Friday, August 03, 2012

Tomato, Tomahto

The semantic part about what NOAA does is that  the “adjustments” are really inter-calibrations. Ask John Christy about the problems you can get into without inter-calibrations when you have different instruments or measurement devices that drift.

Updated for the weekend



22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Huh?

Anonymous said...

It's about Christy's congressional testimony, in which he invokes the idea that NOAA adjustments create an artificial warming trend in the data.
Instead what they do is account for known problems that make the raw data untrustworthy. Christy should be familiar with this problem because it bit him and Spencer on the ass with their UAH data.

-WheelsOC

Sou said...

Headline should read:

Tomeighto, Tomato :D

Everett F Sargent said...

But is UAH measuring the heat content (in joules) with their MSU measurements?

Because Christy says that joules is where it's at in his Senate testamony afterall.

Paging RP, Sr.

Even though we may never have those types of measurements ever, given the depths of the oceans, the need to measure conductivity, temperature, depth, sampling rates, complete temporal and spatial coverage AND 3D velocities (to determine mixing rates and up/downwelling) throughout said depths, to accuracies such that the integrated OHC is known with error bars an order of magnitude or two, less than the magnitude of the rate of change in said OHC measurements?

And that it will take an additional several decades to see potential significance in said OHC rate estimates. Or on a time span similar to our current best efforts using the century long (plus some) surface air temperature records.

Or do we just look to the Wicked Witch of the East, who does say she is melting, and by all other accounts she does indeed seem to be melting?

Something about a baby and its bath water comes to mind. Just sayin'

RB said...

What I want to know is the current status of the "game-changer". Is it ON or OFF? It was ON first, then it went OFF, then started flickering ON again, I'm losing track ..

David B. Benson said...

RB --- Its an energy imbalance. Sorta like the ones India just experienced.

Anonymous said...

More ROTFLMAO material from WUWT:
(linky http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/03/an-uncorrected-assumption-in-bests-station-quality-paper/#comment-1050944)


It might be interesting to take pre and post homogenized data and see how that displays and analyzes.

Anonymous said...

RB

Who's on first

Watts on second

Idonknow's on third

Hope that helps.

~@:>

Anonymous said...

Extra Extra, it appears McIntyre may have breached new information from an IPCC AR5 copy of Chapter 5 that had yet to be leaked (only a charts copy of AR5 Ch5 was released at Dave Appells). Unless it is available somewhere else on the internet.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, linky
http://climateaudit.org/2012/08/01/hide-the-megadroughts/#comment-345976

Anonymous said...

I hear ya Sou!

Although, for best clarity, I prefer "tomeighto, tomarto" - I've heard some peculiar versions of the "ah" vowel...


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

Anonymous said...

Oo, and Appell's and McIntyre's behaviour leaves more than a little to be desired.


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

I find Stevie's strange idea that anything in the ZOD is gospel rather strange. My understanding is that the ZOD's main purpose is to throw out issues for discussion. This can be seen in the dreaded "climategate" emails which have a huge amount of such discussions.

Just because something in the ZOD didn't make it through, what do they call that?, oh yeah, "peer review" doesn't mean a damn thing except that the original author threw something out for discussion.

Look for another round of FOIA requests.

Sou said...

More interesting than uninformed speculation about what is in or out of a draft that is about to be superseded by the second order draft (due 5 October), is McIntyre saying he did not sign a non-disclosure agreement.

I don't know if signature on a formal agreement was required or if the IPCC expects reviewers to adhere to the guidelines as a matter of trust. Either McIntyre is not registered as an expert reviewer or he has breached the terms of his agreement with the IPCC (by seeking and accepting expert review status and breaching the IPCC guidelines and conditions).

I'd have thought he would be chomping at the bit to 'review' so it could be the latter. On the other hand, it would fit his normal modus operandi to decide to snipe and wildly speculate from the sidelines with inside info he got by more nefarious means (passed on to him by an unprincipled expert reviewer perhaps).

Either way he doesn't coming out smelling of roses. All care no responsibility (or principles).

https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/guidancepaper/WG1_GuidanceNote_Confidentiality.pdf

amoeba said...

Wasn't the erroneous temperature trend claimed by Spencer and Christie @ UAH, really a TOBs problem? A problem that they seemed incapable of finding, ultimately leaving the discovery the 'mistake' to Mears et. al.

Some bunnies might conclude this was amazingly convenient for a couple of scientists who have repeatedly challenged the mainstream view, by using serially implausible claims to demonstrate their objectivity.

Anonymous said...

Spencers testimony to Congress was a masterful presentation of denialism. "CO2 is plant food". How stupid does he think we are. Well, Boxter's confusion about the context of the word 'bias' probably means he thinks 'very stupid'.

Anonymous said...

So to sum up, leaving the Pielkian nonsense aside, McIntyre has hurled the rather damning accusation to IPCC scientists that they have "tailored" the section on megadroughts and "suppressed any explicit mention of historical megadroughts" because "it was inconsistent with alarmist narrative on droughts and not for a valid reason" and also done "to avoid a direct contradiction of alarmist narrative".

This information is difficult to check because Mr. McIntyre appears to be the only person in the thread who has access to the text of the Ch5 FOD. When pressed on this, he links to Dave Appell's site, which only contains figures of Ch5 FOD. He also claims not to have signed a non-disclosure agreement, meaning he has not downloaded the Chapter or contents from the IPCC, but has been provided with it by some other means. He has not disclosed how this has come to be.

This deserves some due diligence, I suspect.

Anonymous said...

McIntyre is a little kid who craves attention.

"Don't look at the science, look at ME!"

He tried to "shoot down" Mann. FAILED!
He tried to "shoot down" Hansen. FAILED!
He tried to "shoot down" Jones. FAILED!
He tried to "shoot down" Briffa. FAILED!
He tried to "shoot down" the IPCC.
FAILED!

The pattern is well established.

Each attempt is just more of the same -- just a little more desperate and shrill than the last.


McIntyre is losing his audience and knows it.

He has yolk all over his face from the latest Watts "egg in the microwave paper" that he claims he didn't "parse" but somehow still managed to do "statistics" on. The very definition of vacuous. (GI/GO)

~@:>

EliRabett said...

The IPCC (any of you big time bunnies reading Eli's Humble Blog) has a very simple riposte to McIntyre's behavior.

He will, undoubtedly submit comments at some point. After the final window has closed, they should simply return his comments with a note saying that comments from people who do not respect the process are not welcome.

Note that this has to be done at the end before he has a chance to Nigel Persaud the process.

EliRabett said...

Bernard, been visiting NZ lately?

Anonymous said...

"Bernard, been visiting NZ lately?"

Th Lnd f th Lng Wht Cld?



Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

Russell said...

Let's call the whole thing off.