Blowout week 56

This week we condense OPEC, oil prices, Ukraine, Russia, energy shortages, climate change, terrorism, the European Union, Fukushima, Ed Davey and everything else that ails the world into one featured article:

Business Week: Only three minutes to Doomsday

Our leaders are failing, and planetary destruction is nigh. That’s the message sent today by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which moved the historic Doomsday Clock forward by two ticks. It’s now three minutes to midnight. The rising threats from unchecked climate change and nuclear weapons have created the biggest existential crisis for humanity since the Cold War, according to the group. Not since the 1950s has civilization been more imperiled.

And Colima, our local volcano is getting ready. This was last Thursday (credit Webcams de México).

The usual ration of varied stories below the fold, including more on “the warmest year on record”, OPEC, coal in China, health impacts of Australian wind turbines, Dungeness to stay open, Austria sues over Hinkley Point, Greenpeace names Nazca Lines despoilers, how climate change will cause more devastating La Niñas, European countries running out of gas  and UFOs sighted over French nuclear plants.

Mail: NASA admits 2014 heat record far from certain

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’. The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

New York Times: US Senate reject human role in climate change

On Thursday, the Senate voted 56 to 42 not to take up an amendment that declared that climate change is real, is caused by humans and wreaks devastation. The amendment also called on the federal government to lead the way in the national transition away from dependence on fossil fuels. Senators voted 54 to 46 not to take up an amendment that also declared human-caused climate change to be real and devastating, and urged the government to support research on technologies that would capture carbon emissions from fossil fuels. A third, Republican-sponsored amendment, which was rejected 51 to 46, called on the Senate to nullify a climate change agreement in November between the United States and China in which both nations pledged to reduce their carbon emissions.

Reuters: Saudi King Salman to continue current oil policies

Saudi Arabia’s new king is expected to continue a policy of keeping oil output steady to drive out rival producers, though the royal succession has focused market attention on the future of the kingdom’s long-serving oil minister. While the new king is not seen as likely to change Abdullah’s policies of keeping output high to protect the OPEC cartel’s market share, some analysts said the succession has focused attention on the future of the oil minister Ali Al-Naimi. “King Abdullah was the architect of the current strategy to keep production high and force out smaller players instead of cutting,” said John Kilduff, partner, Again Capital LLC in New York, adding that he expected Salman to keep production high. FGE analyst Tushar Bansal said: “By and large, as of now, no major change is expected in Saudi policies” but he said the market would focus on whether the oil minister might step down.

Forbes: King Abdullah leaves renewables ambitions unfulfilled

One of the many monuments dedicated to King Abdullah of Saudia Arabia, whose 10-year reign over the Middle Eastern oil giant ended with his death on Friday — is the independent renewable and nuclear energy organization founded under his name. The King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy, or Ka-Care, was established by royal decree in 2010, with the nominal aim of “[B]uilding a sustainable future for Saudi Arabia by developing a substantial alternative energy capacity fully supported by world-class local industries.” King Abdullah was well-known for working to keep oil prices high enough to sustain lucrative revenues for the world’s second largest oil producer, but low enough to keep international customers thirsty for petroleum. But he also knew that the oil treadmill could quickly prove unsustainable for the kingdom, which has a booming population and rapidly increasing electricity needs — particularly for energy-intensive technologies like water desalination, on which Saudi Arabia greatly depends.

Salt Lake Tribune: Oman joins oil producers criticizing OPEC

Oman, the biggest Middle Eastern oil producer that’s not a member of OPEC, joined Venezuela and Iran in questioning the group’s decision to keep its output target unchanged even with crude prices falling. Oman is having a “really difficult time” because of low oil prices, Oman Oil Minister Mohammed Al-Rumhy said Wednesday at a conference in Kuwait City. Standard & Poor’s lowered the country’s outlook to negative from stable on Dec. 5, citing a risk that oil may drop more than expected. “I really fail to understand how market share became more important than revenue,” Al-Rumhy said. “We have created volatility, and volatility is one of those words that’s bad for business.”

CNBC: Pickens predicts $70-$80 oil by year end

Energy tycoon Boone Pickens predicted on Friday that oil prices would be back near $70 or $80 a barrel by the fourth quarter of this year. Oil producers in West Texas and North Dakota “can’t drill for $45 oil,” Pickens said on CNBC’s “Street Signs.” “In the last 30 days they’ve dropped 300 rigs…. You’re gonna reach an all-time high on the inventory of oil, and it will be reached within the next six weeks, and then it will start to decline. ” In December, Pickens forecast that oil prices would be back near $100 a barrel in 12 to 18 months. On Friday, he said he stood by that call.

