SurfaceStations.org paper Accepted

[skierinvermont]

By the way, anyone who thinks Hansen doesn't benefit from his research is very naive. His career is built upon global warming. He is part of a huge government-funded program that exists mainly because of his research. To continue to be in that position, he needs the chips to fall a certain way.

Hansen was a highly paid prestigious government employee before the whole AGW thing got serious.

[skierinvermont]

There's a difference between being biased in your work and deliberately changing data. Due to the fact that GISS does a lot of estimating of temperatures in lower data density regions, there is a lot of gray area where you could move temperatures in either direction without falsifying data.

The GISS method has remained nearly the same since the 1980s when GISS was running colder, except for adding in an improved UHI adjustment. These are algorithms that have remained essentially the same for decades and have been publicly available. You plug in the data and you get a result. There's no room for bias.

[ORH_wxman]

The GISS method has remained the same since the 1980s when GISS was running colder, except for adding in an improved UHI adjustment. These are algorithms that have remained essentially the same for decades. You plug in the data and you get a result.

They've made adjustments over the years. They've retroactively cooled previous years.

[skierinvermont]

They've made adjustments over the years. They've retroactively cooled previous years.

Yes. For good reasons explained in peer-reviewed papers. And none of that affects anything since 1980 anyways.

[ORH_wxman]

Yes. For good reasons explained in peer-reviewed papers. And none of that affects anything since 1980 anyways.

Perhaps their QC is questionable? They still have to "adjust" temps before they plug them into whatever algorithm they use. They don't use raw data. Some of the techniques have been questioned, that's all. I'm not going to get into the peer review debate again...just that GISS's method has produced some diverging results recently.

[skierinvermont]

Perhaps their QC is questionable? They still have to "adjust" temps before they plug them into whatever algorithm they use. They don't use raw data. Some of the techniques have been questioned, that's all. I'm not going to get into the peer review debate again...just that GISS's method has produced some diverging results recently.

The temperatures are "adjusted" by essentially the same algorithm as back in the 1980s, except for the improved UHI adjustment. There has been no change in methodology that would explain the recent faster warming. It's just attributable to various nuances in the different methodologies that have been in place since the 80s and 90s.

1. Longer extrapolations than HadCRUT

2. Different SST data source

3. Extrapolation from land over the water instead of SST data

4. Different methods of adjusting for UHI and homogenizing the data

Maybe the GISS method is inferior, but Hansen would have had to plan this 30 yeas in advance for bias to be involved. On points 2-4 I don't know what is better but on point #1 I know that GISS's extrapolations are providing reasonable estimates in the long-run of the areas left blank by HadCRUT.

[tacoman25]

so you are saying he lies in his research?

No, that's not what I'm saying. If that was what I was saying, I would say it.

If you want to have a reasonable discussion, get back to me. Otherwise, I'm not going to put any effort in responding to someone who apparently is not reading what I'm writing, or purposefully misconstruing. Instead of offering an actual response to what I'm saying, you are choosing to ask accusational questions and avoid the real issue.

[tacoman25]

I don't think anyone would say he doesn't have a warm bias. but unless you (the generic you) are going to allege deliberate falsification of data, it's hard to just dismiss a well-regarded researcher simply because you take the opposite viewpoint.

And who has asked you to do so? All we are asking is that when you start throwing around terms like "nutcase" to describe skeptics (without providing any actual evidence that they are nutty, other than the fact they don't follow mainstream science in lock step), and then take offense to Hansen being called the same, you better have a better argument than "he's an important guy".

From Anchorman:

Ron Burgundy: I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.

Veronica Corningstone: Really.

Ron Burgundy: People know me.

Veronica Corningstone: Well, I'm very happy for you.

Ron Burgundy: I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.

[tacoman25]

his scientific publishing has slowed a lot over the last few years though. http://www.columbia....lications.shtml

Perhaps partly because he is focusing on publishing Gore-style alarmist literature?

http://www.amazon.com/Storms-My-Grandchildren-Catastrophe-Humanity/dp/B004A14W0E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1305059773&sr=8-1

[tacoman25]

the only skeptic I have called a nutcase is Watts.

and to call Hansen one is not to understand the fundamental differences between the 2, regardless of where you personally stand on the issue.

I'm not personally calling either person a nutcase.

But based on the differences between the two, Hansen would have to be held to a higher standard, woudn't you agree? And yet despite him being an extremist and activist who has been arrested multiple times, you think Watts is more deserving of being called a "nut"...and the only evidence you offer is that he not a scientist like Hansen. What does that prove? This isn't about education or prestige, it's about actions/words. And how you can sit there and say Hansen's words/actions aren't nutty but Watt's are is beyond me. It seems to display a serious bias against skeptics.

[tacoman25]

irrelevant to the discussion of science, which is why earlier I already noted his 2 different publication routes.

Why is it irrelevant? Again, it relates directly to his field of research.

