use of carbon fuels will certainly achieve their goal of reduced world population. See:

Naturally, government media usually supports a bigger role for government, and all media likes a scare story. Truth or logic does not matter greatly for most of them – just so long as they can coax a looming disaster story from someone. The daily diet of natural calamities soon heightens climate anxiety, which then motivates politicians to be seen to be “doing something”.

And then there are those who see that fighting carbon fuels also suits their pockets. As someone said “When placing a bet, the best horse to back is the one called ‘Self-interest’ – at least you know he is trying”.

For example, Shell, with its massive gas interests, was caught campaigning against coal fired power, the main competitor of gas in electricity generation. See:

Arab Oil interests were caught funding a film attacking their competitors – shale oil fracking in America. See:

And a Russian oil company was exposed funding US anti-carbon green groups. See:

The Chinese of course are great supporters of green energy as long as it is installed elsewhere - eg they supply the machines and solar panels and then welcome the factories forced from the host country by soaring electricity prices.

Gas, nuclear and hydro power will be the greatest long term beneficiaries of the war on coal. Initially they will be needed to provide base load and back up for intermittent green power like wind and solar. Then as green subsidies are withdrawn to appease angry tax payers, the green play-toys will fail and grown-up generators will step easily into full time electricity production.

Finally, the government bureaucracy and the research grants industry justify their existence by “solving community crises”. They love “The Climate Crisis” because it can be blamed for any weather event anytime, anywhere. It is unlikely to be solved, no matter how many dollars are thrown at it - a problem that does not exist can never be “solved”. And the sinister “Greenhouse Effect”, like any good ghost, is invisible, mysterious in operation, debatable, and allows anyone to produce their own scare story.

Opposing this coalition of climate alarmists and opportunists is a rag-tag army of stressed tax payers and electricity consumers and a scattering of sceptical scientists and media researchers.

But the imposing alarmist empire has a hollow heart - the globe has refused to warm, the alarmist “science” is crumbling, their climate models are discredited, some researchers have been caught manipulating records and results, and the costs of green electricity are becoming obvious and onerous. The public is growing restive, governments can no longer afford the climate industry cuckoo in the public nest and the ranks of sceptics grow. Groups like UKIP in UK and the Tea Party in US have abandoned the war on carbon.

The climate revolt is spreading.

Viv Forbes, 18/2/15
Disclosure: Viv Forbes is a shareholder and non-executive director of a small Australian coal exploration company. His views are not shared or supported by most Big Coal CEO’s.

To see or join a discussion on the above essay see: 

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'


Two Climate Scientists have (re) exposed the  Myth of the 97% - false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming. (link)

Joe Bast and Roy Spencer wrote that John Kerry said: "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists tell us this is urgent."

Anyone who quotes this "97%" idiocy opens themselves up to personal ridicule

The papers that have been rebutted include:

an essay by Naomi Oreskes

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded
and also include "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" 
The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions;
In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change:
Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.
And then we come to the cartoonist.....John Cook:
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Perhaps you read about all this deception by the Alarmists in the Main Stream Media?

Or perhaps, the Unbiased Australian Broadcasting Commission?

There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

National Geographic doesn't understand the Scientific Method

An Article in the March Issue of the National Geographic with the words by Joel Achenbach under the heading

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

Source: Joanne Nova
After some anecdotes about flouridisation, Mr Achenbach proceeds:
We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change—faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. 
Some more stuff re GMOs and such and then
In principle that’s what science is for. “Science is not a body of facts,” says geophysicist Marcia McNutt, who once headed the U.S. Geological Survey and is now editor of Science, the prestigious journal. “Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.” But that method doesn’t come naturally to most of us. 
To this simple mind, to include Science and belief in the same sentence is....well....anti-science. So, what is the scientific method?

The Oxford Dictionary defines the scientific method as:
method of procedure that has characterised natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observationmeasurement, and experiment, and the formulation,testing, and modification of hypotheses: 
criticism is the backbone of the scientific method
Mr Achenbach writes:
Most of us do that by relying on personal experience and anecdotes, on stories rather than statistics.
Then later adds:
Even for scientists, the scientific method is a hard discipline. Like the rest of us, they’re vulnerable to what they call confirmation bias—the tendency to look for and see only evidence that confirms what they already believe. 
Tim Ball, in his book "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science" details the beginnings of the "Corruption:"
Maurice Strong and speculated in his opening speech to Rio Earth Summit in 1990:
What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?... In order to save the planet the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility bring this about?
Tim Ball then refers to the the Club of Rome's report The First Global Revolution:
In searching for a common in enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. 
and later: (link)
"....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." (bold added)
After formalising the IPCC, Strong had two objectives:
Create the science needed to "prove" human CO2 was the problem and then convince the public if they didn't act, the result would be catastrophic. 
So here we have the reverse of the scientific method.  They created an answer and then went looking for proof. Thousands of scientists have been funded to try to prove the AGW hypothesis (which, by the way has been falsified multiple times)