Stockhouse: Toronto stock exchange surges on oil price rate cut

The Toronto stock market closed sharply higher amid a surprise quarter-point rate cut by the Bank of Canada. The S&P/TSX composite index jumped 251.98 points to 14,560.42. The Canadian dollar plunged 1.53 cents to 81.07 cents US after the central bank cut its key rate to 0.75 per cent due to economic fallout from the collapse in oil prices. The energy sector was a major boost for the TSX as oil rose $1.31 to US$47.78 a barrel and traders considered how a lower Canadian dollar will be a positive for some TSX sectors. Energy producers benefit because a lower Canadian dollar makes the cost structure for domestic producers cheaper as opposed to U.S. producers.

WSJ: China’s oil imports from Russia surge

Warming ties between China and Russia are giving a big boost to Chinese imports of Russian oil, to the chagrin of OPEC nations jockeying for a slice of China’s market. Chinese customs data released Friday show that China’s crude imports from some big OPEC nations have plummeted, while imports from Russia surged 36% in 2014. Meanwhile, imports from Saudi Arabia fell 8% and those from Venezuela dropped 11%.

CNN Money: China to save $100 billion in oil imports

China will save $100 billion on its oil import bill in just six months thanks to the collapse in crude prices. That assumes prices remain at current levels, said Boqiang Lin, a leading China energy economist. “And we don’t have to do anything,” he added.

China Daily: China’s coal production falls

China’s coal production dropped in 2014, the first time since 2000, the China National Coal Association said Friday. In the first 11 months of last year, China produced 3.5 billion tons of coal, 2.1 percent less than the same period in 2013, said Jiang Zhimin, vice-president of the CNCA, during a media briefing. The CNCA estimated a 2.5 percent drop in production for the whole year. Contributing factors to the grim situation include sluggish coal demand, overcapacity and a large import volume, said Jiang, adding relief measures carried out by the coal industry were beginning to see some positive changes.

Digital Journal: Six European countries left without Russian natural gas

Russian president Vladimir Putin has ordered Gazprom to cut supplies to and through the Ukraine by 60 percent. He accuses the Ukraine of siphoning off supplies for Europe and stealing Russian gas.Russia claims that due to “transit risks for European consumers in the territory of the Ukraine” the supply cuts had to be made. As a result of the move Gazprom gas supplies to Europe plunged by 60 percent. Ukraine confirmed that Russia had shut off the gas supply. A total of six countries reported a complete shut off of Russian supplied gas. Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Romania, and Turkey all reported there had been a stop to gas shipments from Russia coming through the Ukraine. Croatia said that it had to reduce supplies to industrial customers. Bulgaria claimed that it was in a crisis situation and had gas for only a few days.

Eagle Ford Texas: UK gas storage at lowest level since 2011

Even though this winter has provided areas around the world with above-normal temperatures, serious concerns regarding the United Kingdom’s natural gas supply have arisen According to Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE), the U.K.’s natural gas storage has hit its lowest level since 2011. As of January 16th, the storage unit’s natural gas inventory was at 3.34 billion cubic meters. Some are fearing a repeat of winter 2012-2013 when freezing air and a higher demand for heat almost emptied the entire natural gas storage reserve.

BBC: Dungeness to remain open

Dungeness B nuclear power station is to stay open beyond its scheduled closing date of 2018, its owner, EDF, has announced. The ageing reactor, on the south Kent coast, had been due to decommission in 2018 but will now remain until 2028 as a result of £150m extra investment. EDF Energy chief executive Vincent de Rivaz said: “The decision to extend the life of Dungeness B is only possible because of the collaboration, innovation and technical expertise of EDF Energy and its long-term partners. Customers will benefit from this significant investment through many more years of reliable, low-carbon electricity.”

Guardian: Austria challenges Hinkley Point subsidies

Austria is to launch a legal challenge against the European Union’s (EU) decision to allow billions of pounds of subsidies for Hinkley Point C, casting fresh doubt over the UK’s first planned nuclear reactors in 20 years. In October, the EU approved the controversial £17.6bn subsidy deal for the power station, which is expected to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity by 2023. David Cameron had previously hailed the subsidy deal between the French state-owned EDF and the UK government as “a very big day for our country”. But the appeal by Austria, a non-nuclear nation, will be launched by April and could delay a final investment decision by the UK government for over two years. The Guardian understands that Luxembourg is very likely to support the case in the European court of justice, arguing that the UK’s loan guarantees – over a 35-year period – constitute illegal state aid.

SandC: Europe’s largest battery storage project becomes operational in UK

S&C Electric Company, a global leader in energy storage integration, today announced that Europe’s largest battery-storage project has been officially opened by Amber Rudd, minister at the Department for Energy and Climate Change at Leighton Buzzard in Bedfordshire, England. S&C Electric Europe, Samsung SDI and Younicos collaborated to deploy the technology onto a United Kingdom Power Networks substation. The fully automated 6MW/10MWh Smarter Network Storage (SNS) project will assess the role of energy storage in cost-effectively supporting the UK’s Carbon Plan, and will save more than £6 million ($9.4 million) on traditional network-reinforcement methods.

Herald Scotland: EU to retain post of Chief Scientific Adviser

The European Commission has agreed to retain the role of EU Chief Scientific Adviser. Details of the u-turn were divulged to Scottish Tory MEP Dr Ian Duncan by First Vice-President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans. Mr Duncan said: “I am delighted that the Commission has seen sense and reinstated this crucial post. The role of science has never been more important and for the EU to have done away with its Chief Scientist would have been hugely damaging and sent all the wrong signals. I am glad that the pressure exerted on the Commission has resulted in a u-turn, and a victory for informed European policy making.”

Business Week: Greenpeace names Nazca despoilers

Greenpeace has provided Peruvian authorities with the identities of the four foreign activists principally responsible for vandalizing the Nazca Lines heritage site during last month’s international climate negotiations in Lima, Bloomberg Businessweek has learned. The mastermind of the Nazca Lines action was Wolfgang Sadik, a veteran campaigner with Greenpeace Germany, the Greenpeace report reveals. Two of the other three activists named in the report also work for Greenpeace Germany: Martin Kaiser, who was responsible for all of Greenpeace’s actions at the Lima summit, and Iris Wiedemann, Greenpeace’s chief communications officer at the summit. The fourth individual is Mauro Fernandez, a staffer with Greenpeace Argentina who served as an interpreter during the Nazca action. Greenpeace has suffered heavy blows to its reputation, external support, and staff morale. Donors have withdrawn grants, supporters have canceled memberships, and street canvassers have been harassed, Greenpeace USA executive director Annie Leonard wrote in an e-mail earlier this month.

Australian: Higher health risks for people living near wind turbines

People living near wind farms face a greater risk of suffering health complaints caused by the low-frequency noise generated by turbines, a groundbreaking study has found. The study by acoustics expert Steven Cooper is the first in the world in which a wind turbine ¬operator had fully co-operated and turned wind turbines off completely during the testing. Funded by wind farm operator Pacific Hydro, the study was conducted at Cape Bridgewater in southwest Victoria where residents have long complained about headaches, chest pains and sleep loss but have been told it was all in their minds. The report found offending sound pressure was present at four distinct phases of turbine operation: starting, maximum power and changing load by more than 20 per cent either up or down.

CBS: Climate change to bring more extreme La Niñas

A new study concludes that extreme La Nina events will become twice as likely in the future due to climate change. The study in Nature Climate Change found that the La Nina extreme weather — which happens about once every 23 years — will occur every 13 years by the end of this century, based on an analysis of 21 climate models. Three-quarters of those increased La Nina events would follow extreme El Nino events “thus projecting more frequent swings between opposite extremes from year to the next.”

Openminds: Drones flying over French nuclear plants are UFOs

Several UFOs have been seen over nuclear power plants in France and Belgium over the last few months. They have been reported as unidentified drones, but a director at one of the plants in France says, unequivocally, that these were not drones, they were UFOs. The media and authorities have suspected the objects were drones flown by anti-nuclear activists to demonstrate that the plants were open to terrorist attacks via drones. However, the drones are of such a high level of sophistication that the authorities have not been able to track them. The largest anti-nuclear organizations have also denied any involvement.


This entry was posted in Blowout and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Blowout week 56

  1. Joe Public says:

    The Eagle Ford Texas: UK gas storage at lowest level since 2011 – article reports:

    “On January 16th, the February U.K. natural gas contract price was 45.75 pence a therm, equivalent to $7.13 per million British thermal units, reported ICE Futures Europe.”

    For info: 45.75 p/th = 1.561p/kWh.

    Shippers & suppliers are currently transporting & selling the commodity to domestic users at ~ 4.55 p/kWh. This figure will reduce by ~5% when recently announced price reductions come into effect.

    Although storage may be depleted, the industry’s next line of defence in helping maintain supplies to domestic & ‘Firm’ customers, is shutting off Interruptibles. After all, the latter receive a hefty discount for the privilege of giving the industry a degree of peak-shaving flexibility.

    • Euan Mearns says:

      The storage story in the UK is made more complex by LNG. I think the LNG market has eased and the UK will likely manage to attract the required cargoes. And come April, the weather is usually getting milder and electricity and gas demand falls.

  2. A C Osborn says:

    Was that a joke about Europe’s largest battery storage project?
    6 to 10 MW, he he.

    I am surprised you haven’t included Paul Homewood & Chris Bookers article on South American GISS Temps

  3. William says:

    If by “fudges” you are referring to the removal of non-climatic changes from climate records (homogenization), then I’m sure that has indeed been going on for years. Without it the record would be meaningless. How can the data be useful if changes in position and time of observation are not corrected for?

