Monthly Archives: September 2010

If You Think Climategate Has Blown Over, Think Again

Just when Climate Scientists thought the Oxburgh Science Inquiry of the CRU, that didn’t look at the science of CRU (see: ) and the Muir Russell Inquiry that didn’t Inquire too much about the naughty bits ( see: ), had made it safe for them to return to business as usual just got a bit of bad news:

31 August 2010

The Science and Technology Committee will hold an oral evidence session following-up to the previous committee’s report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The session will be on:

Wednesday 8 September 2010 at 10.30 am

Thatcher Room, House of Commons

The Committee will take evidence from Lord Oxburgh, who headed the International Panel that was set up by the University to assess the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit.

An oral evidence session with Sir Muir Russell, who headed the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, will be announced in October.

The sessions will focus on how the two reviews responded to the former committee’s recommendations about the reviews and how they carried out their work

Now for those that have not been following the Climategate aftermath closely might have missed that the Members of the UK Parliament that sat on the committee believe that they had been lied to by UEA and thes supposed “Inquiries:

Parliament was misled and needs to re-examine the Climategate affair thoroughly after the failure of the Russell report, a leading backbench MP told us today.

“It’s not a whitewash, but it is inadequate,” is Labour MP Graham Stringer’s summary of the Russell inquiry report. Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications – he holds a PhD in Chemistry.

Earlier this week the former chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, now Lord Willis, said MPs had been amazed at the “sleight of hand”.

“Oxburgh didn’t go as far as I expected.

The Oxburgh Report looks much more like a whitewash,” Graham Stringer told us.

Me thinks that Sir Muir Russell and Lord Ron Oxburgh are being called in for a grilling, what happens after that is anyone’s guess but one thing can be said the UK Parliament is not happy about those Inquiries.

h/t Bishop Hill


I Wonder How The MSM Is Going To Spin The Blame On This

By now you should have heard about the deranged man that has taken hostages in the Discovery Channel  offices. Now here is the problem: The Whack Job doesn’t fit the MSM template. The guy is Asain not white and the reason he did this is that he is OUT TO SAVE THE PLANET! You see this guy read a book about a Gorilla that can communicate with humans and the Gorillas wisdom shows those he converses with how to SAVE THE PLANET.  However that wasn’t enough to trip this guys trigger, what finally pushed him over the edge into eco loonyism was he saw Al Gore’s film “An Inconvient Truth”. From there things went down hill quickly and you can read his own words from the Google cache of his website:

The Discovery Channel produces a lot of shows about saving the planet that all have one thing in common: They don’t work. Why don’t they have REAL shows about SAVING THE PLANET? Have you ever noticed the crap they have on their network about just about everything else but that? They glorify fishermen who are overfishing the planet, they glorify Weapons of Mass Destruction. They highlight shows about people who build pollution machines and other environmentally harmful practices. What’s next? Whaling the Planet with Modern Whalers??? These guys have been very sneaky and deceptive as to their contribution to the planetary problems. Just look at their ‘new’ show about saving the planet, “Planet Green,” to me, it’s just another show about more PRODUCTS to make MONEY, not about actual solutions. We can’t let them get away with doing it anymore. Join me in the PROTEST AGAINST THE DISCOVERY NETWORK to get them to start broadcasting real shows that actually work to save the planet. But not just a show about THEM TELLING US WHAT LIGHTBULB TO USE, but shows where solutions are brought to the new shows from people all over with good ideas. This will be a democratic process searching for those with good ideas. Inventiveness has got us into this mess, and now inventiveness can get us out. Not necessarily with more products, but maybe by just being allowed to live a different way. 

If their ‘environmental’ shows are actually working, then why is the news about the environment getting worse? It should be getting better if they were doing their job and we should be seeing that reflected on the nightly news. But NO! The Discovery Channel is actually not about saving the planet, they are just another ‘green’ corporation whose real interests lies in MONEY! Products! Junk! Trash! 

The show they should broadcast is in the book, “My Ishmael” by Daniel Quinn, where he talks about how people can build on each other’s ideas to come up with real solutions for saving the planet. I envisioned it would be like a contest, or competition … maybe a game show? I don’t know, so long as it WORKS! Keep bringing out new shows based on that idea until one actually WORKS! That’s all I ask. 

I know the hours and days for the protest event seems a bit long, but if the Discovery Channel is going to take this protest serious, we need to show them we are serious and are willing to wait them out until they give into our demands. 

Mapquest: Directions to Discovery Channel One Discovery Place, Silver Spring Maryland 20910, near the crossroads of Georgia Ave and Wayne Ave just right off of the Red Line Metro Station. I’ll be there every day demonstrating what shows they can have and how it would work to save this planet from 9am to 9pm February 15-23, 2008. My name is Lee, look for me. Bring  a sign and make your voice be heard for a better planet. 