Joanne Nova wrote: (Link)
Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between carbon missions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios. (What's amazing is that they haven't found empirical evidence.) (bold added)
So, seeing the reversal of the scientific method by the IPCC brings us to another of Mr Achenbach's lines:
Sometimes scientists fall short of the ideals of the scientific method. 
Consider, therefore, the result he arrives at:
Last fall the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which consists of hundreds of scientists operating under the auspices of the United Nations, released its fifth report in the past 25 years. This one repeated louder and clearer than ever the consensus of the world’s scientists.
Did Mr Achenbach read all the scientific reports or did he just read the Summary for Policy Makers, a document which is not generally supported by the scientific data but one that is slowly reached - line by line - in a meeting of government representatives?

THIS is revealed by the IPCC on various sites eg (LINK)
The quintessence of this work, the Summary for Policymakers, has been approved line by line by member governments at the 12th Session of IPCC WG III in Berlin, Germany (7-11 April 2014).
Donna Laframboise says, of this process: (link)
Scientific truth isn’t negotiated in the dead of night behind closed doors.  
At the meeting, one sentence after another has been projected onto large screens. Diplomats, bureaucrats, and politicians from dozens of UN nations have haggled, horse traded, and negotiated. Eventually, phrasing that everyone can live with has been agreed upon. Then they’ve moved on to the next sentence. 
The meeting is closed to the public. It is closed to the media. No minutes are kept. 
Did Mr Achenbach know of this process when he wrote:
The idea that hundreds of scientists from all over the world would collaborate on such a vast hoax is laughable—scientists love to debunk one another. It’s very clear, however, that organizations funded in part by the fossil fuel industry have deliberately tried to undermine the public’s understanding of the scientific consensus by promoting a few skeptics. (bold added)
Hundreds of scientists? Or Hundreds of representatives of governments?

Wait up! Who is funded by the fossil fuel industry? The alarmists receive Big Oil funding -eg (link)
The think tank formerly known as the Pew Center on Global Climate Change will remain independent despite drawing most of its funding from energy companies, the center’s president said today. (bold added)
And another example from the many - Woods Hole: (link)
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is playing a leading role in raising the alarm.... 
In the coming days, according to officials at Woods Hole, the institution is set to sign agreements with Saudi Aramco, the primary oil company owned by the Saudi government, to study the potential for “hydrocarbons” in the Red Sea. It is also preparing to ink a deal for a “simulation study” on behalf of the Italian oil company Eni, while it has half a dozen other proposals in the works with unnamed corporations, the officials said. (bold added)

Now, as this humble blogger has previously stated: We have not ,nor have we ever, accepted funding from Big Oil. Mind you, if it's OK for them, it's OK for us.....go ahead, make my day....The bank account details are at the top of the page.

Bach to Mr Affenbach:
The news media give abundant attention to such mavericks, naysayers, professional controversialists, and table thumpers. The media would also have you believe that science is full of shocking discoveries made by lone geniuses. Not so. The (boring) truth is that it usually advances incrementally, through the steady accretion of data and insights gathered by many people over many years. So it has been with the consensus on climate change. That’s not about to go poof with the next thermometer reading.
The news media does give abundant attention to "naysayers, professional controversialists, and table thumpers." Yep! The "naysayers, professional controversialists, and table thumpers" of the Alarmist networks. However most news media have almost closed their pages to the writings of the sceptics side of the debate. Some have actually declared that their pages are closed to alternative (or as they offendingly say "denier) science.

The NY Times has even gone in for character assassination of a well respected scientist who recently was the co-author of a paper showing the errors of the IPCC's GCMs. (Link - Jo Nova)

In the same post, Joanne wrote:
Government-funded science is often used to increase government revenue. That conflict of interest is almost never disclosed.
Even more scary, is the wisdom shown by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address in January 1961:

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded. 
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. (bold added)

As I said above, to include Science and belief in the same sentence is....well....anti-science, and now Mr Achebach writes: "consensus on climate change." Scientific Consensus is an oxymoron.