    The word “fudges” suggests that you see an ulterior motive in the homogenization performed independently by teams around the world, beyond that of arriving at a pure-climate data set. You might be right. But if that motive is to distort the data, what reason is there, how is this worldwide effort coordinated so secretly (or have there been leaks) and why have they done so poor a job of eliminating the supposed pause in temperature rises? BEST was set up with the idea of debunking the existing methods and results and yet it came to broadly the same conclusions.

    The Variable Variability blog discusses homogenization amongst other things. It is complicated 🙂 Do you think either Homewood or Booker knows anything about the subject?

    • JerryC says:

      Have you read Homewood’s post?

      I find it very hard to conceive of a legitimate reason to take temperature readings which had stood for over 60 years (!) and adjust them down by almost 2 degrees centigrade. It would certainly be fascinating to hear NASA’s justification for this kind of data tampering.

      • There is no legitimate reason. In many parts of the Southern Hemisphere (although not the Northern) records are adjusted upwards by warming-biased “homogenization” algorithms to fit a “reference series” that represents someone’s preconceived idea of what the temperature history of the area should look like. Little or no attention is paid to station moves and T_obs changes partly because there are no metadata available for most stations and partly because GISS doesn’t have the time to apply adjustments at this level of detail anyway (I say GISS, but the last time I checked the adjusted GISS records had been copied from the NOAA GHCNv3.2 data set). It’s all done by computer, and in most cases I suspect that no one even looked at the raw data before pressing the “RUN” button.

        The three stations Homewood picked are also just the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot more like them in S. America.

        • This post, and Victor Venema’s and Steven Mosher’s comments, are worth a read:

          But better than that is Kevin Cowtan’s video explanation of Paraguay adjustments:

          • A C Osborn says:

            “But better than that is Kevin Cowtan’s video explanation of Paraguay adjustments:”

            Let me ask you a question about this better explanation, do you consider it good “Science” to arbitrarily choose some Weather Stations from another country, perhaps up to 500Km away without considering & supplying the following data.
            The Station names & Numbers.
            Their location.
            Their Elevation, especially in relation to those they are being compared to.
            The prevailing wind direction as these countries are relatively close to the Chilean Mountain ranges.
            The Humidity of the Locations compared to those they are being compared too. .
            The Basic land structure, ie hilly, forest, jungle etc.

            I await your answer.

    • Graeme No.3 says:

      Then why do they “adjust” records from sites that haven’t moved, nor been affected by nearby changes? For example Rutherglen and Giles in Australia.
      To add to the confusion, Giles has always been staffed by BoM personnel yet temperatures get adjusted by up to 1℃. Can we conclude that the Bureau of Meteorology only hires people who can’t read a thermometer?

    • A C Osborn says:

      William, I suggest that you take a look at some real data yourself and stop listening to Warmist excuses for what is going on.
      There is no justification for what is currently going on with the “Quality Adjustments”.
      There has been much work done by Anthony Watts & Co, Steven Goddard, Paul Homewood, Sunshine Hours, Jo Nova, Jennifer Marohasy and others to highlight some of the problems with NCDC, GISS, BOM and NIWA.
      Which include
      1. Homogenization and TOBs overall always cools the past.
      2. UHI adjustments do not lower the current temps as they should.
      3. Previous Temperatures re-adjusted EVERY Month.
      4. For me one of the worst which I have verified myself is the use of Estmated Data for Swathes of Raw Data (up to 40 years of data) which is currently in place and usable.
      5. Grid Celling using Temperatures up to 1200Km away which is total nonsense, 12Km would be bad enough.

      • AC:

        One of the few things that GISS et al. have got right is that UHI impacts are negligible. There are a handful of stations that show obvious UHI effects (LA, Phoenix, Tokyo), but when you discard them there’s no relationship between warming and population:


        More in the link below, plus some work on urban heat islands. Lots of pretty pictures anyway:

        And if you’re wondering “how much work has this guy done on temperature records?” Over the last fifteen years as much as any of the people you name above.

        • A C Osborn says:

          So did you use Raw data for those correlations?
          Have you looked at the work of Roy Spencer on Population Vs Temperature shown on WUWT?
          If UHI does not exist to any extent why are cities much warmer than Rural locations?
          Why do Airports show much larger trends than Rural?

          • So did you use Raw data for those correlations?

            GHCN V2 is the raw data set.

            Have you looked at the work of Roy Spencer on Population Vs Temperature shown on WUWT?

            If you’re talking about this:


            Then the answer is yes.

            If UHI does not exist to any extent why are cities much warmer than Rural locations?

            Because they retain heat. But the fact that a city is an urban heat island doesn’t mean it will show an urban warming gradient. (See if you can find a single city in Europe that shows one. I can’t.)

            Why do Airports show much larger trends than Rural?

            They do?