To network and meet other people for the protest, go to Myspace: 

If you don’t have a myspace account and can’t post, then go here to Ezboard: 

And most importantly, go to the author of “My Ishmael,” Daniel Quinn’s site:

So does that sound like the right wing terrorist Janet Napolitano warned us off? Or how about the typical Right Wing Angry White Guy the MSM likes to feature?  Yeah I thought so.

That leaves us with the question: How Is The MSM going to blame conservatives, republicans or the vast right wing conspiracy.

HadCRUT/GISS/NCDC Global Comparison

Ok I have finally tracked down all the Surface Datasets to be able to put them all into one graph. Up until now I only had NASA GISS for surface data, because to be frank GISS is the easiest one to find, you just punch GISTEMP or just GISS into the search box on the NASA site and bam you get the links which are easy to understand and follow to get the data. So hats off to Dr.’s Hansen and Ruedy for making their data easy to find and download. However here is the link to the GISTEMP page:

The CRU data can be found here:

Their CRUTEM3 product and combined Hadley Center product called HadCRUT3 are just anomalies only based on the 1961-90 time period. Unlike GISS which on their annual anomaly product page gives an absolute temperature value for the 1951-80 time period to turn their anomalies back into absolute temperatures, CRU does not so far as I have found. If anyone knows where it is on that CRU page or any other I would appreciate it in the comments that way I can put them onto the same baseline with satellite anomalies.

The NCDC analysis can be found here:

NCDC does give an absolute temperature to add back in to change base lines to the Anomaly products they have. They also are the only ones that use a long term (century length) baseline they compute anomalies from.

So lets start comparing the datasets. All will be based on the 1961-90 baseline.

Here we have the Global Trends (Land + SST) for all three major dataset. Notice that HadCRUT has two versions, HadCRUT3v is variance adjusted according to the CRU website.

What you can see is that both HadCRUT3 trends are virtually identical at about .75° C. Also notice that NCDC and GISS trends are slightly less then HadCRUT 3 at about .73° to .74° C. Now from this you might get the impression that the analysis methods that each uses, even thought they are different from each other, shows that that they are all “robust”. That is a false impression which can be shown in the next graph:

Now the above graph is land only trends so that means you are looking at only the CRUTEM3 portion of the HadCRUT3 product. Notice that the the CRUTEM3, both versions, have a trend of almost 1° C. NCDC has a trend of about .93° C and GISS has one of about .76° to.77° C.

Now what is causing all this?

Well it is the way that each agency uses the base product GHCN. According to Dr. Phil Jones of CRU he claims that 90% of the CRUTEM3 product is from GHCN data and we know from the GISS page that they use the GHCN dataset and the same for NCDC (hey still got to check even though you would think they would use it since they are the ones compiling it). The way they put all the data together shows that they do not support each other, NCDC and CRU might be called in close agreement but the GISS trend is way off by almost a quarter of the CRU trend. (note GISS uses USHCN adjusted data in place of GHCN in their analysis for the area covered by the United States)

So why does all of them come to such close agreement in the Land+SST sets?

Well one reason would have to be that they all pick and choose which SST dataset to use, well I should qualify that and say GISS picks and chooses. The HadCRUT3 product is the combined product of the CRU and the Hadley Center and since Hadley is the compiler of various SST products you could reasonably expect them to use one of their own products. In this case it is the HadSST2 product. The same can basically be said for NCDC since they are part of NOAA who compiles the ERSSTv3b dataset which is used in their analysis. Now GISS the one that varies the most in the land trends from the other two, switches the SST dataset they use. They use the HadISST1 dataset for the years 1881 to 1981 and the OISSTv2 from 1982 to the present. Now these datasets are basically the SST versions of CRU, NCDC and GISS land data analysis, they are all based on the ICOADS data compiled by NOAA. So the combined dataset isn’t based on just one analysis of all the data but 3 different analysis of land and 4 different ones for the SST datasets used. The reason that is important is that the SST data is over 70% of the data in the combined dataset since the oceans cover over 70% of the earth so by changing which SST dataset you use you will change your global trend.

You can check and see how the different SST datasets effect the analysis by going to this page on the GISS site:

There you can set the analysis to no land and select the SST data that GISS uses in its analysis and generate a trend map. When you do that you will get a trend # in the upper right hand corner. Here is the map for the SST datasets that GISS uses:

Note that the trend for that is .58° C

Now go back and set the SST data to the NOAA ERSSTv3b SST dataset and make a map for the same time frame. This give this map:

Note that the trend changed to .62° C. Unfortunately I can’t make a map like that for the HadSST 2 dataset on the GISS site, but you can get the idea that there is differences in those datasets as well.

What this all shows is that the agreement between HadCRUT, NCDC and GISS Global land + SST is a product of the way they pick and chose which SST dataset they use and how they stitch them into their land analysis. When you just do an apple to apple comparison by looking at all three independent analysis of basically the GHCN dataset it shows there is no agreement between all three, just a general one between NCDC and CRU.