Mr Achenbach babble continues and he reaches a question: "How to penetrate the bubble? How to convert climate skeptics?"
He says: "Throwing more facts at them doesn’t help." What? Facts like:

  • there is no data showing CO2 is causing dangerous climate change;
  • Temperature rises before atmospheric CO2;
  • There has been no warming for more than 18 years;
Affenbach again:
In the climate debate the consequences of doubt are likely global and enduring. In the U.S., climate change skeptics have achieved their fundamental goal of halting legislative action to combat global warming.
Gee, is that right? They have halted the legislation  and the global warming has also halted?

Looks like a win-win.

Another of Mr Achenbach's lines:
 In science it’s not a sin to change your mind when the evidence demands it. 
Dr David Evans, a true believer in the climate hoax  until he looked at the Ice Core data and realised that carbon dioxide was innocent, wrote something similar: (link-edited extract)
 I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. 
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. 
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. 
As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

And yet, Alarmists keep putting out anti-science articles and papers. Alarmist journalists keep writing pieces like Mr Achenbach's piece. Heading for the conference in Paris in December, the Alarm keeps getting shriller and more illogical.

It's no wonder, due to the damage made to science by these alarmists, due to the anti-science pushed by the IPCC, people are starting to doubt science.

Tuesday, 24 February 2015

Junk maps from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

A new video showing how the climate data maps you see from the BoM website are riddled with silly errors. All you need is Primary school maths to see and understand the major QA fail. This failure could jeopardise strategic planning for businesses and farmers and graziers.

Monday, 23 February 2015

IPCC Chief Pachauri in Sex Scandal

Pachauri launching his soft porn novel
“She removed her gown, slipped off her nightie and slid under the quilt on his bed… 
Sanjay put his arms around her and kissed her, first with quick caresses and then the 
kisses becoming longer and more passionate.
“May slipped his clothes off one by one, removing her lips from his for no more than a second or two.
Remember a few years back, Al Gore had an Inconvenient Time when he was investigated for sex offences. (link)
According to a 73-page "Confidential Special Report" made public by authorities Wednesday, the "licensed massage therapist" stated she was summoned to a suite at the upscale Lucia Hotel at the request of a guest, where "during the course of this massage session Al Gore did sexually assault me in his room."
However, for some mysterious reason, she later wouldn't testify and the Portland Police withdrew the charges.
Now sex charges have arisen regarding UN Climate Chief Rajendra Pachauri :

U.N. climate panel chief Pachauri accused of sexual harassment

NEW DELHI (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Police are investigating claims that the one of world's top climate change officials, Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sexually harassed a 29-year-old woman, police and lawyers said on Friday. 
The woman, who is a researcher at Pachauri's Delhi-based The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), claims the 74-year-old Indian scientist began harassing her soon after she joined the non-profit think-tank in September 2013. 

RK Pachauri not to attend IPCC plenary meet in Nairobi

NEW DELHI: That the image of the country will be "sullied" on an international forum if it is represented by a man who stands booked on charges of sexual harassment and stalking, leading female activists on Saturday demanded RK Pachauri's immediate resignation. 

More Women Accuse Pachauri

Meanwhile, a story in the Calcutta-based Telegraph suggests that Pachauri has long treated female staff members “like little girls” by lifting them off the ground as one might do with toddlers in North America. Based on the above two women’s accounts, plus “interviews with two long-term [TERI] employees,” the article implies that physical contact and sexual innuendo have long been part of Pachauri’s modus operandi. 
Vrinda Grover, a New Delhi-based lawyer who specializes in women’s issues, toldThe Telegraph that others have contacted her with similar tales: “I know of at least three such cases, and the pattern is the same in every case.”
Donna Laframboise writes: (link)
Sanjeev Sabhlok, a Melbourne-based economist and Indian political activist, advised me by e-mail yesterday that while the lives of educated Indian women have improved dramatically in recent years: 
it remains a brave decision for the [29-year-old complainant] to go public and I commend her commitment to hold people in high places to account. It is time for Indian women to stand up for themselves and fight the (chronic) sexual harassment they face at work.
He says the kind of behaviour of which Pachauri stands accused is not unusual amongst high-ranking Indian males, and that:
It is time for change in India. Women’s freedom, dignity and rights matter. They are individuals and can’t any longer be treated as chattel by men in powerful places. I hope other Indian women will come out in support for this women [sic] – who has dared to take on one of India’s most powerful men. 
Similar remarks appear on Sabhlok’s blog here.

Sunday, 22 February 2015

Massaging Cyclone Marcia Data. Category 5? or only 3?

Dr Jennifer Marohasy 

I was very concerned when I heard late last Thursday that a category 5 cyclone was heading straight for Yeppoon in central Queensland.  I have a house there, on a ridge just two streets from Lammermoor Beach.   Category 5 cyclones have wind speeds in excess of 200 km/h, with strongest gusts exceeding 279 km/h.  They typically leave a trail of absolute destruction.
As it turned out, tropical cyclone Marcia made landfall further north, just after passing over Middle Percy Island.  My house is still standing, the bananas in the front yard now all leaning badly. 