          • A C Osborn says:

            Roger, so you are saying that Roy and the others are wrong?
            When you say “an urban warming gradient” do you mean a trend over time or an increase in Temperature from Rural?

            That was not the work by Roy that I was talking about, his work showed that the largest part of the UHI is when populations are very low, so if you look at a large established city you won’t see much, but if you go back a hundred years or so you should.
            I will see if I can find Roy’s post.

          • Roger, so you are saying that Roy and the others are wrong?

            I’m not going to issue a blanket condemnation, but Spencer’s analysis suffers from at least two potentially fatal flaws. First he used CRUTEM3, one of those data sets which you succinctly and accurately describe as “crap”. Second, he didn’t apply a latitude correction to allow for the fact that warming over the period of interest was higher in the NH than the SH. With the major population centers located dominantly in the NH this will skew his results towards warming at the high-population end. And if he used the GHCN lat-longs then a lot of his stations aren’t where he thinks they are.

            When you say “an urban warming gradient” do you mean a trend over time or an increase in Temperature from Rural?

            The latter. Always assuming that there are no spurious warming gradients at the “rural” site. These can occur just as easily at rural as at urban sites. Low Head, Tasmania, is an example:


            That was not the work by Roy that I was talking about, his work showed that the largest part of the UHI is when populations are very low, so if you look at a large established city you won’t see much, but if you go back a hundred years or so you should.

            No need to look that one up, he’s right. This explains why ancient European cities no longer show urban warming gradients while fast-growing US cities like Las Vegas and Tucson do.

        • A C Osborn says:

          Roger would you like to comment on this small study on UHI. it is a repeat of meny such studies in other towns & cities?

    • A C Osborn says:

      By the way BEST uses a different method to NCDC & GISS and it is based on Final Temperatures that “fit” the MODELLED data. I have a quote from one of the so called scientists involved with BEST who said
      “If you want to know what the ACTUAL Temeperature was look at the Raw Data, if you want to know what the data SHOULD look like compared to our modelled output look at our Final Data Series”.
      I have looked at some of their output for the UK and it does not handle Islands and areas near water at all well, showing West Wales warmer than London and Kent. As I have lived in those places I can assure you their output is, for want of a better word, crap.

  4. A C Osborn says:

    Seeing as you provided a list of your work I will raise you with a list of others, including Ross McTitrick that beg to differ.

  5. William says:

    I’m still interested in why you think all the different teams are deliberately falsifying the data. What possible motivation do they have? If they have all (present and past team members) been instructed to do so, wouldn’t there be some evidence, if only verbal/anecdotal?

    As raw data cannot be used directly without homogenization, what homogenization method do you prefer?

    • A C Osborn says:

      Please explain why Raw data cannot be used without homogenization.
      I can show you what it looks like, and it is nothing like the current output of the various Land Temperature Data Sets.
      What the current output looks a bit like is M Mann’s Hockey Stick and a nice smooth progressive trend in line with CO2 levels, but the Raw Data shows large Steps up, with trends down, which does not fit in with the CO2 theory at all.
      Would you like me to supply you with posts to look at on the various web sites that show what is being done to the raw data?
      Why don’t you have a look at some data yourself and see if you think the “Quality Adjustments” look reasonable, especially in-filling with estimated data when the raw data is available?

      Why is all this being done, Money and UN Agenda 21. The IPCC was created, not to understand Climate, but to prove that Man was causing Global Warming. If you don’t beleive that then look at their Mission Statement, it states it plainly enough.

    • A C Osborn says:

      From Wiki.
      “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations,[1][2] set up at the request of member governments.[3] It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53.
      The IPCC produces reports that support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the main international treaty on climate change
      “The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the climate system”.[5] IPCC reports cover “the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”

    • Euan Mearns says:

      Well there was masses of evidence in the CRU email release which the warmests / anti-humanity crowd just swept under the carpet. The evidence is everywhere, but if folks just continue to ignore, delete it, bend it and lie then we end up where we are. Biggest winter storm “ever” about to hit NY and it will get blamed on global warming – do you not feel uncomfortable with all this?

    • Homogenization is what tells us that the average adult human has one breast and one testicle.

    • A C Osborn says:

      Please have a look at this graph provided by Zeke Hausfather

      and this

      Do they look anythign like those you see from NCDC or GISS?

    • William says:


      “Homogenization is what tells us that the average adult human has one breast and one testicle.”

      Of course it isn’t, it is averaging of homogenous data that tells us that. Homogenization is the process of making things homogenous, or equivalent. To combine data from different sources or different time periods, you have to be sure the data measures the same thing in the same way. If it doesn’t you need to homogenize it in some way. For your example, you might use homogenization if the sex data from various countries was biased for example by a reluctance of parents to admit to female births.

      A C Osborn:

      “Please explain why Raw data cannot be used without homogenization.”