[tacoman25]

how does engaging in civil disobedience diminish peer reviewed science?

Since you are asking essentially the same question you asked earlier, I am going to respond with essentially the same answer I gave then.

His activism is directly related to his field of research. It demonstrates too much emotional involvement and commitment to a cause that depends on the research finding certain results. That's a dangerous position to be in as a scientist, and it's simply not appropriate for someone in his position.

Would you be comfortable with a nuclear scientist being an activist for nuclear energy development? Or how about a certain political party conducting public polls and reporting the results? A newspaper being funded by the government? These are all things that are not necessarily wrong in and of themselves, but they create an inevitable conflict of interest.

[tacoman25]

he's not passing off his general audience books as serious scientific research.

But a big part of the reason he has an audience for those books is because of his position as a prominent and well-known scientist. And it's not like he's writing romance novels. If they don't match up with his serious scientific research, then that would be misleading. In other words, both Hansen's general audience publications and his activism are inseparable from his work as a scientist.

[tacoman25]

but his scientific work is evaluated by other scientists, not his fellow protestors.

For the last time, I'm not talking about the peer review process. I know how it works, I think it's a good thing overall, though I don't think it's a perfect system that guarantees anything or eliminates bias. But that's not the issue at hand.

The issue is whether it's appropriate or professional for a prominent scientist to get himself arrested as an activist - for a cause that relates directly to his field of study. I say no, because it demonstrates heavy emotional involvement and extremist commitment to the cause. And it just looks bad for someone who is funded by the government.

[tacoman25]

they are 2 entirely different paths to publication. he even separates them on his homepage.

Totally missing the point. James Hansen cannot separate himself from his science/research. Again, he's not writing comic books, he's writing books for the public that are based on his research and everything he stands for. And the framework is one of alarmism. No way around it.

[skierinvermont]

So I assume you have the exact same problem with Roy Spencer.

Again, I can see how Hansen's whole activism thing is cause for concern but I don't find it wholly inappropriate. The activism is a logical consequence of the science and not the other way around. Moreover, his peer-reviewed work stands on its own merits having been reviewed and accepted by people much more familiar in the subject matter than any of us and I can find no errors myself based on my limited knowledge.

Likewise, I don't cast aspersions upon Spencer as a scientist or his peer-reviewed work on UAH because of his extracurricular activities with the Heritage Foundation who are a bunch of right wing nutjobs with an anti-AGW agenda. Spencer and Christy have made great contributions to the field of remote sensing.

[tacoman25]

froth on then.

When all else fails, resort to insults.

[tacoman25]

So I assume you have the exact same problem with Roy Spencer.

Again, I can see how Hansen's whole activism thing is cause for concern but I don't find it wholly inappropriate. The activism is a logical consequence of the science and not the other way around. Moreover, his peer-reviewed work stands on its own merits having been reviewed and accepted by people much more familiar in the subject matter than any of us and I can find no errors myself based on my limited knowledge.

Likewise, I don't cast aspersions upon Spencer as a scientist or his peer-reviewed work on UAH because of his extracurricular activities with the Heritage Foundation who are a bunch of right wing nutjobs with an anti-AGW agenda. Spencer and Christy have made great contributions to the field of remote sensing.

1. If Hansen wants to be an activist and is that dedicated to the cause, he should quit his position as head of GISS. If it matters that much to him, he should do what he feels is most important. That would make a lot more sense than trying to be a government-funded scientist/activist.

2. Spencer is not comparable to Hansen. Spencer is not an extremist activist, Spencer has not been arrested. Being involved with the Heritage Foundation, a highly influential and longstanding conservative think tank, is not nearly the same as being an activist for a cause you essentially created. Just because you disagree with a group politically does not make them "nutjobs".

[nzucker]

the Heritage Foundation is a right wing propaganda machine.

I do have to agree with Tacoman's general point, Spencer's livelihood/career recognition depends much less on his AGW viewpoint being true, compared to Hansen. He's mostly known for his work with satellite temperatures, not for a political and moral position/crusade like Hansen.

[Snow_Miser]

Did you guys see this new paper that was published by any chance? Seems to show that the IPCC has been signficiantly underestimating the climatic forcing of the sun, but it is not surprising.

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361/201016173&Itemid=129

Conclusions

We present a new technique to reconstruct total and spectral solar irradiance over the Holocene. We obtained a large historical solar forcing between the Maunder minimum and the present, as well as a significant increase in solar irradiance in the first half of the twentieth-century. Our value of the historical solar forcing is remarkably larger than other estimations published in the recent literature.

[BethesdaWX]

I do have to agree with Tacoman's general point, Spencer's livelihood/career recognition depends much less on his AGW viewpoint being true, compared to Hansen. He's mostly known for his work with satellite temperatures, not for a political and moral position/crusade like Hansen.

Exactly. Tacoman continues to knock the ball out of the ballpark.

