Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Will Twitter Replace Google for Journalism?
Media Voyeurism
Elk Calf
Today's Deep Thinkers
Newt Gingrich: "I believe the most important question in the United States for the next decade is: 'Who are we?' Are we in fact a people who claim that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights?" Or, are we "just randomly gathered protoplasm -- and lucky for us we're not rhinoceroses...
James Inhofe, on health care reform: "I don't have to read it or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways."
Monday, November 09, 2009
Kazakhstan's radioactive legacy
Hadley: 4th warmest Sept ever
Friday, November 06, 2009
UAH Oct temperature anomaly
Quote
"I can almost remember when a suspect being human was a given, not an option."
-- Agent Broyles, Fringe, "Bad Dreams," S1E17
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Archive of Debate with Tim Ball
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Earthquake off the Oregon Coast
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
R Pielke Jr's Open Invitation
- 9. In their political enthusiasm, some leading scientists have behaved badly
On the other hand, I estimate that about half the time I contact "skeptics," they come back as brash and truculent and bordering on impolite, sometimes even before you ask them a question. Many seem, frankly, to already have a chip of their shoulder, or ticked off at something I wrote earlier (usually this, or this), or angry for some reason I can't really tell (though I have my suspicions). I too often have to just stop communicating with them out of frustration, and even then some of them hound me with emails for days and weeks until I put my foot down. I have never, ever reached that point with a scientist who, if you want to apply labels, would be labeled as accepting the AGW hypothesis.
I don't see any "scientists" behaving badly.
Boxer and the Absent Republicans
You may have seen this picture of Barbara Boxer at today's markup of the greenhouse gas bill before the Environment and Public Works committee.Is Al Gore Conflicted?
- "Al Gore" with "Fred Singer"
- "green" with "conventional"
- "wind" with "coal"
Monday, November 02, 2009
Is Phil Jones supressing data?
No one, it seems, cares to read what we put up on the CRU web page. These people just make up motives for what we might or might not have done.Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center [seehere and here].
The original raw data are not “lost.” I could reconstruct what we had from U.S. Department of Energy reports we published in the mid-1980s. I would start with the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete waste of time, though. I may get around to it some time. The documentation of what we’ve done is all in the literature.
If we have “lost” any data it is the following:
1. Station series for sites that in the 1980s we deemed then to be affected by either urban biases or by numerous site moves, that were either not correctable or not worth doing as there were other series in the region.
2. The original data for sites for which we made appropriate adjustments in the temperature data in the 1980s. We still have our adjusted data, of course, and these along with all other sites that didn’t need adjusting.
3. Since the 1980s as colleagues and National Meteorological Services (NMSs) have produced adjusted series for regions and or countries, then we replaced the data we had with the better series.
In the papers, I’ve always said that homogeneity adjustments are best produced by NMSs. A good example of this is the work by Lucie Vincent in Canada. Here we just replaced what data we had for the 200+ sites she sorted out.
The CRUTEM3 data for land look much like the GHCN and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies data for the same domains.
Apart from a figure in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) showing this, there is also this paper from Geophysical Research Letters in 2005 by Russ Vose et al. Figure 2 is similar to the AR4 plot.
I think if it hadn’t been this issue, the Competitive Enterprise Institute would have dreamt up something else!