      As I said to Roger, to combine different data sets the data has to be equivalent or homogenous. If a measuring station is moved or altered or the time of observation changes the data before/after the change are not equivalent – they are measurements of different things. You can of course plot such data as if it were already homogenous, but what do you think it will show you?

      Euan Mearns:

      “Well there was masses of evidence in the CRU email release which the warmests / anti-humanity crowd just swept under the carpet. The evidence is everywhere, but if folks just continue to ignore, delete it, bend it and lie then we end up where we are. Biggest winter storm “ever” about to hit NY and it will get blamed on global warming – do you not feel uncomfortable with all this?”

      Really? I was talking of evidence of GISS/HADCRUT/BEST etc team members being instructed to insert a warming bias when homogenizing data. Maybe you are referring to something else as I have not seen such evidence, but if true then I would be appalled.

      What I think people are suggesting is that all of the people working on all of the temperature indices are falsifying their work. It would have to be all of them, else there would be whistle-blowers and we’d know about it. How many people would that be by now? If it were only a dozen, it might be possible, but there must be hundreds or even thousands. On that scale, such dishonesty just isn’t plausible. There are professions where lying and cheating are per-requisites, but I’ve never considered science to be among them.

      • Euan Mearns says:

        There are professions where lying and cheating are per-requisites, but I’ve never considered science to be among them.


      • JerryC says:

        “As I said to Roger, to combine different data sets the data has to be equivalent or homogenous. If a measuring station is moved or altered or the time of observation changes the data before/after the change are not equivalent – they are measurements of different things.”

        You are dodging the issue raised in Homewood’s article by relying on vague generalites. Why don’t you answer the question: How is it remotely possible for someone at NASA in the year 2014 to go back and “correct” station data from late 1940s rural Paraguay by two whole degrees? The NASA guy has better understanding of what local conditions were like than the Paraguayan who walked out the thermometer and took the reading on that very day? And is able to apply just right amount of correction to the “wrong” temperature reading?

        What this means is that all temperature data is now conditional, indefinitely. Thermometer says 15 degrees? Eh, who knows, in 40 years maybe someone will come by and decide it was really 12 degrees. Or 17. Whatever is needed at that particular moment…

        • Euan Mearns says:

          The construction of the land based thermometer records is not something I’ve followed closely, partly because when you have satellites up there measuring temperature I feel strongly inclined to use that data.

          Nevertheless, its clear that there is a boundary between data patching, data correction and whole sale data fabrication. If a data set is found to be unfit for purpose then sadly it should be simply omitted. Adjusting a data set to fit the regional trend creates self fulfilling prophecies. How confident are we that the regional trend is virgin data?

          Kit Caruthers links to a couple of interesting articles which I hope Roger will review together with the prior work he has done on data manipulation.

          • A C Osborn says:

            I have looked at the second one by Cowtan and it shows exactly what I would expect.
            Confirmation Bias.
            Paraguay is cooling so it must be wrong, let’s find somewhere that shows the “Right” trend and use that to correct Paraguay because they didn’t know what they were doing and all the Weather stations went wrong in the same way at the same time..
            His very small chart of South America showing the Weather Stations is Genius, he says let’s find a nearby station, yeah like 500Km away maybe.
            He doesn’t quote the comparison station numbers so the data can be independantly checked.
            It smacks of desperation to me.
            Also note that Comments have been disabled.

          • Euan Mearns says:

            What I would like to see are charts of the original minus corrected data, i.e. the size of the correction.

      • William: There’s a fundamental lack of appreciation on the part of you and others as to what you can and can’t legitimately do with raw temperature data. I might get around to writing something on this shortly but right now I’m busy writing another post, so you will have to excuse me.

      • A C Osborn says:

        I can tell you didn’t even bother to look at the Graphs of REAL DATA.
        Because if you had you would be trying to explain how all the Temperature Reading in the World and the USA went wrong at the same time to cause those massive upwards spikes in temperature.

        You do not have an enquiring mind do you?

      • William says:

        It would be interesting to know whether people agree that a step change in the data should be detectable during homogenization.

        For a single station, the step might be a location change – a few hundred meters of altitude could cause a degree or two step. For multiple stations it might mean a change in the observation time regime or new station equipment throughout a region. It seems clear to me that such steps might leave a signature in the data and that it should be possible to remove the step from the signal by comparing with surrounding station data. Do those who doubt the corrections dispute this in principle or is it just the practical implementation that is in doubt?

        Data containing step changes clearly contains more than just the temperature signal. If homogenization using surrounding stations as reference is not acceptable, how should the non-climate signal be removed?

        • A C Osborn says:

          The first graph contains all GLOBAL stations, what other stations would you like to compare them to, Mars or Venus perhaps?
          The second graph is all USA stations..

          • William says:

            I don’t see the relevance of your comment. The question is on the principle of homogenization – do people reject it in principle or only as practiced? And if they reject it, what should replace it?

