JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Gavin Schmidt now admits NASA are only 38% sure 2014 was the hottest year

I said the vaguest scientists in the world lie by omission, and it’s what they don’t say that gives them away. The “hottest ever” press release didn’t tell us how much hotter the hottest year supposedly was, nor how big the error bars were. David Rose of the Daily Mail pinned down Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS to ask a few questions that bloggers and voters want answered but almost no other journalist seems to want to ask.

Finally…

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right

Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all 

Does that mean 97% of climate experts are 62% sure they are wrong?*

The thing with half-truths is that they generate a glorious fog, but it has no substance. Ask the spin-cloud of a couple of sensible questions and the narrative collapses. This is the kind of analysis that would have stopped the rot 25 years ago if most news outlets had investigative reporters instead of science communicators trained to “raise awareness”. (The media IS the problem). If there was a David-Rose-type in most major dailies, man-made global warming would never have got off the ground.

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.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C.

The margin of error is about a tenth of a degree, so those error bars are 500% larger than the amount pushed in headlines all over the world. Gavin Schmidt of course, is horrified that millions of people may have been mislead:

GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.

I’m sure he’s too busy contacting newspapers and MSNBC to make sure stories from NASA GISS are accurate and scientifically correct.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk

In the mood for sport? Turn the torch back on the journalists who were too gullible to ask a sensible question. Let’s start asking the ABC and BBC journalists why they didn’t ask “how much hotter was it” and “how big are those error bars”.

H/t to Colin, Gardy.

*And since we’re asking — what’s with the 38% — what are the error bars on that? ;-)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (135 votes cast)
Gavin Schmidt now admits NASA are only 38% sure 2014 was the hottest year, 9.0 out of 10 based on 135 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/k6z56vg

127 comments to Gavin Schmidt now admits NASA are only 38% sure 2014 was the hottest year

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    May be Gavin’s seen the future, and its cold.

    300

    • #
      Dennis

      Maybe he can also see the Twilight Of Abundance?

      130

    • #
      bemused

      It’s been anything but summer down our way this year. Maybe some of the northern hemisphere’s ‘global warming’ is drifting down to us.

      91

      • #
        RoHa

        We’ve been having some hot weather in Brisbane over the last few days, and last night was (official figures) the Hottest Night For Ten Years, so that must prove something or other.

        51

        • #
          albert

          A temp from a selected spot on Earth makes hardly any difference whatsoever to the Global average, almost none.
          You must forget the Feb day in Brisbane when the temp was 41C. Air conditioning can lower the temp for you.
          During my early years I experienced more heat than today

          20

        • #
          ian hilliar

          The weather girl on Sydney TV last night reliably informed us “Today was the coldest day of the year in Sydney”. January 19, 2015…..

          10

  • #

    In the US, the news media reports political polls with a percentage uncertainty, but climate science sources report global temperature measurements to 0.01C and the media parrots that with no followup.

    It’s really appalling that political polls present science better than the
    climate scientists do.

    270

    • #
      C.J.Richards

      Is Politics more serious than Climate Science then or is Climate Science an artifice of politics ?

      2014 isn’t even a contender for hottest year in the independent satellite records.

      http://folk.uib.no/ngfhd/Climate/Figs/temperature-AnnMean-1979-present_trend-GL-1000px.jpg

      100

    • #
      Aynsley Kellow

      As a political scientist, let me me say that Political Science does, indeed, to be more serious than Climate Science. We overwhelmingly have double blind refereeing, we do not usually nominate reviewers, etc. And, as noted, errors are usually specified even in newspaper reports on opinion polls.

      But (as I pointed out recently on another blog last week, before this announcement) Climate Science appears to be unusual in not specifying error terms. I began university life studying science (physics, chemistry, zoology – when you got to dissect actual dogfish, not rubber ones!) I seem to recall the fundamental rule in the physics lab was that if your results lay within the error bars. you had no result worth reporting.

      Climate science seems remarkable, as Jo said, in lying by omission. Billions are being invested on a bunch of scientists who will not come clean and say they have nothing to report and know a lot less than they are telling politicians and the public.

      As I suggested there, any decent journalist dealing with press releases from this lot in future should ask two stock questions: 1. What is the error in your results? 2. Does your result exceed the error term?

      391

      • #
        ianl8888


        As I suggested there, any decent journalist dealing with press releases from this lot in future should ask two stock questions: 1. What is the error in your results? 2. Does your result exceed the error term?

        That journos do not do this is self-evident for over twenty years now

        Why is it so, in your view ? (Obviously I have a view on this as well)

        90

        • #
          Brute

          They don’t ask because they don’t need to. Times are good. There is money aplenty. Consider, for example, the many, many, many times over millionaire Jon Stewart while goofs like Colbert dine at the White House. These folks have their pockets full.

          And, yes, there are recessions and other economic woes but these are only a problem for their audience.

          80

          • #
            michael hart

            I suspect many journalists further down the pecking order are also too intimidated. They generally didn’t study much science, are frightened by their ignorance, and don’t really know where to start asking detailed questions even if they wanted to.

            Fortunately there is an easier approach available to them, should they choose to use it. They just need to start asking why reality is falling so far short of model predictions.

            The same principles hold equally well when probing charlatan stock-market gurus, or religious catastrophists.

            60

            • #
              Brute

              For sure, intimidation and simple peer-pressure play a role among some people.

              Ignorance, oth, has never stopped a motivated individual…

              10

        • #
          Aynsley Kellow

          Sorry Ian – I’ve been busy all day and have only just got back here to see your question.