Hansen's work intertwines right in with his activism, and the amount of funding he and his cause recieves is dependant on what the climate is doing, and how he expresses things. Is he Lying/Manipulating? I don't think so........but its obvious he has a warm Bias.

As for Spencer, (Remote Sensing GTA monitoring) cannot be altered to one person's specific viewpoint/bias, because the methods to Calibration are well known, and open to scrutiny. As for GISS, the methods used in Extrapolation are much less sound in areas with Little, Data, such as the Arctic, Much of Africa, South America, Antarctica, and over many of the oceans. As Will said, it can be "nudged" upward, and not be manipulation at all.

Andrew......needs to start using NCDC, NSIDC, and HADCRUT for the Globe, it will make his argument more viable. In areas with little Coverage, (Antarctic, Arctic, Much of Africa, South America, and parts of Australia).... Either UAH or RSS should be used.

Another option is to Combine all Datasources to get one Mean, and Fill in the Poles with UAH, since UAH is the only Datasource that covers the Antarctic.

[tacoman25]

the Heritage Foundation is a right wing propaganda machine.

Do you really want to reduce this thread to a political discussion?

That is your political viewpoint. Just because a group is right wing does not make them nutjobs or a "propaganda machine". Same goes for leftist groups. Depending on your political viewpoint, you either like them or dislike them, but it's pretty closeminded to just label every noted conservative or liberal group as crazies just because you don't agree with them.

This coming from a political centrist.

[tacoman25]

I do have to agree with Tacoman's general point, Spencer's livelihood/career recognition depends much less on his AGW viewpoint being true, compared to Hansen. He's mostly known for his work with satellite temperatures, not for a political and moral position/crusade like Hansen.

It's not even close. For someone to insinuate Spencer is an activist like Hansen is completely laughable.

[nzucker]

It's not even close. For someone to insinuate Spencer is an activist like Hansen is completely laughable.

As Bethesda says, you're knocking it out of the park. Great posts!

[skierinvermont]

Ooh cheerleading...!

trixie pwn'd you all.. it is nice to have other people in this forum who understand how real science is done

[skierinvermont]

I do have to agree with Tacoman's general point, Spencer's livelihood/career recognition depends much less on his AGW viewpoint being true, compared to Hansen. He's mostly known for his work with satellite temperatures, not for a political and moral position/crusade like Hansen.

Nonsense. Spencer continues to rake it in in book deals and speaking engagements. Who knows if he even believes half the stuff he says anymore and why should he care with the way he's been raking it in. Spencer's entire public recognition and much of his income depend entirely upon propping up the manufactured doubt machine, none of which has any basis in the scientific literature. At least Hansen's activism has a general foundation in the scientific literature. Spencer on the other hand is both an activist and what's worse, his activism finds no basis in the actual science.

[skierinvermont]

2. Spencer is not comparable to Hansen. Spencer is not an extremist activist, Spencer has not been arrested. Being involved with the Heritage Foundation, a highly influential and longstanding conservative think tank, is not nearly the same as being an activist for a cause you essentially created. Just because you disagree with a group politically does not make them "nutjobs".

Spencer is absolutely an extremist activist. He spends a large portion of his time writing and speaking to the public denying AGW using arguments and facts that are completely unsubstantiated in the peer-review literature. In fact, his public statements are frequently are at odds with what he has published in peer-review himself. Only a small portion of his time, especially in recent years, has been spent conducting and publishing actual science in peer-review journals.

[tacoman25]

Ooh cheerleading...!

trixie pwn'd you all.. it is nice to have other people in this forum who understand how real science is done

All trixie did was ask questions. Repetitive ones. Without addressing actual points. Very disappointing, actually.

[tacoman25]

Nonsense. Spencer continues to rake it in in book deals and speaking engagements. Who knows if he even believes half the stuff he says anymore and why should he care with the way he's been raking it in. Spencer's entire public recognition and much of his income depend entirely upon propping up the manufactured doubt machine, none of which has any basis in the scientific literature. At least Hansen's activism has a general foundation in the scientific literature. Spencer on the other hand is both an activist and what's worse, his activism finds no basis in the actual science.

Likewise, I don't cast aspersions upon Spencer as a scientist or his peer-reviewed work on UAH because of his extracurricular activities with the Heritage Foundation who are a bunch of right wing nutjobs with an anti-AGW agenda. Spencer and Christy have made great contributions to the field of remote sensing.

[skierinvermont]

There is no inconsistency.

I am not casting aspersions on his peer-reviewed work. I am saying that his extra-curricular activist activities for the heritage foundation and his book deals are unscientific blather. Which is precisely why it gets published by the Heritage foundation instead of in peer-reviewed journals. It's as if you didn't read what I wrote at all.

How do you not understand the difference between casting aspersions on the utter nonsense he has published on his own and via the Heritage foundation, and casting aspersions on his work which has actually been peer-reviewed?