          • A C Osborn says:

            Unless there is exact direct proof that something changed then the Data should be left alone.
            What you don’t seem to get is that the “GLOBAL” data has shown Step Changes, so the fact that one data set shows a step change should not preclude it from being used or force a change to the data.
            If there is direct proof of a change then the data should be used as 2 distinct data sets, but only if the change is greater than Instrumental error.
            ie, not averaged data showing less than 0.5 degree change (especially for Mercury/Alcohol Thermometers)

            It has been found that the modern measuring devices are much too sensitive and are setting “Warm Records” of up to a degree or 2, but the temperature was only over a few minutes and therefore not representing the real temperature.

            But you have also ignored the use of “Estimated” data when the Raw Data is available, what reason can you give for that?

          • William says:

            The Paraguay data record has holes in it – proof that something changed. Hence by you definition it is acceptable to homogenize that data set. I don’t know what you mean by using it as two sets or why a limit should be set at instrumental accuracy, but I’m glad you, for one, accept homogenization in principle.

            I don’t know why estimated data is sometimes used. What is the official explanation and why don’t you believe it?

            From Cowtan’s video it appears that the effect of the various changes to the records is very small. And they are changing something that is by its nature an approximation to a purely notional not physical concept – global temperature as inferred from readings from a few thousand points covering only part of the globe. To the extent that they mean anything, it is as an indication of current relative increases in surface temperature from year to year. Getting the shape of the curve right for the mid 20th century seems of purely academic interest, not something for which one would commit academic fraud nor something to get excited about now.

          • Unless there is exact direct proof that something changed then the Data should be left alone.


          • A C Osborn says:

            You misunderstood, I do not believe in homogenization.
            As to your Statement “From Cowtan’s video it appears that the effect of the various changes to the records is very small.”

            Perhaps it is time that you started looking at the data for yourself.
            The total warming for the 20th century was around 0.8 degrees C, so you think cooling the past of 9 weather stations in Paraguay between 1 and 2 Degrees C is “very small” and acceptable.

            There is no “official explanation” for using Estimated data when the Raw data is available other than at some point in time the data “may have been bad”, or for using Estimated where absolutely no data exists either.

            Sorry, I just can’t be bothered to keep battering my head against the wall of your ignorance or warmist dogma, enough is enough.

          • William says:

            You are right, I ignored the “If there is direct proof of a change then the data should be used as 2 distinct data sets”. So for the Paraguay data, where there was clearly a change in reliability of measurement (data is missing) if nothing else, you would not homogenize but would instead use the before and after data as “distinct data sets”. I have no idea what it means to have two or more inconsistent records for one location. Do you?

            Euan’s suggestion might be better – omit faulty station data altogether. This would in effect cause the measurements from surrounding good stations to be extrapolated across the missing area, which is similar in a way to what is done in homogenization where surrounding stations are used to detect and correct inhomogeneities in faulty stations. I doubt therefore that there is much difference between omitting stations and homogenizing.

            I’m sorry that you prefer to insult me than to continue polite discussion. I often find such discussions help me to clarify my understanding of the complexities of the subject. My approach to the subject assumes that scientists are overwhelmingly good, honest and fallible, but dedicated to their work and not, as you seem to think, involved in a massive scientific and political conspiracy. Does that make me a “warmist”?

          • Euan Mearns says:

            I think there should be a standardised limit for the distance one should be permitted to extrapolate.

          • I think there should be a standardised limit for the distance one should be permitted to extrapolate.

            Euan, there isn’t one. In some places, such as parts of SE Asia, surface temperature trends are well-correlated over distances of many hundreds of km. In others, such as north and south of the Himalayas and east and west of the Andes, they aren’t. And sometimes trends in different areas are well-correlated over some periods but not over others. All very complicated. 🙁

          • A C Osborn says:

            Euan Mearns says:
            January 28, 2015 at 5:11 pm

            I think there should be a standardised limit for the distance one should be permitted to extrapolate.

            Knowing how much weather changes even in the UK, what do you think, 5-10 miles?
            And what about taking topography in to consideration.
            ie comparing one side of a hill or mountain range with another.
            Elevation differences.
            Comparing coast to inland shows large differences etc.
            The same for areas where there are Lakes, marshes, tivers or intensive use of irrigation all change the local climate enough to make a complete nonsense of Homogenisation.
            Their Computer Algorithms make no allowances for that kind of thing along with UHI.

          • William says:

            Euan, what does an extrapolation limit mean in practice? If there are no recording stations in an area, either because there just are none or because those that exist are unreliable and were discarded (as per your suggestion above) what other choice is there but to extrapolate from outside the unrecorded area? All we are doing is saying that this are has nothing to add. If you are saying that it would be nice if we had more stations, well yes.

            A C Osborn, a hint. If you can’t tell whether it is an insult to tell someone you are “battering my head against the wall of your ignorance or warmist dogma”, consider whether you would say it to the face of a friend or colleague.

          • A C Osborn says:

            So tell me is it ignorance that is causing you to ignore & NOT answer my questions or is it because you are a warmist?

          • Euan Mearns says:

            AC please tone down your responses, keep them impersonal.

            William. In no more than 50 words, please explain to me what the point is that you are trying to make. I’ve read a large number of your comments here and I’m not sure that I or anyone else has learned anything.

            I have developed an allergy to Green Trolls. Here’s your one and only chance to persuade me that you are not one.

            The simple solution is to use the satellite data. Why launch satellites to measure the world if you don’t use the data they send back?

            Are you or are you not in favour of using satellite climatology data?

          • A C Osborn says:

            Euan, yes sorry for letting my frustration get the better of me.

          • William says:

            I was just interested in the apparent lack of trust in homogenization. I agree with you that suspect stations/data should be discarded – it would change the results but then global temperature is anyway an artificial construct. And yes, satellite measurements of tropospheric temperatures should be used and understood.

          • Euan Mearns says:

            William, of the 57 comments on this thread so far, 10 of them are yours. I read your comments and learn very little to nothing from them. You are defending what most of the rest of us view as poor scientific practice, including the CRU emails, some of which were shocking. As already mentioned I know little about how the terrestrial temperature record is constructed but Roger and AC do. They seem to be presenting a fair argument that you are simply rejecting without putting anything better in its place.

            You bare all the hallmarks of a Green Troll. Hogging bandwidth and adding nothing but noise to the discussion. There seems to be an infinite supply, no sooner do I place one in moderation than another jumps out of the wood work with an identical commenting pattern.

            For now I will give you the benefit of the doubt since you raise an interesting subject and that is you want to believe “the scientists” and wonder why folks like me and many others do not trust what “the scientists” are saying. And you cannot conceive of why so many “scientists” conspire to deceive. This is indeed a very interesting subject with no simple answer.

            But you also need ask why there are so many sceptic blogs, some run by very smart physicists like Roy Spencer and Clive Best. Why is it there are so many of us are appalled by the actions of the “climate science” community? Many of us are highly trained scientists and quite frankly do not view climate science to be science at all.

            The debate is fairly polarised and part of the problem is that “the scientists” won’t blog to defend their positions. And the sceptic bloggers can’t get jobs or be published in what has become a closed climate science community. If you don’t believe that CO2 is going to cause serious warming and that we must stop burning fossil fuels straight away then you are excluded access. “The scientists” conduct their debate in the literature which has been corrupted and to be quite frank much of it is now total junk. Here’s an example:

            Successive cold winters of severely low temperatures in recent years have had critical social and economic impacts on the mid-latitude continents in the Northern Hemisphere. Although these cold winters are thought to be partly driven by dramatic losses of Arctic sea-ice, the mechanism that links sea-ice loss to cold winters remains a subject of debate.

            That is the opening sentence – severe cold caused by global warming; critical social and economic impacts; dramatic loss of sea ice.

            IT IS ALL UTTER RUBBISH! For starters there is no dramatic loss of sea ice. Its just utter bollocks and its published in Nature.

            Weakening of the stratospheric polar vortex by Arctic sea-ice loss
            Baek-Min Kim1, Seok-Woo Son2, Seung-Ki Min3, Jee-Hoon Jeong4, Seong-Joong Kim1, Xiangdong Zhang5, Taehyoun Shim4 & Jin-Ho Yoon6

          • William says:

            Euan, thanks for the reply. Best if I avoid engaging in conversation much. One thing, is there an index produced by skeptics? I know Zeke and others worked on one several years back and Nick Stokes does his TempLS but I haven’t seen mention of an “approved” index. If not, why – can it be difficult if one omits homogenization?

        • A C Osborn says:

          I do not consider what I have written as “Insulting” you.
          You do not give a direct answer to any of my questions pointing out the descripencies in your arguments, even now.

          As to “My approach to the subject assumes that scientists are overwhelmingly good, honest and fallible, but dedicated to their work and not, as you seem to think, involved in a massive scientific and political conspiracy.”
          Haven’t you read the Climategate files?

          And this question ” So for the Paraguay data, where there was clearly a change in reliability of measurement (data is missing)”
          You also don’t realise, because you have not looked at the data that the missing data has not been infilled in the Adjusted data, in fact some of it has more holes in than the raw data.
          They just cooled the past by 1 to 2 degrees C.
          You just aren’t “getting it” are you?

          You also do not seem to realise that this is not an isolated incident, but is the norm.

          It has happened to sites in
          New Zealand
          to name just a few.

  6. Louis says:

    Hugely troubling for just about any kind of science …

    I really hope this turns out to be a hoax.

Comments are closed.