          Like most things, I think there are probably many factors at play:
          1. Most journalists are not particularly well-educated in science. Many scientists, I should add, are not well educated in the history and philosophy of science, which in my view should be a compulsory part of any science PhD program.
          2. Journalism tends to thrive on alarm and catastrophe – good news doesn’t sell.
          3. There is widespread acceptance of what might be called the ‘Stability Meme’ — Nature’s delicate balance/harmony — mixed with an acceptance that Man is a fallen creature, his/her hand (especially in modern industrial society) amounts to a ‘sin’ against God’s design/Gaia. (Since c1990, ecology has embraced chaos, perturbation, change – which puts it closer to geology than the ‘political ecology’ of green groups and activist scientists).
          4. This underpins a certain attachment to what is best described as ‘catastrophism’ — a kind of fin de siecle enthusiasm that we’re all doomed (largely because of our ‘sin’).
          5. The theme of CAGW sits well with numerous interests: conservation; high energy taxes; nuclear energy; renewables; anti-capitalism; strong government; gas (note that it was Shell that lobbied the World Bank to stop funding coal); etc. The Usual Suspects (Lord May, Bob Ward) bang on naively about the corrupting influence of Big Oil, but they don’t grasp that it runs in the opposite direction to that they suppose — most companies know that liquid hydrocarbons will always sell within commercial time scales, they don’t mine coal, and they will sell more gas if governments decarbonise.
          Just some thoughts — you can probably suggest others.

          70

          • #
            ianl8888

            Thanks for the reply

            My view, also based on a lifetime of observation:

            Your point 1. is ok, most journos are scientifically illiterate and mathematically innumerate. But they know this and don’t care, so my initial question was more aimed at WHY they don’t care. I suspect willful laziness is at the bottom of this – like most of the population, they get by without exertion in these areas and regard them as not relevant to their immediate lives. This attitude is reinforced by deliberately dumbed-down curricula designed to emphasise feelings over knowledge

            Point 2. is ok as well – the Good News Weekly has a very low circulation. But Climatic Armageddon as a circulation/ratings booster is not really very effective; the Daily Tele has a very high circulation compared with the SMH, yet climate porn is rarely seen in it. So again, WHY do most journos persistently gravitate to Climatic Armageddon ? Here, I suspect the underlying urge is vanity, of the morally vain kind. Saving the planet by using your workplace-supplied public megaphone is heroic, don’t you know ?

            Your points 3. and 4. are actually an extension of my view on point 2. Saving homo sapiens from its’ sinful urges is just so exquisitely flattering to the ego (the motive of wowsers through time uncounted)

            I fear point 5. may have described a blank spot in your own knowledge, quite inadvertently of course. The major oil companies did indeed actually own operating coal mines for quite a long period. Most finally quit this when they found that the BHP’s and Rio’s (and a whole heap of lesser know operators) were very much smarter at it than they were – in short, the oil companies had allowed their egos to cause them much financial pain. Now of course they see coal miners as competitors and simply use the green propaganda as a competitive tool

            This still leaves swinging the question of WHY journos pound the Armageddon motif so persistently and fiercely. My view is that the underlying animus here is spiteful envy – redistribution of (someone else’s) wealth is such a strong, persistent theme that this attribution seems the most likely. Ask a journo if they do what they do for the money: the answer is invariably a deprecating No! (ie. most don’t earn big bucks, ABC “stars” excluded). So, they do it for the power (the public megaphone); when charged with this, they generally, and happily, agree

            None of this is to suggest the situation can be changed in any short time frame. A possible game-changer is the collapse of some first-world country’s power grid. The UK and some of the smaller EU countries are likely candidates here

            00

            • #
              Aynsley Kellow

              Ian,
              It is true that BP and Shell (e.g.) held coal assets in the 1980s, but they don’t now. And BHP is a diversified resource company — but a relatively minor oil and gas producer in global terms. But the second largest gas company (in terms of production and reserves – behind Gazprom) is Exxon, which is the favourite whipping boy for Lord May and Bob Ward. They didn’t like the free kick Kyoto gave the EU, but they gave more to Stanford alone for energy and environment work than they donated to any ‘right wing’ think tanks and spend about $1B pa on climate activities themselves. Decarbonisation is good for such companies — hence Shell setting up a special unity to lobby the Bank to not fund coal-fired power stations, Chesapeake Bay Energy bankrolling the Sierra Club to oppose coal and thus advantage its gas. And let’s not forget the Big One: a little company called EnRon thought Kyoto was marvellous, lobbied for ratification, and lost.

              I think you are right in thinking this is also driven by what they think is an attack on large corporations, but they have not dug deeply enough to see that there are large corporations on the other side too — being advantaged by the noble cause of addressing AGW (what Bruce Yandle called Bootlegger and Baptist Coalitions).

              00

              • #
                ianl8888

                Thanks Aynsley

                It is true that BP and Shell (e.g.) held coal assets in the 1980s, but they don’t now

                I was right in the thick of that. The oil interests (BP, Shell, Caltex, Total) really were as dumb as I noted above

                All was vanity :)

                00

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          My view is that too many journalists and their mentors did most of their study at the bar. There they massaged each others’ prejudices.

          On graduating they do too much of their research at the bars and too little at the libraries.

          20

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        “But (as I pointed out recently on another blog last week, before this announcement) Climate Science appears to be unusual in not specifying error terms.”

        Its a good pickup and very correct. The alarmists have been modifying their announcements to fit the evidence since day 1. This is perhaps best evidenced by the constant name changes for the perceived problem. Global Warming, Global Weirding, Climate Change, Climate Instability and the list goes on.

        If floods are predicted and it doesn’t rain, well that becomes proof the prediction was correct. In no other branch of science will you find the opposite of the predicted outcome claimed as a success.

        91

        • #
          Leonard Lane

          You are correct Safety, thanks. But I do not understan38% chance that is was warmer. If this is a p value from a statistical test of the hypothesis, then no one would accept a p value = 0.38=38% as meaning anything but a dramatic failure of the hypothesis.
          Where does the 38% come from and how do they compute it?
          This new science is so confusing.

          80

          • #
            the Griss

            The way I read it, its to do with comparative probabilities.

            I think you will find that if you looked at the probabilities for other years, such as 2013, 2010, 1998 etc, they would be marginally less certain than this 38% uncertainty.

            eg for 2013 they might be 35% certain (value for explanation purposes only) etc etc

            Some years would have zero probability, eg 1999, 2009 etc because they are definitely below the error margin of the warmer years

            ie.. they haven’t really got a clue, even after all their data fabrication and manipulation,

            any of the 4 or 5 warmer years might be “the hottest ever”.

            71

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            Intentionally confusing?

            00

        • #
          Kevin Lohse

          SG66 You sure o’ dat? I was under the impression that the Alarmists have been modifying the evidence to fit their announcements since Day 1.

          80

  • #
    Jaymez

    In today’s Sunday paper there was a table headed ‘Feeling the Heat’ in it was listed the global average temperature for 2005, 2010 and 2014 with a massive 0.04C between the ‘coolest’ and ‘warmest’. But with only a 400th of a degree difference, if we could measure such a small amount accurately, we would hardly be ‘Feeling the Heat’.

    With a margin of error of 1 tenth of a degree, statistical the years are identical and would certainly not be discernible.

    Jo I am glad you have been able to take a couple of days holiday at the beach here and there during the summer with the children. But you do deserve a lot more. You need to be able to not worry about meeting the children’s education costs, paying the bills, or just taking a decent family holiday together.

    So I would like to propose to readers that we raise some funds to allow Jo to combine a speaking date or two around the country, with a family holiday in 2014.

    To start it off I have tipped in $1,000 and I hope that all those wonderful people who helped you raise about 6 months in living costs a while back can put there hand in their pocket again to keep you going. Every little bit adds up.

    And if you people from the US can spare some dollars, yours is worth much more than our struggling currency, so Jo will get more bang for your buck.

    Please give generously to keep Jo’s great work going. The Tip Jar is at the top right of the screen. or you can go to http://joannenova.com.au/about/donations/ to get the Pay Pal, Credit Card or back Transfer options.

    380

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Innumeracy bites again. :-(

      60

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Seems the mind was on a different job.

        But about these fine details. If you have ten readings on a thermometer which reads to the nearest whole degree, when averaging those ten readings it is correct to report to one tenth of a degree, even though the thermometer can’t do that. Correct me if I’m wrong.

        01

        • #
          Jaymez

          Ted it depends what the statistic is for. The average temperature can be recorded to as many decimals as you like using those 10 readings. But the instrument, the thermometer, still has a manufacturer’s tested margin for error which needs to be declared. If that margin for error is 1 tenth of a degree, and you are reporting to a hundredth of a degree. Then it is totally inaccurate and misleading to ‘rank’ temperatures in order of 100th of degree measurements.

          As many legitimate climate scientists have stated now, in the case of 2005, 2010 and 2014 average surface temperature as calculated by GISS or BEST, there is essentially no statistical difference and it is scientifically misleading to rank 2014 over the other years and declare it the hottest year on record, particularly when your own analysis in the fine print indicates it is more unlikely than likely to have been the hotter than 2010.

          And as Jo points out, you really have to ask why they refuse to refer to the more accurate satellite temperature record if they want an arbitration to determine which was actually the warmest year.

          30

    • #
      Sweet Old Bob

      2014 ? Or 2015 ? (8>))

      30

    • #
      Jaymez

      Obviously I meant 2015 :)

      10

    • #

      Jaymez, you’ve been so good to me (and for such a long time). I thanked you privately, but realized it may look like a comment like #3 isn’t appreciated. Golly… we can’t have that!

      I don’t know what I would do without you. We will talk soon. David’s work is so fruitful too, he’s still on the maths full time (more coming soon) that this is especially useful. We have a lot of plans for 2015. Independent science needs independent funding. Thank you!

      20

  • #
    Political Junkie

    Is there an independent confirmation of the 38% figure.

    Has Schmidt admitted or denied it?

    Rose seems to be the only source.

    50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right

    Are we permitted to be 97% sure NASA is wrong? ;-)

    Just thought I’d ask.

    250

    • #
      Winston

      Dearest mods, Does this help?

      Roy,

      I’m 86.757% sure that Gavin Schmidt is full of sch*dt. Poetic justice isn’t it?

      122

    • #
      Leo G

      The 97% figure in the infamous Zimmerman/Doran survey represented 77 of 79 cherrypicked climate scientists of the 3,146 who responded to the survey.
      77 out of 3146 could be interpreted as a 0.3% certainty.

      10

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      I play a lot of poker and I have a pretty good head for percentages. I would not be betting on anything that was 38%

      10

  • #
    llew Jones

    Here’s a piece of wisdom from a genuine climate scientist:

    “It’s the universe where political power and the desire to redistribute wealth have taken control of the public discourse. It’s a global society where people believe we can replace fossil fuels with unicorn farts and antigravity-based energy.

    Feelings now trump facts.

    At least engineers have to prove their ideas work. The widgets and cell phones and cars and jets and bridges they build either work or they don’t.

    In climate science, whichever side is favored by politicians and journalism graduates is the side that wins.

    And what about those 97% of scientists who agree? Well, what they all agree on is that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end.”

    More here:

    2014 as the Mildest Year: Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures

    OR: Why I Should Have Been an Engineer Rather than a Climate Scientist

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    140

  • #
    Manfred

    …only 38% sure 2014 was the hottest year

    The noble art of climate ‘science communication’. Obfuscated oxymorons with coffee anyone?

    30

    • #
      sophocles

      Coffee? No thanks, I prefer tea :-)

      Schmidt knows that getting the idea of 2014 being the hottest year evah! out into the public consciousness is the most important thing. The day after that, he can start back-tracking, fogging the issues, sweeping the dung under the carpet and maybe even retracting it, in the sure knowledge the MSM will not report his pettyfogging. The idea is now out there. It was reported on the TV news in NZ. It’s too late for a correction. The idea is now an embedded meme, an important addition to the Anthropogenic Change paradigm.

      Propaganda 101.

      40

      • #
        Manfred

        Ahh, the delights of traditional kaffee und kuchen are still there for you to savour then?

        Meanwhile progressives, Obama, MSM et al. are presently preaching wealth redistribution whilst at the same time disabling the third world by stifling their demand for cheap, dense energy. The hypocrisy is underwhelming and the straw man of ‘climate change’ continues its policy of distraction, while UNEP disassembles civil society.

        10

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Which, for the literal minded among us, is saying they are more confident it wasn’t.

      10

  • #
    Robber

    So will the “not my ABC” fact checkers check NASA’s “facts”?
    Guess what? My fact checking shows that they have a climate advisory panel:
    Tony Wood is director of the Grattan Institute’s Energy Program. He was an adviser to the first Garnaut climate change review. He was also director of Clean Energy Projects at the Clinton Foundation.
    Malte Meinshausen is an honorary senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Sciences. He has been a contributing author to various chapters in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    Frank Jotzo is deputy director of Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute. He is a lead author of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has been an advisor to Australia’s Garnaut Climate Change Review.

    So I’m pretty confident that their fact checking starts with the assumption that the IPCC is always right, therefore this must be the “hottest ever.”

    80

  • #
    Ross

    One of the comments to the DM thread is great ;

    “Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive but what they conceal is vital. — Aaron Levenstein “

    190

  • #
    DaveR

    The other part of this NASA GISS problem is that there is evidence the GHCN temperature series, which is used in the GISS data, was adjusted sometime between 6 – 16th January 2015 to help produce – you guessed it – the “record” 2014 average temperature (tip Bob Koss). There is no disclosure of the nature of the adjustments, and what effect they had.

    There must be a complete investigation into these last minute adjustments, completed only days before the NASA press announcements, which have their own problems as well.

    Vagueness, smoke and mirrors, imprecision and chicanery all the way down.

    220

  • #
  • #
    albert

    Al Gore maths 2+3=9 when we all know 2+3=8

    30

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    Does it really matter if 2014 was the hottest year ever. And would it matter if it’s an umpteenth of a degree or 50 umpteenths. Of course some year is the hottest, and another is the second or nineteenth hottest, and another is a contender for the coldest minimum on record since 1910, or 1736, or whenever, in some location or another. The concept of a global average temperature anomaly composed of inconsistently calibrated gauges, arbitrary grid allocations with no relevance to geographic terrain, filled in gaps from absent data – any number for an global average temperature anomaly is ratbaggery. Why spend so much effort on disputing whether a bee’s dick of high or low matters. Look at what they’ve they dragged us into in their insistence that it’s treated as science. Why does anyone bother talking numbers to them when they’ve turned numbers into meaningless garbage.

    430

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I don’t mind the heat so much, it’s the umpteenths I can’t stand.

      120

    • #
      katio1505

      Gary. One of the best, succinct comments I’ve seen in a while.

      100

    • #
      the Griss

      There are only 2 systems in the world that work on a relatively evenly spaced, consistent grid with no local effects .

      Those are the satellite systems and the USCRN.
      USCRN shows a slight COOLING trend since 2005 when it was established)
      Satellite records show basically NO CHANGE in global temperatures since the end of the large El Nino cycle at the beginning of 2001.

      The Surface stations are inconsistent is number by a huge amount.
      The particular stations used changes from year to year and probably from month to month.

      Each months measurement in the surface station record is effectively measuring something different from every other month. They use or dump stations at will !

      Then they homogenise pretending that one station should be the same as another 500 miles away.

      Fill in missing data with made up fabrications.

      Gees, anyone could ‘game‘ the system to produce anything they wanted to.

      And that is exactly what they do !!!

      261

    • #
      mc

      Why spend so much effort on disputing whether a bee’s dick of high or low matters.

      Oh come on Gary, the unfortunate bee having its’ penis used as a measuring device might reckon it matters quite a lot!

      10

    • #
      MacSual

      You do know that the purveyors of these numbers have been University educated and that the people who believe them have been University educated,and that my friends is the complete sad answer.
      A University education will cause an intelligent person to stop asking “why”,I think that it is a socialist thing”the Party says this,so that is the answer”!
      I will put a caveat to the last sentence,the term “intelligent” nowadays is abstract in its meaning or oxymoronic,such as “He has a BA,he is intelligent”.

      30

  • #
    TdeF

    Semantics again, like ‘pause’ (on the way up) or ‘hiatus’. Both are prejudicial and unjustified and misleading.

    So put another way, the chance, the possibility that 2014 was the warmest year is only 38%. The more likely, the 62% probability is that it was not, so why was it announced as the hottest year?

    If, as is more likely, 2014 was cooler, temperatures have peaked, reached a turning point, topped out, turned a corner and the world is cooling.

    Now that’s a headline the IPCC and our very own BOM and ABC heat spruikers do not want to publish and no one in the warming industry wants to hear before Paris.

    It is 62% probable the world is cooling.

    180

    • #
      Gary in Erko

      But this is recursive. The 38% and 62% are relative to another year’s data that’s also questionable by something percent, and that year was chosen due to its possibly mistaken position among a whole bunch of recursively questionable numb ers (where ‘ers’ is an abbreviation of errors).

      60

      • #
        TdeF

        The Schmidt defence is that it is possibly the hottest year with a 38% chance, allowing for the spread of values over recent years which covers your question.

        Why though does NASA should announce the least likely conclusion as the result and not the more likely conclusion that the world has cooled.

        A deliberate deception is a serious honesty problem for publicly funded organizations like NASA, BOM, ABC and more. Lying? Schmidt argues that it has a 38% possibility of not being a lie. Now that’s deceit. It is not only borderline criminal for a public organization, deception like this displays what lawyers would call the ‘mens rea’, the evil intent.

        121

        • #
          MacSual

          Could it be that their predictions have come in that 2014 might be the last available year to get a hit in before a cooling period,even all the world’s BoMs will have trouble trying to convince people we are warming when the snow is still on the ground in late Spring and Summer is cut short by a month.
          I don’t know if it is something perverse,but I can’t wait to see what they come up with at the end of 2015.

          10

      • #
        CriddleDog

        Amazing how often the Golden Mean turns up.

        10

      • #
        TdeF

        Gary, if you are comparing year on year, the error bars are what they are and it is one on one. Higher is higher and given the error bars, both fatuous and deceitful. Statistically it is not true.

        If you compare 2014 with the average of say the last 10 years, the error is reduced by 1/sqr(n), so for 10 years by about 3 and you could talk about being above the average, but that is not done.

        Also the amounts being considered are a tiny fraction of a degree, so the announcement is simply deceitful, intended to continue the scare, at least until Paris where much bigger issues like a world government are to be decided. They can admit cooling next year, something which has more validity than the announcement of an admittedly fake hottest year.

        30

  • #
    DJ Cotton

    I really don’t care if 2014 was the hottest or not. No temperature data proves anything whatsoever about what one molecule of carbon dioxide in 2500 other air molecules does. But I sure know water vapor cools, and the reasons are in this open letter to Anthony Watts that has been posted on youtube climate videos that have been watched by about half a billion in total.

    OPEN LETTER TO ANTHONY WATTS at WATTSUPWITHTHAT

    Our group of physicists will refute all blog posts that continue to promote the false IPCC radiative forcing conjecture.

    Anthony

    See what our growing group of physicists (who all agree with me) does to the reputation of your blog site that continues to promulgate the false IPCC physics that IR-active gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane etc) cause surface warming. Clearly water vapor reduces the temperature gradient. How could it possibly raise the surface end of the temperature profile at the same time, thus leading to enormous imbalance in net radiative flux at TOA? You have no understanding of the relevant physics Anthony, and you certainly are in no position to judge my physics in which I have qualifications and decades of experience, like John Turner who reviewed my book as below …

    Review of Amazon book: “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All”

    “Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.”

    John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)

    Others in our group will be posting plenty until you get it right about the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient and the convective heat transfers which (in accord with the Second Law) are establishing thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum entropy.

    Doug Cotton

    167

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Doug

      Again you are accusing people of saying or implying things that upset you.

      Your statement that;

      “”Our group of physicists will refute all blog posts that continue to promote the false IPCC radiative forcing conjecture.”"

      is wonderful and I believe that all who post here would be in accord with that.

      Why imply differently?

      Then there is the vague statement that there is a “false IPCC physics that IR-active gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane etc) cause surface warming”.

      What do YOU mean by that.

      We know the IPCCC would like us to think there is a mechanism by which energy is able to collect and then reheat zones lower in the atmosphere.

      We know from basic physics that this cannot happen, but we also know that convection occurs because of gas parcels rising in temperature as a result of absorption of ground IR by Greenhouse Gases, principally water.

      The surface is warmed by inbound radiation and when that energy tries to escape it is delayed in its transit to that great heat-sinkhole in the sky by the slow processes of atmospheric heat conduction; principally convection.

      This retained heat is why we are able to survive here on Earth.

      I notice that the reviewer of your work is qualified in pure physics and has a number of other basically irrelevant qualifications.

      He appears to have no engineering or thermodynamic process qualifications which would be a necessary prerequisite for an analysis, like this, that is so complex in factors and systems.

      I don’t read Anthony Watts blog so cant comment on his “wrong take” on the physics but I do know that this business is extremely complex and requires patience and clear explanation.

      You rely too much on statements like: “its obvious because of the second law of thermodynamics” and the constant quoting of values obtained by the strong arming of the S-B Equation. That often doesn’t add much to understanding.

      The use of the S-B equation is fraught with traps for the uninitiated.

      The discussion around atmospheric “mechanisms” on the Stephen Wilde thread is evidence of the uncertainty of how to view systems before equations are applied.

      Point is that good communication will improve every bodies understanding.

      KK

      110

      • #
        DJ Cotton

         

        KK: Two errors before I stopped reading …

        (1) “we also know that convection occurs because of gas parcels rising in temperature as a result of absorption of ground IR by Greenhouse Gases, principally water.”

        That’s only one of many causes of convection. Nitrogen and oxygen molecules also get warmed by conduction and diffusion. Not all convective heat transfer is upwards in a planet’s troposphere. And water vapor is by no means the main medium for convective heat transfer.

        (2) “The surface is warmed by inbound radiation”

        Again this is only partly true because the mean solar flux into the surface is about 168W/m^2. There is a need for far more than double that, and it does not come from radiation from a colder atmosphere because such radiation cannot raise the surface temperature.

        To find out where it comes from I suggest you read our PP group’s website linked elsewhere.

        01

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Why pick on Anthony Watts, you should be calling out Mann, Steffen, Oreskes etc and the other climate terrorists who use the general public’s ignorance of basic physics to scare people into giving them money.

      160

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    In today’s Australian it is claimed that a 2012 report into reporting standards at the ABC has been suppressed. Apparently because it was highly critical of the standards and lack of checking.
    Readers will no doubt be surprised by such a finding.

    400

  • #
    Leo G

    About time for climate change operational research to be independently audited.
    NASA and the NOAA have given a clear indication that statistical uncertainty evaluation of temperature data and measurement models is ad hoc.
    What is the real statistical uncertainty of the annual global mean temperature anomaly? The GISS surface temperature analysis indicates that the uncertainty of the annual mean temperature is ±0.05 deg C.
    But how can the uncertainty be that small when the anomaly is based on a mean temperature difference between a 30-year mean and an annual mean across the set of measuring stations and where the the differences between the true 30-year means and the estimates involves such a large proportion of large ‘adjustments’?
    Does anyone know where NASA has even published the error statistics for the 30-year mean temperatures for each station and calculated the corresponding uncertainty component for the global mean anomaly?

    110

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      Leo, but the 30 year climatic mean is based on the assumption that the 30 year time period is unchanging in that period. Otherwise it is a non-stationary time series and the arithmetic mean is meaningless. Now follow this logic if you can. There is no trend in the data to compute a 30 year climatic normal. But the temperature is increasing and has since the start of the industrial age 250 years ago.
      Circular logic. False premises. Undefined or erroneously defined statistics. Misapplication of statistical methods. Misinterpretation of statistical tests. If these errors and foolishness are not enough, finally you take the resulting analyses and lie about them.
      This is truly Hope and Change and redistribution of truth and wealth.

      20

    • #
      Leo G

      The historical true 30-year mean temperature at each station establishes a baseline to generate the temperature anomaly figures from the monthly and annual statistics for that station. I don’t see there is a need to assume that the climate over the 30 year time period is unchanging- but I’m not sure what a statistician would opine.
      My issue was that the calculated baseline uses an estimate of the 30-year statistic and not the true 30-year mean, that there is an associated error, and that I expected the error to be large and to be highly sensitive to adjustments.

      10

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        If the 30 year period has a trend, then you are faced with two choices. 1) ignore the non-stationarity and subsequent standard statistical test on departures are invalid, or 2) remove the trend in the 30 year period and then you have the uncertainty in estimating the mean by the effect of removing the trend by linear regression or other methods. Moreover when you compute the next 30 year mean and remove the trend, there will be a jump or step increase or decrease where the two 30 year series of data meet in time. In either case it is difficult to compute anomalies from the mean because the computed mean is erroneous in both cases.
        It is only when there is no trend in the 30 year normal period that departures from the mean allow valid statistical analyses.

        Now if you use a sliding mean, year 1-30, then 2-31, etc. the mean changes with time also. So that 30 year mean (if there is no trend) is valid only for the 30 year time period used to construct it.

        20

    • #
      Leo G

      Leonard, you appear to be arguing the general case that bivariate data can’t have a true mean of the independent variable. I know a time series of temperature measurements won’t look like the function of a random variable unless there is no trend. But it isn’t the function of a random variable in any case.

      00

  • #
    pat

    the timing of these “hottest year” announcements plays into the hands of abc/fairfax which, as far as i can tell, is the most CAGW-infested media on earth. don’t think it plays out so well in US and UK, for example:

    18 Jan: Daily Mail: Jenny Awford: Coldest night in THREE YEARS on its way: Temperatures in Britain to plunge to -15C – lower than Mount Everest – before week of snow, ice and freezing conditions ahead
    Police in Devon and Cornwall dealt with 21 crashes in two hours this morning due to the ‘treacherous’ conditions
    The Met Office has forecast lows of -15C in areas of Scotland tonight – meaning it will be colder than Lukla, Nepal, the 2,900m-altitude village climbers pass en route to the summit of Mount Everest…
    Age UK’s charity director Caroline Abrahams said: ‘The cold weather can be particularly dangerous for older people who are more at risk of suffering health problems when the temperature drops,’ she said.
    ‘It’s a shocking fact that this winter one older person could die every seven minutes from the cold.
    ‘With just under one million older people living in fuel poverty, many simply cannot afford to heat their homes to a temperature high enough to keep warm and well.
    ‘We are calling for the Government to commit to improving the energy efficiency of homes across the country in order to provide a long-lasting solution to the scandal of fuel poverty and preventable winter deaths.’
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915300/Coldest-night-THREE-YEARS-way-tonight-Britain-colder-Mount-Everest-ready-15C-week-snow-ice-freezing-weather-ahead.html

    it’s disingenuous of Age UK to call on the Govt to improve energy efficiency when it is Govt CAGW policies that have helped create the fuel poverty in the first place.

    110

  • #
    Timo Soren

    I think you mean 48% as the NOAA supplemental link (Bob Tisdale) points out:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1

    10

  • #
    Robber

    Meanwhile, in Australia:
    Today’s release of the Bureau of Meteorology Annual Climate Statement 2014 confirms Australia has recorded its third warmest calendar year since national records began in 1910. Assistant Director for Climate Information Services, Neil Plummer, said 2014 was characterised by frequent heatwaves and warm spells, and a notable reduction in cold weather. “Much of Australia experienced temperatures very much above average in 2014, with mean temperatures 0.91°C above the long-term average,” said Mr Plummer. “This follows the warmest year on record in 2013, which was 1.20°C warmer than average”. “Nationally, Australian temperatures have warmed approximately one degree since 1950.”

    Wow, we really are firing up those BBQs way too much.

    But wait: “The Australian mean rainfall total for 2014 was 478 mm, 13 mm above the average of 465 mm”. What happened to all those dire predictions of enternal drought? “There were 10 tropical cyclones in the Australian region during the 2013–14 season, slightly below the 1961–1990 average of 11″. So no disasters to report there.

    Waiting for the announcement of the government panel members to independently review the BOM’s work. According to The Australian the panel will be headed by Ron Sandland, a statistician, who was appointed the deputy chief executive for CSIRO in 1999 (retired 2007).

    40

    • #
      the Griss

      “since national records began in 1910″

      .. conveniently ignore the very warm period in the late 1800′s up to 1910.

      “Australian temperatures have warmed approximately one degree since 1950.””

      Why choose the coldest period in the last century as the reference point?

      Why not start at the beginning of the record, 1910 to make this comparison?
      (Even BOM’s much +vely trended adjusted data doesn’t show enough warming, I guess)

      or even start around 1870 where good records exist? (cooling trend from there)

      131

    • #
      tom0mason

      “Assistant Director for Climate Information Services, Neil Plummer, said 2014 was characterised by frequent heatwaves and warm spells, and a notable reduction in cold weather. “”

      So it is just a bit of weather.

      40

    • #
      RB

      Melbourne’s annual mean maximum temperatures shows only a jump up around 2000, like many stations around Australia. Melbourne Airport as well.

      Sunday had a minimum of 11.6 and a maximum of 20.1°C. The half hour readings show a minimum of 11.9 and a maximum of 18.6°C. Differences are ususally 0.5 when I have checked other stations. 1.5°C?

      Sorry for forgetting to bookmark a comment that suggested that the maximums from automated stations should be adjusted down by about 0.5°C, but I have read that somewhere.

      40

  • #
    Seth

    NASA data shows 2005, 2010 and 2014 statistically tied. (With the central estimate for 2014 still the warmest).

    JMA and NOAA have 2014 as the clear warmest on record.

    06

    • #
      the Griss

      They all the much fabricated NCDC farce. That is to be expected.

      Its all part of the fairy story.

      The Grimm Bros would be laughing their butts off to see so many people sucked in by it.. !!

      But you go ahead and believe it if you want to. !

      71

    • #
      the Griss

      Refer to comments #13 and #13.3 !

      10

    • #
      Ross

      If NASA says there is a 38% possibility that 2014 is the warmest , this clearly means there is a GREATER chance it is NOT the warmest.
      They can use all the spin words they like but even their own figures do not back them up, which the point Jo is clearly making with the thread.

      50

  • #
    RoHa

    I’m 86.3% sure i’m confused.

    40

  • #

    I’m sure they were tempted to say something like 38.7%, because that’s what sciency guys do. Or how kids imagine science to be. Or how Jerry Lewis portrayed scientists.

    Adults, please. Really, it’s getting urgent now. Need adults badly.

    40

  • #
    tom0mason

    38% of the public understand the the math, the other 68% are innumerate.

    40

  • #
    tom0mason

    Roy Spencer did a good assessment of 2014 temperatures earlier last year when this nonsense was first pushed forward – http://sppiblog.org/news/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record

    40

  • #
    tom0mason

    The biggest problem, as Jo highlights, is not that Gavin came out with this idea but that the press (all MSM) blindly ran with it.
    Is it not the duty of the press to ask the hard questions(?), to report the lapses that scientist such as Gavin are prone to, or is it just going to be left to the blogosphere to pick these frabrications and occational falsehoods. Is the press doing their duty, and for us any justice, or have they become the lapdogs of the scientific consensus and Government press agents?

    If they have just become no more than uncritical recyclers of press releases why bother, why should anyone pay money and attention to them? Maybe it is because the public do not expect so much from them anymore – when did you hear of a news report that really broke a new story, and not just the worthless tittle-tattle of celebrity antics? Are there any real investigative reporters left in MSM, or are they only contained in the blogosphere.

    When will the public see critical reports on these so-called science press gathering on MSM? When will Jo :) (and those like her) get a regular spot on MSM to show that there are questions that need answering?

    40

    • #
      the Griss

      “is not that Gavin came out with this idea”

      I would suspect that Gavin came out with the idea, KNOWING FULL WELL what the MSM would do with it.

      His intended message hit the press saying exactly what he wanted them to say. !!

      110

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        If they parrot what he says, they call it “reporting”, then of course they said exactly what he wanted them to say. It’s such a gimmy, it’s silly beyond comparison.

        10

  • #
    Joe

    Sadly, history shows that we have always accepted what NASA feeds us no matter how fanciful. It’s a ‘trusted’ brand.

    40

    • #
      the Griss

      Maybe once upon a time, but no longer…

      .. having rabid activists like Hansen and now, Schmidt, in places of responsibility has totally ruined any trust that once existed, especially in the area climate science™.

      51

  • #
    the Griss

    OT, but a fun read..

    Its all about that CO2 that plants and nature in general finds so yummy. :-)

    30

  • #
    pat

    when the alarmists start the ball rolling about the hottest year, the MSM gatekeepers in the US provide some amusement!

    Nov 2014: WaPo: Wonkblog: Chris Mooney: Dear snow-trolls: Winter weather does not refute global warming
    If you live in the United States, you have been feeling insanely cold lately. The area south of Buffalo got five feet of snow yesterday — an extreme winter weather outburst that is being blamed for a tragic five deaths — and the Weather Channel says that parts of the Midwest and Great Lakes region may experience “one of the longest sub-freezing spells on record for the month of November.” But the whole United States has been quite cold…
    And it’s important to keep in mind that just because it is very cold in the United States doesn’t mean that you should question the overall warming trend for the planet…
    (Chris Mooney previously worked at Mother Jones, where he wrote about science and the environment and hosted a weekly podcast. Chris spent a decade prior to that as a freelance writer, podcaster and speaker, with his work appearing in Wired, Harper’s, Slate, Legal Affairs, The Los Angeles Times, The Post and The Boston Globe, to name a few.)
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/19/dear-snow-trolls-winter-weather-does-not-refute-global-warming/

    Nov 2014: Slate: Future Tense: Eric Holthaus: Global Warming Is Probably Boosting Lake-Effect Snows
    In the aftermath of a massive lake-effect snowfall event in western New York state on Tuesday, it’s worth asking: Is climate change playing a role here? Because, I mean, come on. Seventy—seven zero—inches, people. And another huge round is forecast for Thursday, by the way. Buffalo deserves answers.
    The short answer is: yes. Global warming is probably juicing lake-effect snows, and we’ve had the data to prove it for quite some time…
    (Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University.)
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/11/19/lake_effect_snow_in_buffalo_climate_change_is_making_snowstorms_more_extreme.html
    (from Holthaus’s LinkedIn page, he worked for Wall St Journal 2010-2013, & he summarises: “I’ve been a meteorologist since 2003, with a focus on extreme weather, climate and society since 2005, and a weather journalist since 2010. I see the next 20-30 years being dominated by increasing human, societal, and economic exposure to accelerating weather and climate variability and extremes.” in 2011, he was “Author of a weekly column on MarketWatch.com focusing on the impacts of weather and climate on the economy, both good and bad. Special emphasis on individual investors and small business owners.”)

    hot, cold, freezing? for the MSM gatekeepers, the CAGW narrative just keeps rolling on.

    40

  • #
    pat

    18 Jan: Yorkshire Post: Yorkshire temperatures forecast to hit record low this week
    Forecasters are warning of sub-zero temperatures and snow across Yorkshire as bookmakers slashed their odds that the national record low of -27.2C will be broken…
    Over the weekend, parts of Yorkshire were among the coldest in the country.
    Yesterday morning the temperature dropped to almost -5C in Leeming and Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire. The coldest place was at Shap in Cumbria which was down to -7.7C…
    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/yorkshire-temperatures-forecast-to-hit-record-low-this-week-1-7057513

    30

  • #
    F. Ross

    “Gavin Schmidt now admits NASA are only 38% sure 2014 was the hottest year ”

    Sure… after getting all the media attention.
    Then comes the qualification/retraction that, if it appears in the MSM at all, will only be in small print and on p.19 of a 12 page paper.

    Just another stab in the back of truth.

    40

    • #
      the Griss

      The first announcement is a thunderclap.. the retraction is a mouse

      Just as Gavin and his fellow alarmists planned it. !

      61

  • #
    dp

    Begs the question – How sure are they that they’re only 38% certain?

    20

  • #
    Ruairi

    NASA was crystal and clear;
    The warmest to date was last year.
    Though flawed as this was,
    They announced because,
    It’s what the media wanted to hear.

    30

  • #
    ROM

    Ok! After all of the above it seems that there is one hell of a lot of panty wetting going on in the alarmist camp over the appointment of Ted Cruz as chairman of the Congressional committee overseeing NASA.
    Ted Cruz, a skeptic is being called about every name the rabid eco-fascists of the green blob and the alarmist defunding fearers can lay their tongues to with “anti science” the leading contender as the most nauseous and most used phrase and possibly the most inept and self defeating phrase to describe Ted Cruz.

    . It is surely a most excellent way to get a new committee chairman that oversees a major governmental organisation [ but doesn't control it's funding which is done through the Appropriations committee] to co-operate by calling him a whole list of the nastiest names they can get past any editorial censoring.

    NASA, now that the Republicans control both houses in Washington might be in for quite a shake up including a potential the elimination of their climate section. particularly if there are any indications of some significant cooling setting in within the next few years
    ; Say minus 0.02 C reduction in global temperatures which surely must now rate as a very serious cooling omen [ / sarc ]

    From Science 2.0 which is about the most reasonable of a very bad lot on Ted Cruz.

    Ted Cruz Overseeing NASA? It Hasn’t Looked This Bad Since 2013,

    Another post on Cruz and Rubio; Spacepolicyonline.com; Can Ted Cruz Really Derail NASA Climate Science Research?

    And for a look at a hate fest from the bed wetters section of the alarmist and green blog-eco fascists camp from whom ISIS might even learns something about how to “hate”.

    Just take your pick by googling

    Republican Ted Cruz overseeing NASA

    However the Republicans didn’t stop there.

    Marco Rubio another skeptic, will chair the subcommittee that oversees the NOAA.

    60

  • #
    Fox From Melbourne

    I just posted and link to my Facebook about this story with the following title. Sorry for been of topic I just felt like sharing it with you all. Can someone please call a Climate Scientist to come and adjust Gavin Schmidt. Sounds like his been playing with his mike nature trick again a little to much again. Wash your hands Gavin!! Full scientific disclosed of methods, models and equipment used margins of error used not required.

    00

  • #
    el gordo

    ’2014 was the hottest year in records going back to 1880, United States agencies said over the weekend. Last year was Australia’s third-hottest on record, with warmer-than-usual days outnumbering cooler ones by about three to one, the bureau said.

    ‘While the heat is gathering in parts of WA, much of south-eastern Australia is enjoying some relief from summer warmth.’

    SMH

    A couple of things to note, they are using the 1880 date when everyone knows nothing is recognisable before 1884. Secondly they are downplaying the coolness in south-east Australia, which is quite unusual for this time of year. Its been a glorious summer.

    20

  • #

    [...] jaar was op ongeveer 50% schat, dus het kan net zo goed niet het warmste jaar zijn geweest. Jo Nova meldt dat David Rose van UK Mail een soortgelijk getal (38%) uit GISS directeur Gavin Schmidt heeft [...]

    00

    • #
      tom0mason

      Google trans-slated your comments as

      “The nonsense of 2014 as the warmest year ever. – Climategate.nl
      January 19, 2015 at 8:51 pm · Reply

      [...]year was estimated at about 50%, so it might as well not have been the warmest year. Jo Nova reports that David Rose of UK Mail a similar number (38%) from GISS director Gavin Schmidt [...]“

      00

  • #
    Aster Clarke

    “Gavin Schmidt of course, is horrified that millions of people may have been mislead:”

    Ummmm… ‘misled’.

    00

  • #

    [...] or that NASA isn't putting up an apology on their site? I would suggest you didn't really look. http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/gav…e-hottest-year Here is a long list of articles about it. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=NASA+38%2525 [...]

    00

  • #
    Amber

    NASA should know they are burning through what remains
    of their good will when they mislead the public and betray the trust of people
    asked to support their existence .

    Schmidt is a Hanson clone without the arrests .

    20

  • #
    Bill

    Ok, I freely admit that I am not a scientist, BUT…. if I can find the holes in the hypothesis why can’t those pushing it answer those simple questions about the holes?

    My working background is as an engineering technologist, but I also hold two masters degrees (history and disaster & emergency management). The various holes in the premise are glaringly clear to everyone here, so I won’t list them yet again, and the data certainly does not support the premise, let alone the methodologies used to gather it, yet try to get someone to speak honestly about any of it; you might as well wish for the moon-and have a better chance of having the moon delivered to you.

    00

  • #
    Phraed E (@Phred_E)

    To Bill, not scientist but engineer: your post is hanging in the stream like a silent shout. Context, please? WHAT hypothesis – that AGW can be explained by some theory other than that of the warmers? That natural climate change isn’t influenced by man? What, please? Context.
    And if you can detect holes in some argument, would you please not just refer to your ability to see them, but give us a synopsis of what you see as the unexplained holes.
    Your post left us unsatisfied.

    And, PS, people – if you’re going to reply to someone, please link your comment with reference and context. Posts arrive out of order. Communicate – the big challenge.

    01