Tony - Free the Data, Free the Code

Well Watts drummed up phenominal interest with his closing wuwt posting scam. Then came the letdown - it's another surface station project writeup. Hummmm!

Hopefully Tony can provide at least the following data he used:

A list of all (ALL qualities) stations
Accurate co-ordinates for site so that Measurement machine can be identified at its centre.
Type of measurement device
Details of any changes/calibrations
Criteria used for Watts' classification for that site
Date site was surveyed - date of Google imagery.

We need this data long before publication!

The data seems to forgotten that TOBS (time of observation) needs to be added before comparison to USHCN is made:
Steve: allowing for a TOBS adjustment is reasonable enough. When max min are read daily, if they are read in late afternoon near the daily maximum, a hot day can end up contributing to the maxima for two consecutive days and the cooler next day not counted. The adjustment is made relative to theoretical midnight readings

It seems that McIntyre thinks he should have done more work before allowing his name to be added to the author list!

Steve: As I mentioned, I’ve been involved with this paper for only a few days. You know my personal policies. I did some limited statistical analysis, which, to my considerable annoyance, I need to revisit. As you know, I don’t have a whole lot of interest in temperature data, which is an absolute sink for time. So I’m going to either have to do the statistics from the ground up according to my standards or not touch it anymore.
Steve: I was only on the paper a short time and I overlooked an important issue, which Anthony had paid insufficient attention to. I should have known better – my bad. I’m very annoyed at myself.
Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 31, 2012 at 2:07 PM | Permalink | Reply
In my original look at this information (2007) here, I used TOBS data. I need to revisit this work.

Another  "author" falls by the wayside!

UPDATE #2: To make sure everyone clearly recognizes my involvement with both papers, I provided Anthony suggested text and references for his article [I am not a co-author of the Watts et al paper], and am a co-author on the McNider et al paper.


Tony's WUWT Non-Science

Recorded, it surely cannot be allowd to stay:

Some thoughts on radiative transfer and GHG’s

Absorptions bands in the Earth's atmosphere cr...
Absorptions bands in the Earth’s atmosphere created by greenhouse gases and the resulting effects on transmitted radiation. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Guest post by Reed Coray
The following example illustrates the issues I have with reasoning often used to argue that increasing the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will increase both the Earth’s surface temperature and the Earth’s atmosphere temperature. Immediately following is a direct quote from URL
The present situation is that there has been an increase in infrared-absorbing gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Energy that would normally escape into space is absorbed by these molecules, thus heating the atmosphere and spreading through convection currents. The average temperature of the atmosphere has increased 0.25 °C since 1980, mainly attributed to an increase in infrared-absorbing gases in the atmosphere.
Although the above statement makes no direct reference to Earth surface temperature, I believe it carries the implication that greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere increase the Earth’s surface temperature.
I make two comments: the first is relevant only if the above implication is valid, the second is relevant independent of the validity of the implication. First, placing matter adjacent to a warm surface such that the matter is capable of absorbing/blocking radiation to space from the warm surface can lead to a decrease in the warm surface’s temperature. Second, increasing the amount of the absorbing/blocking matter can lower the temperature of the absorbing/blocking material.
Take for example an internal combustion engine whose metal surface is exposed to a vacuum. In addition to doing useful work, the engine produces thermal energy (heat). That thermal energy will produce a rise in the temperature of the engine’s surface such that in energy-rate equilibrium the rate energy is radiated to space from the engine’s surface is equal to the rate thermal energy is generated within the engine. By attaching radiating plates to the engine’s surface, some of the energy radiated to space from the engine’s original surface will be absorbed/blocked by the plates;
not true only radiation leaving the surface at some acute angle will be re-absorbed
 but because thermal energy can be transferred from the engine to the plates via both radiation and conduction, the temperature of the engine’s original surface will be lowered.
Wrong - if less radiation is leaving the engine gets hotter
 This is the principle of an air-cooled engine[1]: provide a means other than radiation of transferring heat from an engine to a large surface area from which heat can be removed via a combination of conduction, convection and radiation, and the engine’s surface temperature will be lowered.
If plates at a temperature lower than the original engine surface temperature are attached to the engine, it’s true that the temperature of the plates will increase to establish energy-rate equilibrium. Once energy-rate equilibrium is established, however, increasing the plate radiating area (adding additional matter that blocks more of the energy radiated from the original engine surface) will likely lower the plate temperature.
Depends on conduction of fin and relative temperature of cooling air and fin
Thus, blocking the amount of surface radiation escaping to space does not necessarily increase the surface temperature; and increasing the amount of radiation blocking material does not necessarily increase the temperature of that material. In both cases (the Earth/Earth-atmosphere and the internal combustion engine in a vacuum), the heat eventually escapes to space–otherwise the temperature of the Earth’s surface and the engine would continue to rise indefinitely.
All that is just garbage. All solids radiate (accoding to its temperature and emissivity - not necessarily fitting a black body curve). Take away any GHGs and the surface of the earth radiates directly to space with no back radiation and no impeding of radiation to the background temp of space.  O2 an N2 and H2 etc. do not stop significant radiated energy but they will be warmed by the earth - none of the O2 N2 will be able to radiate this heat to space. The temperature of the O2 and N2 will get NO HOTTER than the surface of the Earth, but they WILL NOT enable the earth to heat up further. Add GHGs and each molecule will "absorb" and "retransmit" radiation. The radiation retransmitted can be in any direction but nearly 50%- hits the earth and 50%+ goes to space. The 50% hitting the earth is 50% that would have escaped had there been no GHG. -The earth warmed by the sun cools slower because of GHG presence. The earth conducts to the rest of the atmosphere warming it.
 The difference isn’t that the energy doesn’t eventually escape to space (it does in both cases), the difference is in the path the energy takes to reach space. The amount of generated thermal energy in conjunction with the path the thermal energy takes to get to space determines temperatures along the path; and adding more material may increase or decrease those temperatures. To say that “Energy that would normally escape into space is absorbed by these molecules, thus heating the atmosphere…” by itself is unwarranted; because an equivalent statement for the case of adding extra plate material to the engine would be “Energy that would normally escape to space from an engine with small attached plates is absorbed by additional plate material, thus heating the plates…” For air-cooled engines, this statement is not true—otherwise the plate surface area of air-cooled engines would be as small as possible.
It’s fairly easy to visualize why (a) adding thermally radiating plates to an air-cooled engine might decrease the engine’s surface temperature, and (b) increasing the area of the radiating plates might decrease the plate temperature. It’s not so easy to visualize, and may not be true, why (a) adding greenhouse gases to the Earth’s atmosphere decreases the Earth’s surface temperature; and (b) increasing the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases lowers the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. I now present one possible argument. I do not claim that the argument is valid for greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, but I do claim that the argument might be valid, and can only be refuted by an analysis more detailed than simply claiming “Energy that would normally escape into space is absorbed by these molecules, thus heating the atmosphere.”
I do not believe photons absorbed by GHGs heat the atmosphere The photons emitted from GHGs eventually(perhaps after many absorbtion/retransmittions eithe leave the system or hit the earth warming it. The warm earth heats the atmosphere
If we assume that (a) matter cannot leave the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system, and (b) non-greenhouse gases radiate negligible energy to space, then for a non-greenhouse gas atmosphere the only way thermal energy can leave the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system to space is via radiation from the surface of the Earth. The rate radiation leaves the surface is in part a function of both the area and temperature of the surface. For a greenhouse gas atmosphere, energy can leave the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system to space both via radiation from the Earth’s surface and radiation from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Suppose it is true that the density of greenhouse gases near the Earth’s surface is such that radiation emitted from low-altitude greenhouse gases does not directly escape to space, but is in part directed towards the Earth’s surface and in part absorbed by other atmospheric greenhouse gases. As the atmospheric greenhouse gas density decreases with increasing altitude, radiation emitted from high-altitude greenhouse gases can directly escape to space.
Now it’s not impossible that since (a) in addition to radiation, heat is transferred from the Earth’s surface to greenhouse gases via conduction, and (b) convection currents (i) circulate the heated greenhouse gases to higher altitudes where energy transfer to space can take place and (ii) return cooler greenhouse gases to the Earth’s surface, that the process of heat transfer away from the Earth’s surface via greenhouse gases is more efficient than simple radiation from the Earth’s surface.
Heated molecules share heat by conduction. In space there is nothing to conduct to. No heat is transfered. What is transfered to space is radiation, From photons absorbed by GHGs and from photons emitted from earth that are not touched by GHGs (wrong wavelength)
 Many engines are cooled using this concept. Specifically, a coolant is brought into contact with a heated surface which raises the coolant’s temperature via conduction and radiation, and the coolant is moved to a location where thermal energy transfer away from the coolant to a heat sink is more efficient than direct thermal energy transfer from the heated surface to the heat sink.
One way to realize increased thermal transfer efficiency would be to use a coolant, such as greenhouse gases, that efficiently radiates energy in the IR band (i.e., radiates energy at temperatures around 500 K). Another way would be to spread the heated coolant over a large surface area. Since surface area increases with increasing altitude, thereby providing expanded “area” (in the case of a gas, expanded volume) from which radiation to space can occur, it’s not clear to me (one way or the other) that greenhouse gases won’t act as a “coolant” reducing both the temperatures of the Earth’s atmosphere and the Earth surface.
Ye Gods!, did Tony read this before publishing... or is this what he believes??!!!!!!

RGB loses his cool with a true sceptic (at last!)

rgbatduke says:

I may admit I may not always be right but sure as hell you lot do not even know the people you are quoting.

You not only aren’t “always right” in regard to radiation theory, you are so infinitely wrong that you are, quite seriously, almost stunning in any conversation. Worse, you haven’t a clue that you are clueless, and make your vastly incorrect statements to correct somebody that actually has a clue.
Here’s what I have to contribute. Light is electromagnetic radiation. Go on, look it up. The entire electromagnetic spectrum is light. Radio waves are light. Microwaves are light. Infrared radiation is light. Visible light is a narrow band of light. Ultraviolet radiation is light. X-rays are light. Finally, gamma rays are light. The only thing that differentiates a gamma ray from a radio wave is its frequency and wavelength, and those aren’t even invariant properties — one can in principle doppler shift a radio wave into an x-ray by moving through it fast enough.
Second, the only thing the human eye can see is light. I mean good God, man, why do you think they call it turning on the lights when you enter a dark room?
Third, radiation from the sun does not, for the most part “turn into light” only when it reaches our atmosphere. Again, this is so wrong it is difficult even know how to begin. Children understand this better than that. Sunlight is emitted as light by our very hot sun. It travels as light — both visible and invisible, an entire spectrum of light — through the near-vacuum in between the Sun and the Earth. When it reaches the Earth, in very crude terms some of it is reflected at some point or another by the atmosphere without losing (much) energy, some of it is transmitted, and some of it is absorbed. How much of each depends on a host of things — clouds reflect more energy back to space than clear dry air, but clouds and water vapor also absorb more on the way to the ground than clear dry air. Of the radiation that reaches the ground, some is reflected and again passes more or less completely out of the atmosphere without significant loss, and the rest is absorbed. Of the radiation that reaches the ocean, some is reflected at or near the upper surface, and virtually all the rest is absorbed.
Fourth, if you want to understand the way electromagnetic radiation is created, transmitted, absorbed, scattered, you have to begin by learning Maxwell’s Equations. Maxwell’s equations are the classical partial differential equations that describe the electromagnetic field. They aren’t complete — they are classical and atoms and molecules are really quantum mechanical — but to even think of understanding quantum electrodynamics it helps to start with classical electrodynamics. To understand classical electrodynamics, it would really help you to take a class in introductory physics one day, assuming that your calculus background is up to the task. Even in a first year intro physics course in E&M, like the one I am teaching right now, you would learn all of the things I listed above and more besides — I generally try to teach my students that transmitted electromagnetic power is the flux of the Poynting vector through the specified surface, for example, which is entirely apropos of the current conversation.
If you cannot afford a physics textbook, feel free to use the ones I’ve written — they are available for free online here:
and if you want to try to tackle real graduate level electrodynamics, you can try:
but be warned, it isn’t for the faint of heart and you’ll need a reasonable proficiency with partial differential equations and non-Abelian algebras and Lie groups to get through the book. A knowledge of tensors would also be very useful, but sadly few students (even physics graduate students) have much of one so the book tries to be self-contained in this regard. It is also intended to be the second semester of a two semester series, so it presumes you’ve already mastered the Poisson equation and spherical decompositions and magnetostatics and are ready to get on with Maxwell’s equations and true Electrodynamics.
Now “we lot” — by which I assume you means “warmists” used as a pejorative term — sometimes do know very, very well precisely of what we speak. I, for example, do. And I’m not a “warmist”, for that matter. That smacks of religion, and I can and do justify my opinions about almost anything all the way down to the microscopic level — or admit ignorance.
So it is from a state of very much non-ignorance that I repeat — your previous statement, criticizing the entirely correct statement of Mr. Hoffer who is also no warmist, merely a rational skeptic who doubts the alleged magnitude or importance of the GHE, not its very existence — was something that left anyone who read it very slightly dumber. I could feel my own brain cells reeling in shock from it. Radiation turning into light only when it hits the atmosphere? Eyes unable to see light? It made me feel that my entire professional career, spent teaching people far better than that, has been wasted. How is it even possible for a high school education to turn you out into the world that ignorant? I knew better in grade school.
So your statement was not only not a rebuttal of David Hoffer — it was an open insult to the entire US educational system. It was unamerican! Do you want the entire world to laugh at us?
Hence my unaccustomed vigor in striking down your contribution, which, you will note, I am continuing. I’m quite serious. You owe it to yourself, you owe it to simple honesty to crack a physics book and at least try to understand what electromagnetic radiation is before again entering a public debate on the subject and attempting to correct people that have actually studied it, or teach it.
But of course you won’t, will you? Neither will Greg House, or any of the others that make absurd statements about radiation being unable to be reflected back to a warm surface and thereby slow its cooling. It’s so startlingly ignorant a statement that it makes one want to simply throw one’s hands up in despair. Not even my suggestion to go buy a space blanket and wrap yourself in it to gain firsthand experience of “warming” by trapping your own body’s radiation — an “experiment” you can actually perform at home — will actually get you to do it. Or taking an ordinary light bulb and placing it in front of a sheet of plastic wrap, then in front of a sheet of aluminum foil, to see which one reflects more heat (and note well — reflects heat from something much cooler than the light bulb filament). I could probably think up a half dozen other table top experiments to demonstrate radiative heating and cooling — they are elementary school science fair stuff — but of course to you they can’t exist because you know radiation only turns into light when air molecules experience friction or some other long line of complete, utter, absurdities.
I do declare, with people like you “helping” the skeptical “cause”, it doesn’t need to be opposed — the real warmists of the world can just point at you and wait for people to stop laughing themselves to death. Which is a logical fallacy, of course — you can disbelieve in CAGW because a pink unicorn came to you in a dream and told you to and still be right, just as they can be supported by not entirely implausible arguments and still be wrong, and wise people look at the arguments themselves and not individuals — but it does make it all to easy for sensible skeptical arguments to be dismissed when there exist “skeptics” whose arguments are only a hair better than pink unicorns.


CO2 and Crops

Just how will increased CO2 affect crops and in particular the nutritional value:
some research more will be added







Looks like more plant mass, more grain, less %protein with increased CO2

So more fertilizer required for less protein but more carbohydrate.

Not sure that this is a good scenario!

Norfolk Police Q & A on the CRU Email Theft

The official Q and A from the Norfolk Police


Operation Cabin Q&As The following questions and answers are an abridged version of Norfolk Constabulary’s Operation Cabin media briefing held on Thursday 19 July 2012.

How do you know it was an external hack?
In outline terms, we know it came via the internet from a number of different IP addresses, in various countries, which may have been proxy servers. The attack was, first of all, into the web server (CRUweb8) in the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the UEA. From there, a link was established to a CRU back-up server (CRUback3). It’s fair to say, the university has to draw the right balance between giving access to information – it’s an academic establishment and, as such, has a proportionate level of security which enables people to work remotely and access information to operate in that academic environment. As a consequence of the attack, the UEA has taken a number of measures and its ICT infrastructure now looks very different. We identified that the attackers breached several password layers to get through and they got to a position where they employed different methodologies to return the data. We identified a significant quantity of data that was taken in this way, certainly in excess of that which was subsequently published in the two files in 2009 and 2011. We’ve used the expression ‘sophisticated’ and that’s because that’s the view of our experts who conducted that side of the investigation for us. They identified that, as well as achieving the breach, they also took significant steps to conceal their tracks and lay false trails and change information available to us in order to frustrate the investigation. The conclusion was the person /s were highly competent in what they were doing. That technical investigation was the primary line of investigation although we did cater for other possibilities, these were later ruled out.

Which specific countries were involved in the trail of proxy servers and which countries were either helpful or uncooperative in your investigations?
While we will not be confirming the names of the countries specifically, we can confirm there were a number across the majority of the continents. We would underline that the use of a proxy server in any country is not necessarily evidence that the hack originated in that domain. We worked with partners in these countries and the level of response and support we got varied from being excellent to being quite time consuming. The logistics involved meant it was a complex picture with different legal jurisdictions and sovereignties. Sometimes it’s a procedural issue and sometimes it’s a political issue with a small or a big P.

Can you confirm that the US was helpful?
We will not confirm the identity of individual countries but we can say, in general terms, there is a healthy and productive relationship between law enforcement in the US and the UK.

Did you detect that any national government could be behind this?
No. The hypothesis was, and remains, that the person or persons responsible for this could be anyone on a spectrum from an individual right through to the other end of the spectrum, including commercial organisations and governments. It is obvious that some commercial organisations would have an interest in maintaining their commercial position; similarly there will be economies and governments which have an interest in protecting their position. To be clear, we did not get any indication as to who was responsible.

It is clear the person responsible has knowledge of this subject; did you interview all the bloggers that showed an interest?
We interviewed a number of people and the logistical issues involved meant that much of this work was carried out remotely because, physically travelling to countries, and the logistics involved in achieving that – for the anticipated outcome – would have not be proportionate. Of course, the climate sceptic community would, in the main, give the appearance of welcoming the published data because it supports their view. Therefore, we were realistic about the prospect of them being helpful to our investigation.

Can you describe what investigations you undertook at the UEA and who you interviewed there?
The focus internally was on the IT infrastructure and working out from there. We also looked at people working at or with connections to the Climate Research Unit and, in simple terms, we were looking for anything obvious. All members of staff were interviewed. If someone had some obvious links or had an axe to grind, then that might have been a line of enquiry. Generally speaking, it was a screening exercise which did not provide any positive lines of enquiry. Whilst - because we have not found the perpetrators - we cannot say categorically that no-one at the UEA is involved, there is no evidence to suggest that there was. The nature and sophistication of the attack does not suggest that it was anyone at the UEA.

You say that the hacker had to go through a series of passwords; do you know that someone at the UEA would not have had access to these passwords?
Anyone with access to these passwords has been excluded as a suspect. Additionally, there was some evidence of work undertaken to break passwords.

It has been reported that the hacker accessed the server on three separate occasions, can you confirm if that’s true and if there were any further attempts to access the server after ‘climategate’ broke and have there been any recently?
The report is inaccurate. The attack was conducted over a period of time and access would have occurred on a number of occasions and certainly more than three. Of course, we only know what we know. I have already described it was a sophisticated attack; we have established a substantial amount of what happened. What I can’t say is whether we have established everything that happened. There were no further data breaches once the story had broken in November 2009, not least because we had taken possession of Cruback3 and it wasn’t available to be accessed.

Do you know when the attacks began?
There’s a timeline of events and there has been speculation, in the media and the blogs, that there may have been an orchestrated campaign of Freedom of Information requests to the University in the summer of 2009. It appears the attacks were undertaken late in that summer, early autumn, through to November. The first tactic that we were aware of was in September 2009. There was news that some other institutions, including in Canada, that may have come under a similar attack at that time.

 Are there any other institutions that you have found that were attacked at this time?
We did have some dialogue and there were one or two that had been attacked and we did have a preliminary examination but they did not give us any indication or cause to suspect that it was in any way linked to the UEA.

What happens to Cruback3 now?
It has been returned to the University of East Anglia, having been retained as an exhibit through the course of the investigation. It was necessary to retain the actual server for this time. It contained a massive amount of data, something in the region of five terabytes.

When the second batch of e-mails was released, there was the note that came with them. Did you or your colleagues contemplate doing structural linguistics or analysis to try and trace it to a particular location in the world?
It was speculated on and it was something we did consider. Our conclusion was that it would be unlikely to take the investigation anywhere and, in fact, if you are trying to conceal your tracks it could have been constructed to mislead.

You have been restricted by the statute of limitations, would you have continued with this investigation otherwise?
The decision to close the case was a combination of the time limit and an acknowledgement that we had pursued this as far as we reasonably can.

Did you consider prosecuting people dealing in the information that was clearly stolen?
In terms of offences committed, it becomes a much greyer area. The same challenges exist in terms of identifying those individuals. An operational decision was made not to pursue this.

Beware the Computer Misuse Act
Unauthorised access to computer material.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access toany program or data held in any computer [F1, or to enable any such accessto be secured] ;
(b) the access he intends to secure [F2, or to enable to be secured,] is unauthorised;and
(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the functionthat that is the case.
(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not bedirected at—
(a) any particular program or data;
(b) a program or data of any particular kind; or
(c) a program or data held in any particular computer. [F3
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a termnot exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximumor to both;
(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceedingsix months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;
(c) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twoyears or to a fine or to both.]

2 Unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of furtheroffences.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits an offence undersection 1 above (“the unauthorised access offence”) with intent—
(a)to commit an offence to which this section applies; or
(b)to facilitate the commission of such an offence (whether by himself or by anyother person); and the offence he intends to commit or facilitate is referred to below in this section as the further offence.
(2) This section applies to offences—
(a)for which the sentence is fixed by law; or
(b)for which a personwho has attained the age of twenty-one years (eighteenin relation to England and Wales) and has no previous convictions may besentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years (or, in England and Wales,might be so sentenced but for the restrictions imposed by section 33 of theM1Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980).
(3)It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether the further offence is to becommitted on the same occasion as the unauthorised access offence or on any futureoccasion.
(4)A person may be guilty of an offence under this section even though the facts are suchthat the commission of the further offence is impossible.
[F4(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a termnot exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximumor to both;
(b)on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceedingsix months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;
(c)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fiveyears or to a fine or to both.]


The "skeptic's" Warped World View

A real defamation from that oh-so-pure Climate Audit:

achuara Posted Jul 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM | Permalink | Reply
 what about if the “criminals are brought to justice” along with Phil Jones, Mann and the merry bunch? But all boils down to emails and the data released or hacked have not been shown to be altered, or xxxxx –and that is the crux of the issue. They have been xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx data in the Hadley Center for decades, in a clear xxxxxxxx use of public money. But the issue seems to be it was not a leak but a hack! Give me a break!

For my protection I have decided to remove the worst defamatory words - republishing is as bad a initial publishing

I, for one, don’t believe everything that the police say, just because they say so


theduke Posted Jul 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Reply

The “hack,” if it was a crime, was clearly one of conscience or, if you prefer, an act of civil disobedience. If Mosher and Fuller say it was someone (or more than one) with connections to the CRU, then it’s more likely than not that that is true

Mosher is more reliable than the police!

Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Reply 
Too bad that they didn’t provide any evidence to actually dispel the theory that RC/FOIA “was a disgruntled UEA employee”.


Steve McIntyre Posted Jul 18, 2012 at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

According to Richard Black, Michael Mann has urged that “criminals be brought to justice”:
Peter Gleick was apparently unavailable for comment.

UEA has called the police in to investigate a criminal event (Computer Misuse Act) The police accept that a crime has been committed.

No one has charged Gleick with a criminal act - this is in the hands of Heartland

The whole of the blog has turned to innuendo, conspiracy theories and defamatory comments.

The blocking of comments to these  denialist blogs has become an art form - wordpress must have got some damn fine filtering available to them. It is becoming frustrating!


Arctric webcam 2 back up!

Pictures from 17th July


The death of Arctic Web Cam 2 ?

11th July note horizon angle and compare to previous post and picture below 12 July

The last picture on the website for camera 2 on 12th July - Horizon levelled again

13th July picture from webcam 1 - Sill more surface water


Tony at wuwt Tredding a Fine Line again

Tony is at it again - he's hitting the gutter, running.


Mocking someone for their appearance and not their science. The acolytes follow with embellishments as usual:

Jim says:
Wow, what a freak show these warmists are.
pat says:
July 13, 2012 at 9:12 am
And we are the supposed crackpots?

jayhd says:
July 13, 2012 at 9:29 am
Even though as a rule I don’t make fun of the mentally ill, I’m one of the skeptics/deniers who believe the CAGW promoters and their followers should be ridiculed every chance we get

Duke of Deniers Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd. says:
July 13, 2012 at 11:03 am
Umm, this photo says about a million words. Clearly, Caerbannog is a far left wing nut, and these are the types of people supporting magical CAGW. In fact, Heartland ought to put up a billboard of this clown with a caption saying “he believes in global warming, do you?’


I would suggest peoples private lives are irrelevant in this war if it they are harmless.

But perhaps worse is dear old tony may have got the wrong man - I hope he hasn't revealed any email address or this person may be getting death threats like those sent to Phil Jones (see previous entry).

From Tony's links
la prima serata metallo extremo nella locanda e la prima colaborazione Hiemis + Aeterna Nox
Aspetto tutti!
Auiti a diffundere il male!


  • Status: Married
  • Hometown: Belo Horizonte - Brasil
  • Body type: 175cm / Body builder
  • Religion: Atheist
  • Zodiac Sign: Cancer
  • Children: I don't want kids
  • Smoke / Drink: Yes / Yes
  • Education: In college
  • Occupation: Hell's Drums Avenger

  • age 31?

    Caesar Augustus Rossi Carvalho's (Caerbannog) Band

    From Caerbannogs comments he seems to have an excellent English ability, and from his youtube profile is from USA and is 57 years old!

    by caerbannog666
    Latest Activity


    Some EXCEL Spreadsheet Stuff

    A good cell format (enter into custom formats)

    This will give you engineering format:
    Create sorted data on the fly:
    Period yearsamplitudeOffset months

    Data in array A1:D12
    1st column is order required,
    2nd column is "sorted" using =SMALL(A$1:A$12,z1) data to sort in A1 to A12 Z1 is order (1st col)
    3rd ... nth col is data from rest of unsorted area. =VLOOKUP(AA1,A$1:D$12,n,FALSE) 'n' is the offset for required data. e.g amplitude n=2, offset months n=4
    Use "spinners" to increment decrement variables
     Find spinners in Developer tab
    Then click Insert
    Then click [spin button (form control)] 4th icon in top row
    on sheet drag a rectangle for the button size
    on new formed icon right click and choose form control
    select the cell you want to change in "Cell Link"
    The spin button will change this cell by +-1 every click from 0 to 30000
    you then need to size this variable to suit e.g. subtract 15000 and you will get +-15000 range
    You can adjust the increment in the form control to suit.
    A really useful smoothing algorithm
    Does not offset data as the built in trendline moving average
    Does not lose peaks and troughs
    Is free (although you can donate)
    Hodrick Prescott filter from
    Simple to use but filter level is a bit random! (choose a level that removes as much noise as required)
    A really useful band pass filter
    seems well behaved
    limited to around 4000 samples
    Is free (although you can donate)
    Band Pass filter from
    Manually create a plot changing 1 variable

    e.g. you have monthly data for 150 years temperature. You want to produce a plot of average output from a band pass filter with a changing centre frequency (using the above filter)
    You therefore need to set the filter frequency and obtain an amplitude output for desired bands.

    Z1=centre frequency for band pass calc
    J6:J77= output array
    Set up a column with the desired centre frequencies A1 to An
    in the plot data column B1 to Bn  =IF(A1=Z$1,MAX(J$6:J$77),B1)

    The plot data column will retain its original data if the corresponding 'An' column does not equal the frequency in Z1. When 'An'=Z1 then the plot data will update.

    So you type into Z1 each 'An' value in turn.
    You end up with a table which can be plotted
    % opaque cloud cover3rd quart DLWIR as % of ULWIR water vapout content g/m^31st Quart DLWIR as % of ULWIR water vapout content g/m^3Results returned

     Col 1 is variable 2nd 3rd and 4th cols are derived data for the variable
    (This can be automated!)
    Update the title of a graph automatically

    in a suitable cell e.g. A1 use concatenate to generate the title e.g.
    =CONCATENATE("Temperature vs Abs Humidity "," - Op Cloud ",G18," to ",G19,"% - Months ",G6," to ",G7," Temp ",G9," to ",G10," - AH ",G12," to ",G13,"g/m^3 - hours ",G15," to ",G16)

    Add TITLE to graph and in formula space type " =A1" no quotes!

    in this example the title becomes:
    Temperature vs Abs Humidity - Op Cloud -100000 to 9% - Months 5 to 5 Temp -100 to 100 - AH 0 to 99g/m^3 - hours 9 to 11

    You cannot use concatenate in the title formula
    From D. Appel
    Formulae made readable by using 10^6 instead of 1e6 (which becomes to 1000000 in formulae)
    Vlookup and Hlookup
    2 really useful features but they suffer with a direct reference to a column number 'n'
    VLOOKUP([search value],[array with 1st col containing search valoe],n,FALSE)
    if you move or delete things the 'n' does not update requiring manual intervention.
     name the columns
    Then number the columns by using =column()
    e.g. col 3 name = "current"
    then select the numbers + title array
    click formulas tab
    click define names section [create from selection]
    select only (in this case) bottom row then click [ok]
    the cells in the number row will now be named as in the name row


    Name the whole table to search also shows where the data is obtained this then gives the vlookup command as:
    VLOOKUP([search value],sizedata,Bdia,FALSE) the array is "sizedata" and the column to return data is Bdia
    Plotting blanks
    a really annoying "feature"
    if data in a table is invalid then it is a simple matter to put a conditional statement into the calculation that returns a cell showing no entry:
    =if(a1=9999,"",a1*3) should return a blank if cell if a1=9999 or a1*3 if valid.
    Unfortunately the plotting section does not recognise the cell contents as blank and will istead plot a value 0
    Solution is to change the conditional statement to
    invalid data will now show as N/A and will not plot.

    To change a cell with a click (double)
    first open a code page
    right click a tab and click "view code"
    in VB editor now open enter :
    Private Sub Worksheet_BeforeDoubleClick(ByVal Target As Excel.Range, Cancel As Boolean)
    calc = Application.Calculation
    Application.Calculation = xlManual

    If Not Intersect(Target, Range(ActiveWorkbook.Names("axisx"))) Is Nothing Then
        ActiveCell.FormulaR1C1 = "x"
    End If

        Cancel = True
        Application.Calculation = calc
    End Sub

    This turns off instant calculation (not needed if a simple sheet - lenghty calculation do not give a fast response to double click)
    looks for a cell being clicked in an area named "axisx"
    clears its contents then sets the cell clicked to "x"
    (you an do anything here of course. BUT if you do not use names then VB will not keep track of the required clickable cell if it is moved)
    At the end of the programme the calculation state is restored to its entry value.

    To average over cells containing blank results - result of a formula is blank
    For plotting change result to #n/a (see above)
    then use
    Averaging will return error
    will then ignore the N/A cells
    use trimmean to dispose of extremes and average rest
    in this example cell CH10  is current active cell
     $CB$6 contains a value that represents the number of cells above and below the active cell that should be includeed in the average
    $CB$7  contains a number between 0 and 1 to select the % of results that are to be included in the disposal.

    A bit of iteration
    A sample:
    cell C29 =IF(ISERROR(B51),1.8,IF(B51-A1>0.0005,C29+0.0001,IF(B51-A1<-0 .0005="">
    cell B51 =IF(ISERROR(B51),1.8,ROUND(SUM(C49:H49),3))

    Cell A1 contains the number to match
    B51 is the matched value
    C29 is used in some sums! results ending up in C49 to H49
    Error trapping sets  B51 to any valid value.
    if B51>A1 by 0.0005  then C29 is increased by 0.0001
    if B51
    Iteration stops when ABS(B51-A51)<0 .0005="">Iteration starts when ABS(B51-A51)>0.0005

    Also need to allow iteration in setup and allow enough steps and accuracy

    Some curve fitting stuff:

    to get parameters from various curve fits:

    Linear Trendline
    Equation: y = m * x + b
    m: =SLOPE(y1:y2,x1:x2)
    b: =INTERCEPT(y1:y2,x1:x2)

    Logarithmic Trendline
    Equation: y = (c * LN(x)) - b
    c: =INDEX(LINEST(y1:y2,LN(x1:x2)),1)
    b: =INDEX(LINEST(y1:y2,LN(x1:x2)),1,2)

    Power Trendline
    Equation: y=c*x^b
    c: =EXP(INDEX(LINEST(LN(y1:y2),LN(x1:x2),,),1,2))
    b: =INDEX(LINEST(LN(y1:y2),LN(x1:x2),,),1)

    Exponential Trendline
    Equation: y = c *e ^(b * x)
    c: =EXP(INDEX(LINEST(LN(y1:y2),x1:x2),1,2))
    b: =INDEX(LINEST(LN(y1:y2),x1:x2),1)

    2nd Order Polynomial Trendline
    Equation: y = (c2 * x^2) + (c1 * x ^1) + b

    C2: =INDEX(LINEST(y1:y2,x1:x2^{1,2}),1)
    C1: =INDEX(LINEST(y1:y2,x1:x2^{1,2}),1,2)
    b = =INDEX(LINEST(y1:y2,x1:x2^{1,2}),1,3)

    3rd Order Polynomial Trendline
    Equation: y = (c3 * x^3) + (c2 * x^2) + (c1 * x^1) + b
    c3: =INDEX(LINEST(y1:y2,x1:x2^{1,2,3}),1)
    c2: =INDEX(LINEST(y1:y2,x1:x2^{1,2,3}),1,2)
    C1: =INDEX(LINEST(y1:y2,x1:x2^{1,2,3}),1,3)
    b: =INDEX(LINEST(y1:y2,x1:x2^{1,2,3}),1,4)

    and so on.


    NP Web Cams - Loads of Water

    Webcam 2 seems to show footprints in snow!
    Webcam 1 sits on an island of snow in the surface water.
    Melting similar to 2011 (perhaps a bit later)

    The webcams have moved about 4 deg south since installation:

    So what about the mass of ice:


    Arctic Ice (update)

    Latest plots - accurate to 1st July 2012 - of sea ice extent. The 1st july slope is unchanged from previous years.

    Extent is below whole record average but similar to 2007

    A few plots of FFTs from JAXA data for Arctic Sea Ice extent data - only 10 years of data so FFT info is unreliable for periods of around a couple of years or more.
    Data is daily (with a few infills).
    I see no 28 day lunar events:

    There are periods of:
    61 days
    73 days
    124 days
    186 days
    1 year
    652 day (possibly)
    2 weeks (possibly)