There is a weather station on Middle Percy, and it recorded a top wind speed of 156 km/h, the strongest gust was 208 km/h, and the lowest central pressure was 972 hPa. This raw observational data is available at the Bureau’s website and indicates a category 3 cyclone.  

The US Navy’s Joint Typhoon Warning Centre was tracking the cyclone and, like me, noted the surface observations from Middle Percy Island.  The US Navy had been estimating wind speeds based on the Dvorak modelling method.  This method is considered much less reliable than aircraft reconnaissance, with surface observations (from anemometers and barometers) historically the ultimate measure of a tropical cyclone’s wind speed and central pressure.    For example, in the case of Cyclone Yasi, a barograph at Tully sugar mill recorded a minimum central pressure of just 929 hPa, and this is the value in the final report from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology confirming that Yasi was a category 5 system.

In the case of Marcia, the US Navy acknowledged that their Dvorak estimates were higher than the surface observations from Middle Percy Island.  In particular their real time “warning”, no longer available on the internet, noted an “intensity of 110 knots” based on the anemometer on Middle Percy.  This corresponds with the highest wind gust recorded on Middle Percy Island as Marcia passed over.  The maximum sustained wind speed, however, never exceeded 156 km/h, and the central pressure was never less than 972 hPa.  This makes Marcia a category 3 based on the Australian system, and only a category 2 based on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale.

Yet the bureau continued to report the cyclone, not as it was, based on the surface observations, but as they had forecast it in a media release the previous day: “Tropical Cyclone Marcia to reach Category 5 system at landfall”.
The cyclone did pass just to the west of Yeppoon, then directly over the city of Rockhampton. 

The Bureau issued its first technical bulletin for Marcia, at 4pm Friday stating that, “surface observations have not captured the highest winds,” and acknowledges that the minimum pressure recorded since landfall was 975 hPa inside the eye wall at 1.30 pm at Rockhampton.  This central pressure only qualifies Marcia as a category 2.   Maximum wind gusts never exceeded 113 km/h for Rockhampton suggesting a category 1.  

Today, Sunday, Daniel Smith from James Cook University has completed the official “Preliminary Damage Assessment Report for Tropical Cyclone Marcia”.   This report documented the cyclone as crossing the coast at 8am as a category 5, and sustaining wind speeds of more than 200 km/h.   I immediately emailed asking the basis for this assessment.  Dr Smith indicated by return email that it is based on the Bureau’s listing of Marcia as a category 5 at the time it made landfall, noting that the Bureau has “its own methodology of computing cyclone wind speeds.”  

But what exactly is this methodology?  

Precedence would suggest the methodology should ultimately be based on surface observations, in which case Tropical Cyclone Marcia was most likely a category 3 at landfall, and unambiguously a weak category 2 system when it passed over Rockhampton.   But this is not what the Bureau has been reporting in its tracking maps, or technical bulletin.

When it comes to temperatures based on surface observations, I know from experience that those recorded by the Bureau at any particular place and time are no-longer the official temperatures.  That the bureau subjects observed temperatures to a process of homogenization before using these adjusted temperatures to calculate warming trends and other important statistics.   Now it seems cyclones are also being homogenized; with output from virtual models replacing observational data.

The trouble with this approach of course, is that one day a real category 5 cyclone will hit Yeppoon, but how well prepared will the community be if they remember Marcia as a category 5, when in fact it was only a 2.  There is an enormous difference between a real category 5 with maximum wind gusts approaching 300 km/h, and the 150 km/h gusts that battered Yeppoon on Friday.  

Of course there is one big advantage for the Bureau in homogenizing Marcia, finally, as anticipated by those ever animated by the idea of catastrophic global warming, a monster category five cyclone has roared ashore for what would otherwise have been a disappointingly quiet cyclone season.  

Thanks for caring.

Dr Jennifer Marohasy 
Researcher and Writer

Copyright © 2015 Jennifer Marohasy, All rights reserved. 

 (Editor: Bold added)


Jennifer talks to Mornings with Steve Austin on ABC (link)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Dr Marohasy has a Bachelor of Science and a PhD from the University of Queensland, worked for twelve years as a scientist for the Queensland government, then six years as environmental manager for the Queensland sugar industry, and then six years as a researcher at the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs.  She is currently an adjunct Research Fellow at Central Queensland University funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation.

Jennifer's own site: