Wednesday, July 22, 2009

The Climate Data Shuffle


I wrote to Joe D'Aleo, one of the primary writers at ICECAP, with the following after reading so much about this summer being the hottest in 25 or 50 or 2 million years:


I don't know if you track weather in this fashion [shown on my blog]:


Joe reacted with some frustration:
NCDC says the only state B[elow] N[ormal] this year so far is ND. It is in their 'adjusted' data set, the 25th warmest ever year to date.

... Thanks to Anthony's [Watts - Watts Up With That?] favorite Tom Peterson, they yanked the U[rban] H[eat] I[sland] adjustment in 2007, never had a UHI adjustment in [the] global [dataset].

And for the global, the last year, stopped using satellite data in their ocean data set, which resulted in an instant jump up especially in the S[outhern] H[emisphere]. When the ARGO buoys showed cooling, they had to be 'recalibrated'. In the climate world, models are the truth, when data disagrees, it must be faulty. If it agrees, no problem (even with 90% poor to very poor siting).

The oceans in June for the globe were [claimed to be] the warmest ever (in 130 years), the land and sea 2nd warmest, even though UAH had June [the] 15th coldest, [and] RSS [Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa... the] 14th coldest in 31 years....
My observation to Joe was:
The problem is that the "baseline"... what is average or normal seems flexible as well as the recorded temperatures. They [NCDC] seem to be able to screw with the data, but then argue that the data is sacrosanct, but so-called "anecdotal" information such as my tracking of local temperatures are deemed unreliable.

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3

The issues that remain are: were adjustments made, why were or were not adjustments made, how were the adjustments made, and were the adjustments thoroughly considered or even justified in the manner they were done?

Others are looking into this... very respected and qualified others. I'll keep you posted as I learn more as I'm sure will Joe D'Aleo at ICECAP.

Regardless, Senator Levin [MI], in his email to me, strongly defends the alarming scenes of future climate destruction based on very questionable data and models. [you should read that linked communication]. I'm sure Sen. Levin has been briefed by experts on at least one side of the controversy and believes what he has been told.

After all, millions of others trust experts... not only in areas of science, but wherever those who grab the mantel of an expert ply their trade. If science were a game of how many people believed something and that was sufficient as scientific proof, we'd accept the simplest explanations.
Simply, easy answers are always satisfying and convincing to the uncritical... daresay I unskeptical?

CO2 → Δ° ... not quite the same as E = MC2 .... Both are short, but the latter is not really so simple and easy. Neither is reality!
Always ask: "what's in it for them" and then follow the money. I don't believe money is the object for Sen. Levin; he is a convert. Somehow, he even believes the "accounting" accompanying the proposed legislation. But there are too many politicians who are invested heavily into schemes that will profit grandly from our tax money and economic hardship.

My position and response:
Dear Sen. Levin:

Thank you for your response. There is more than ample evidence that the scenarios in the message prepared for you below are incorrect and based on very faulty science and analysis.

I will be doing what I can to dissuade popular support for this effort. The economic and political consequences of this legislation for the U.S. will be onerous.


Bruce Hall
There is no reason to be duplicitous with the senators. Our Congressmen need to hear clearly the reasons and reasoning behind opposition to what they have been told is popular or obvious.
Perhaps they might listen for no other reason than, if they follow the money, it leads to those with a vested financial or power interest in the passage of the legislation in question... not necessarily to those who seek real, scientific answers. Real answers are more important ultimately... even if those answers are slightly more complex and difficult than ΔCO2 → Δ°. And the correct course of action may well have little or nothing to do with schemes to limit CO2 through massive government programs.

But maybe our Congressmen do not want to know the real answers. That's a more difficult course than the simple, easy answers. And that's a more difficult situation for those of us seeking real answers before starting unnecessary solutions.


Can"t Find It?

Use the SEARCH BLOG feature at the upper left. For example, try "Global Warming".

You can also use the "LABELS" below or at the end of each post to find related posts.

Blog Archive

Cost of Gasoline - Enter Your Zipcode or Click on Map

CO2 Cap and Trade

There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.
Henry Louis Mencken (1880–1956)
“The Divine Afflatus,” A Mencken Chrestomathy, chapter 25, p. 443 (1949)
... and one could add "not all human problems really are."
It was beautiful and simple, as truly great swindles are.
- O. Henry
... The Government is on course for an embarrassing showdown with the European Union, business groups and environmental charities after refusing to guarantee that billions of pounds of revenue it stands to earn from carbon-permit trading will be spent on combating climate change.
The Independent (UK)

Tracking Interest Rates

Tracking Interest Rates


SEARCH BLOG: FEDERAL RESERVE for full versions... or use the Blog Archive pulldown menu.

February 3, 2006
Go back to 1999-2000 and see what the Fed did. They are following the same pattern for 2005-06. If it ain't broke, the Fed will fix it... and good!
August 29, 2006 The Federal Reserve always acts on old information... and is the only cause of U.S. recessions.
December 5, 2006 Last spring I wrote about what I saw to be a sharp downturn in the economy in the "rustbelt" states, particularly Michigan.
March 28, 2007
The Federal Reserve sees no need to cut interest rates in the light of adverse recent economic data, Ben Bernanke said on Wednesday.
The Fed chairman said ”to date, the incoming data have supported the view that the current stance of policy is likely to foster sustainable economic growth and a gradual ebbing in core inflation”.

July 21, 2007 My guess is that if there is an interest rate change, a cut is more likely than an increase. The key variables to be watching at this point are real estate prices and the inventory of unsold homes.
August 11, 2007 I suspect that within 6 months the Federal Reserve will be forced to lower interest rates before housing becomes a black hole.
September 11, 2007 It only means that the overall process has flaws guaranteeing it will be slow in responding to changes in the economy... and tend to over-react as a result.
September 18, 2007 I think a 4% rate is really what is needed to turn the economy back on the right course. The rate may not get there, but more cuts will be needed with employment rates down and foreclosure rates up.
October 25, 2007 How long will it be before I will be able to write: "The Federal Reserve lowered its lending rate to 4% in response to the collapse of the U.S. housing market and massive numbers of foreclosures that threaten the banking and mortgage sectors."
"Should the elevated turbulence persist, it would increase the possibility of further tightening in financial conditions for households and businesses," he said.

"Uncertainties about the economic outlook are unusually high right now," he said. "These uncertainties require flexible and pragmatic policymaking -- nimble is the adjective I used a few weeks ago."

December 11, 2007 Somehow the Fed misses the obvious.
[Image from:]
December 13, 2007 [from The Christian Science Monitor]
"The odds of a recession are now above 50 percent," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's "We are right on the edge of a recession in part because of the Fed's reluctance to reduce interest rates more aggressively." [see my comments of September 11]
January 7, 2008 The real problem now is that consumers can't rescue the economy and manufacturing, which is already weakening, will continue to weaken. We've gutted the forces that could avoid a downturn. The question is not whether there will be a recession, but can it be dampened sufficiently so that it is very short.
January 11, 2008 This is death by a thousand cuts.
January 13, 2008 [N.Y. Times]
“The question is not whether we will have a recession, but how deep and prolonged it will be,” said David Rosenberg, the chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch. “Even if the Fed’s moves are going to work, it will not show up until the later part of 2008 or 2009.
January 17, 2008 A few days ago, Anna Schwartz, nonagenarian economist, implicated the Federal Reserve as the cause of the present lending crisis [from the Telegraph - UK]:
The high priestess of US monetarism - a revered figure at the Fed - says the central bank is itself the chief cause of the credit bubble, and now seems stunned as the consequences of its own actions engulf the financial system. "The new group at the Fed is not equal to the problem that faces it," she says, daring to utter a thought that fellow critics mostly utter sotto voce.
January 22, 2008 The cut has become infected and a limb is in danger. Ben Bernanke is panicking and the Fed has its emergency triage team cutting rates... this time by 3/4%. ...

What should the Federal Reserve do now? Step back... and don't be so anxious to raise rates at the first sign of economic improvement.
Individuals and businesses need stability in their financial cost structures so that they can plan effectively and keep their ships afloat. Wildly fluctuating rates... regardless of what the absolute levels are... create problems. Either too much spending or too much fear. It's just not that difficult to comprehend. Why has it been so difficult for the Fed?

About Me

My photo
Michigan, United States
Air Force (SAC) captain 1968-72. Retired after 35 years of business and logistical planning, including running a small business. Two sons with advanced degrees; one with a business and pre-law degree. Beautiful wife who has put up with me for 4 decades. Education: B.A. (Sociology major; minors in philosopy, English literature, and German) M.S. Operations Management (like a mixture of an MBA with logistical planning)